· 3 Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company Contents 1.0 Executive Summary

Oklahoma Gas

and

Electric Company

Oklahoma Gas

and

Electric Company

2017 Oklahoma Demand Programs

Annual Report

In Accordance with Annual Reporting Requirements

Title 165: Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Chapter 35. Electric Utility Rules

Subchapter 41. Demand Programs

165:35-41-7. Reporting

July 2018

Revised October 2018

2

Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company


This page is intentionally left blank

3



Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 5

2.0 Portfolio Impact ...................................................................................................................................... 9

3.0 Portfolio Programs ................................................................................................................................ 13

3.1 Home Energy Efficiency Program (“HEEP”) ...................................................................................... 13

3.2 Positive Energy – New Home Construction (“PE-NHC”) ................................................................... 21

3.3 Weatherization Residential Assistance Program (“WRAP”) ............................................................. 23

3.4 Commercial Energy Efficiency Program (“CEEP”) ............................................................................. 27

3.5 Education Program............................................................................................................................ 35

3.6 Integrated Volt Var Control (“IVVC”) ................................................................................................ 37

3.7 Research & Development (“R&D”) ................................................................................................... 41

3.8 Planning & Regulatory ...................................................................................................................... 53

4.0 Evaluation Measurement & Verification (“EM&V”) ............................................................................. 55

4.1 EM&V Overview ................................................................................................................................ 55

4.2 Program Evaluations ......................................................................................................................... 57

4.3 Program Ratios .................................................................................................................................. 59

5.0 Attachments .......................................................................................................................................... 61

5.1 ADM Demand Program Evaluation for 2017 with Cost Effectiveness Analysis ................................ 63

5.2 ADM IVVC Report .............................................................................................................................. 65

5.3 Smart Hours Report .......................................................................................................................... 67

5.4 RAP LivingWise™ Report ................................................................................................................... 69

5.5 Marketing Materials.......................................................................................................................... 71

5.6 Water Savings Calculation Methodology .......................................................................................... 73

5.7 Implementer Information ................................................................................................................. 75

5.8 Letter to PUD .................................................................................................................................... 77

4



Figures Table 1 - Budget vs Actual Program Costs ............................................................................................................ 9

Table 2 - Actual Program Costs by Spend Type .................................................................................................... 9

Table 3 - Program Savings (Net) .......................................................................................................................... 10

Table 4 - Lifetime Savings and Program Net to Gross Ratios .............................................................................. 10

Table 5 - Program Participation .......................................................................................................................... 10

Table 6 - Cost-Effectiveness – TRC Net Benefits ................................................................................................. 10

Table 7 - Cost-Effectiveness Ratios ..................................................................................................................... 11

Table 8 - Portfolio Historical Costs ...................................................................................................................... 11

Table 9 - Portfolio Historical Savings .................................................................................................................. 11

Table 10 - Reduced Emissions and Water Consumption .................................................................................... 12

Table 11 - HEEP Costs ......................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 12 - HEEP Savings ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 13 - HEEP Cost-Effectiveness Ratios .......................................................................................................... 17

Table 14 - HEEP Budget Variance ........................................................................................................................ 17

Table 15 - PE-NHC Costs...................................................................................................................................... 21

Table 16 - PE-NHC Savings .................................................................................................................................. 21

Table 17 - PE-NHC Cost-Effectiveness Ratios ...................................................................................................... 21

Table 18 - PE-NHC Budget Variance .................................................................................................................... 22

Table 19 - WRAP Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 24

Table 20 - WRAP Savings ..................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 21 - WRAP Cost-Effectiveness Ratios ........................................................................................................ 24

Table 22 - WRAP Budget Variance ...................................................................................................................... 24

Table 23 - CEEP Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 24 - CEEP Savings ....................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 25 - CEEP Cost-Effectiveness Ratios .......................................................................................................... 30

Table 26 - CEEP Budget Variance ........................................................................................................................ 30

Table 27 - Education Program Costs ................................................................................................................... 35

Table 28 - Education Budget Variance ................................................................................................................ 35

Table 29 - IVVC Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 37

Table 30 - IVVC Savings ....................................................................................................................................... 37

Table 31 - IVVC Cost-Effectiveness Ratios........................................................................................................... 37

Table 32 - IVVC Budget Variance ........................................................................................................................ 38

Table 33 - IVVC Demand Reductions and Energy Savings................................................................................... 38

Table 34 - IVVC Circuit Deployment Schedule .................................................................................................... 40

Table 35 - R&D Costs ........................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 36 – R&D Budget Variance ........................................................................................................................ 41

Table 37 - Planning Costs .................................................................................................................................... 53

Table 38 – Planning Budget Variance ................................................................................................................. 53

Table 39 - Program Evaluations .......................................................................................................................... 57

Table 40 - Program Cost-Effectiveness Ratios .................................................................................................... 59

5



1.0 Executive Summary Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company (“OG&E” or “Company”) is submitting its Comprehensive Demand

Program Portfolio Annual Report for 2017. This report is required to be submitted to the Oklahoma

Corporation Commission (“OCC” or “Commission”) by July 1, 2018, pursuant to the Annual Reporting

Requirements in OAC 165:35-41-7, and with the extension granted by the OCC.

OG&E began implementation of its Quick Start Demand Programs in July 2008. The Quick Start effort

was followed by OG&E’s first Comprehensive Demand Portfolio for Program Years (“PY”) 2010-2012.

OG&E’s 2013-2015 Comprehensive Portfolio was approved on December 20, 2012, by the Commission

in Order No. 605737 in Cause No. PUD 201200134.

The 2016-2018 approved 3-year portfolio is expected to provide a reduction of 90,508 kW of demand

and 284,867,210 kWh of energy savings over the life of the measures installed through the programs, at

a cost of $116,008,163. Below are the results from the 2017 program year.

2017 Results:

Net kW 28,876

Net kWh 147,479,258

Actual Expenses $37,587,422

Performance Incentive Earned $ 5,315,710

Lost Net Revenues $ 5,920,000

Levelized Cost per kWh* $0.047

*Levelized Cost per kWh assumptions are at a Discount Rate of 8.32% and Line Loss of 7.76%

Program Implementation in 2017:

OG&E administered the Energy Efficiency (“EE”) and Demand Response (“DR”) Programs in 2017. The

Company uses third-party implementers to execute certain programs. Please see attachment 5.7 for

information about these implementers.

Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification:

Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (“EM&V”) of the Energy Efficiency and Demand Response

Programs was conducted by ADM Associates. For a complete report on their evaluation protocols and

their results, please refer to attachment 5.1.

Lost Net Revenue (“LNR”):

In accordance with Title 165 Chap. 35 sub chap. 41, and Order Number 648327, OG&E can recover Lost

Net Revenues resulting from the successful implementation of all Demand Programs, except for the

Education Program, and 40% of the IVVC verified savings. The LNR of $5,920,000 is the amount stated in

the Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in Cause No. PUD 201700496, Final Order 679358,

approved by the OCC on June 19, 2018, for Program Years 2016 and 2017.

Incentives:

In accordance with Title 165 Chap. 35, sub chap. 41, OG&E is also allowed to collect a performance

6



incentive based on the amount of energy reductions achieved through the Demand Programs. The

incentive is based on the performance of the Total Resource Cost (“TRC”) test and the Utility Cost Test

(“UCT”). OG&E can collect 15% of the net benefits capped at 15% of total program expenditures. In

2017, OG&E earned $5,315,710 in incentives.

Program Highlights in 2017:

Home Energy Efficiency Program (“HEEP”)

The HEEP program, supporting residential customers throughout OG&E’s Oklahoma service territory,

achieved 45,590,079 kWh, or 164% of the stipulated 2017 net annual savings goal of 27,857,573 kWh.

This marks an all-time high energy savings performance since the start of this program offering in 2010.

Positive Energy – New Home Construction Program (“PE-NHC”)

The PE-NHC program improved savings measurement and calculation methodologies for 2017, yielding

higher savings than the previous methods. PE-NHC generated a net annual savings of 4,251,672 kWh

which is 214% of the 2017 goal of 1,991,220 kWh.

Weatherization Residential Assistance Program (“WRAP”)

The WRAP weatherized 3,453 homes in 2017. The savings were 147% of goal at 11,733,069 kWh. WRAP

partnered with Oklahoma Natural Gas Company (“ONG”) and Central Oklahoma Habitat for Humanity to

help provide weatherization services to OG&E customers.

Commercial Energy Efficiency Program (“CEEP”)

The CEEP program, supporting energy efficiency projects for commercial and industrial customers

throughout OG&E’s Oklahoma service territory, generated savings of 83,802,238 kWh, or 157% of the

stipulated 2017 net annual savings goal of 53,222,962 kWh.

Education Program (“EP”)

The Education program provided energy education to help customers make informed decisions about

their energy use. The EP participated in twenty-three community events and presented fifteen internal

meetings to inform customers and employees of the energy efficiency programs available. The EP also

held six rural school Education events involving 550 kids, called Kids Energy Education Project.

Integrated Volt-Var Control Program (“IVVC”)

The IVVC program provides savings at the meter for both residential and commercial customers. Thirty-

nine banks were added in 2017 and studied using a continuous method of operation. Delayed

installations and operational complexities in 2017 affected the savings results of the study. The savings

from the continuous method resulted in 2,102,200 kWh, which is 35% of the stipulated goal. The ADM

evaluation can be seen in attachment 5.2.

Research and Development (“R&D”)

The R&D program researched four vital aspects of energy efficiency in 2016. They were: residential in-

home technology and Smart Hours upgrades, commercial and small industrial price response

participation, load disaggregation technology, and LED lighting services. For 2017-2018 R&D revised

7



their research to include Direct Solar Powered Hot Water, Energy Storage for low income, Electric

Vehicle Charging, and the Midwest City Geo-Targeting Pilot. The full report can be seen in section 3.7

Portfolio Savings by Program: Figure 1 - kWh Savings by Program

Figure 2 - kW Savings by Program

Cost Effectiveness:

OG&E engaged ADM Associates to provide an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of each of the Demand

Programs. The portfolio is cost effective, with a portfolio TRC ratio of 1.67. For a full list of program cost

effectiveness results, see section 2.0. For the full analysis, please see attachment 5.1.

HEEP31%

PE-NHC3%

WRAP8%

CEEP57%

IVVC1%

KWH SAVINGS BY PROGRAM

HEEP26%

PE-NHC4%

WRAP11%

CEEP45%

IVVC14%

KW SAVINGS BY PROGRAM

8



Reduced Emissions and Water Consumption:

In accordance with Title 165 Chap 35, sub chap. 41-7, Reporting, OG&E is required to report emissions

reductions and generation water saved due to portfolio kWh savings. In 2017, OG&E saved 193.8 tons of

Sulfur Dioxide, 79.1 tons of Nitrous Oxides, 115,935.8 tons of Carbon Dioxide, and 51.1 million gallons of

fresh water. For a list of reduced emissions and water consumption see Table 10 in section 2.0; for

calculation methodology see Attachment 5.6.

Conclusion:

OG&E spent 93.8% of its proposed budget and achieved 152% and 80% of its energy and demand goals,

respectively.

9



2.0 Portfolio Impact The following tables summarize the portfolio statistics, including:

Program costs

Program savings (energy and demand)

Program participation

Inducements by program

Portfolio cost-effectiveness

Historical portfolio performance 2011-2016

Reduced emissions and water consumption

Table 1 - Budget vs Actual Program Costs

Program Cost

Budget Actual % of Budget % of Portfolio

HEEP $11,214,053 $10,801,446 96% 29%

PE-NHC $1,247,249 $1,326,946 106% 4%

WRAP $5,400,915 $5,312,511 98% 14%

CEEP $17,836,397 $17,112,624 96% 46%

Education $800,000 $787,145 98% 2%

IVVC $2,884,148 $2,113,607 73% 6%

R&D $565,000 $132,880 24% 0%

Planning & Regulatory $120,000 $263 0% 0%

Total $40,067,762 $37,587,422 93.81% 100.00% *The HEEP, WRAP, and CEEP budgets were adjusted per the 6/18/2017 letter to PUD. See attachment 5.8 for entire letter.

Table 2 - Actual Program Costs by Spend Type

Delivery Marketing

HEEP $3,721,076 $55,428 $6,491,820 $327,387 $205,735 $10,801,446

PE-NHC $246,742 $2,029 $954,822 $36,862 $86,490 $1,326,946

WRAP $130,236 $177,684 $4,697,997 $110,796 $195,798 $5,312,511

CEEP $7,876,595 $247,968 $8,200,204 $469,023 $318,833 $17,112,624

Education $0.00 $738,137 $0.00 $0.00 $49,008 $787,145

IVVC $2,054,267 $15,056 $0.00 $44,285 $0.00 $2,113,607

R&D $132,880 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $132,880

Planning & Regulatory $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $263 $263

Total $14,161,796 $1,236,303 $20,344,844 $988,353 $856,127 $37,587,422

ProgramProgram Administration

Inducements/Rebates EM&V Utility Administration TOTAL

10



Table 3 - Program Savings (Net)

Table 4 - Lifetime Savings and Program Net to Gross Ratios

Table 5 - Program Participation

Table 6 - Cost-Effectiveness – TRC Net Benefits

Program TRC TRC Benefits TRC Costs w/Labor TRC Net Benefits

HEEP 3.37 $33,472,206 $9,930,992 $23,541,214

PE-NHC 2.48 $5,361,899 $2,165,083 $3,196,816

WRAP 2.83 $13,121,522 $4,631,640 $8,490,182

CEEP 1.58 $58,547,436 $37,139,945 $21,407,491

Education 0.00 $0 $787,145 ($787,145)

IVVC 0.52 $9,158,029 $17,533,999 ($8,375,970)

R&D 0.00 $0 $132,880 ($132,880)

Planning & Regulatory 0.00 $0 $263 ($263)

Total 1.65 $119,661,093 $72,321,648 $47,339,445

Plan Actual % of Plan Plan Actual % of Plan

HEEP 27,857,573 45,590,079 164% 7,206 7,399 103%

PE-NHC 1,991,220 4,251,672 214% 1,306 1,255 96%

WRAP 7,983,302 11,733,069 147% 2,106 3,296 157%

CEEP 53,222,962 83,802,238 157% 10,360 12,885 124%

Education 0% 0%

IVVC 5,938,800 2,102,200 35% 15,150 4,040 27%

R&D 0% 0%

Planning & Regulatory 0% 0%

Total 96,993,857 147,479,258 152% 36,128 28,876 80%

ProgramNet Energy Savings (kWh) Net Demand (kW)

ProgramLifetime Net Energy

Savings kWh

kWh Net to

Gross Ratio

kW Net to

Gross Ratio

HEEP 548,894,808 75% 78%

PE-NHC 63,775,078 84% 95%

WRAP 184,003,588 100% 100%

CEEP 911,799,308 84% 83%

Education

IVVC 31,533,000 100% 100%

R&D

Planning & Regulatory

Total 1,740,005,782 82% 86%

Program HEEP PE-NHC WRAP CEEP IVVC Total

Metric Measures Homes Homes Projects Banks All

Actual 572,863 1,243 3,453 5,065 39 582,663

11



Table 7 - Cost-Effectiveness Ratios

Table 8 - Portfolio Historical Costs

Table 9 - Portfolio Historical Savings

Program TRC UCT RIM PCT SCT

HEEP 3.37 3.34 0.63 8.65 4.95

PE-NHC 2.48 4.04 0.61 2.67 3.48

WRAP 2.83 2.83 0.83 3.77 4.30

CEEP 1.58 3.42 0.69 2.62 2.21

Education 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

IVVC 0.52 0.52 0.47 1.11 0.73

R&D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Planning & Regulatory 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 1.65 2.32 0.65 2.85 2.37

Total Revenue

($000s)

Portfolio Budget

($000s)% of Revenue

Portfolio Actual

($000s)% of Revenue

2011 $1,882,824 $14,902 0.79% $18,201 0.97%

2012 $1,806,462 $14,900 0.82% $14,515 0.80%

2013 $1,887,821 $49,735 2.63% $40,939 2.17%

2014 $1,957,032 $51,861 2.65% $47,352 2.42%

2015 $1,810,570 $42,258 2.33% $42,336 2.34%

2016 $1,903,798 $35,513 1.87% $33,342 1.75%

2017 $1,851,104 $40,068 2.16% $37,587 2.03%

Program Year

Spending

Total Energy Sold

(MWh)

Net Planned

Savings (MWh)% of Sales

Net Actual Savings

(MWh)% of Sales

2011 24,252,611 45,492 0.19% 60,743 0.25%

2012 24,046,253 45,492 0.19% 65,902 0.27%

2013 24,203,011 90,315 0.37% 82,315 0.34%

2014 24,307,155 137,112 0.56% 103,076 0.42%

2015 24,065,469 143,917 0.60% 100,412 0.42%

2016 24,194,367 95,524 0.39% 133,011 0.55%

2017 23,681,345 96,994 0.41% 147,479 0.62%

Program Year

Savings

12



Table 10 - Reduced Emissions and Water Consumption

Market Transformation:

All OG&E Demand Programs are designed to educate customers and trade allies regarding the benefits

of energy efficiency and influence energy efficiency decisions and thereby the market. However, they

are not designed as a market transformation programs.

Fuel Switching:

The Positive Energy New Home Construction Program participation requirements allow for gas water

heating and furnaces to be a part of the program, and the PE-NHC program does not directly induce

equipment purchases therefore no instances have occurred in the PE-NHC Program. There are no

instances of inducing electric equipment over gas equipment occurring in any of OG&E’s other Demand

Programs except for geothermal heat pumps since geothermal equipment inducements are allowed as

renewable resources per OAC 165:35-41-3 definition of “Fuel Switching”.

SO2 (tons) NOx (tons) CO2 (tons) Fresh Water (million gallons)

193.8 79.1 115,936 51.1

SO2 (lbs/MWh) NOx (lbs/MWh) CO2 (lbs/MWh) Fresh Water (gallons/MWh)

2.4 1.0 1,459 321.6Factors

Portfolio

13



3.0 Portfolio Programs

3.1 Home Energy Efficiency Program (“HEEP”) The HEEP consists of four channels to access the residential customer market:

The Residential Solutions channel addresses single family homes with efficient lighting, envelope

and other mechanical system measures.

The Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (“HVAC”) Tune-up channel addresses HVAC units

across all segments of the residential market.

The Consumer Products channel offers rebates on lighting and other household equipment for

residential customers.

The School Outreach channel offers educational materials and kits with energy saving

equipment for students to take home and install.

Program Description

HEEP Residential Solutions

The HEEP Residential Solutions channel focuses on improving the customer’s knowledge of their living

space’s energy efficiency and seeks to create a more educated customer. This allows the customer to

not only lower energy costs but also transform their living spaces into more comfortable environments.

This is accomplished by providing customers with online resources and in-home energy advisors to

consult and inform them of ways to improve their home’s efficiency, as well as assistance in the form of

education, financial inducements and rebates, and giveaways to help them make the necessary updates

to their homes.

HEEP HVAC Tune-ups

Since 2010, the HEEP HVAC Tune-up channel has been available to all OG&E residential customers. In

2017 the channel continued a tablet-based platform for a suite of state-of-the-art diagnostic tools. Trade

allies were required to attend and pass a class and field training before using these tools with

customers. This channel includes Tune-ups to Multi-Family dwellings. This channel is designed to reduce

energy demand and consumption for residential customers and to improve comfort in the home during

the peak performance season.

Customers can sign up through several means:

OG&E website

Residential Solutions Home Audit

Call center

Participating contractor

Contractor communication

Response to direct-mail marketing

Customers who have not participated in the past five years of the HEEP Program are eligible for a

14



comprehensive air conditioner (“AC”) Tune-up. The measures are performed for Residential and Multi-

Family customers by licensed HVAC contractors. Measures within in the HEEP AC Tune-up include:

Clean condenser

Clean evaporator coil

Clean blower wheel

Adjust system air flow

Adjust refrigerant levels

Clean/change system air filters

The value of the AC Tune-up service to residential customers is $175 per system; for a Multi-Family

complex the service value is $100 per system. These amounts are deducted from their invoices through

the participating HVAC contractor if additional services are rendered. If the customer requires no further

repairs or services from the participating HVAC contractors, the AC Tune-up services to the customers

come at no cost to the consumer.

The program continued contractor/technician field shadowing throughout the year. The HVAC Tune-up

channel also introduced the following components in 2017:

HVAC contractor and technician trainings throughout the year

QAQC performed in the field with the data integrity of the uploaded project

HEEP Consumer Products

The HEEP Consumer Products (“CPS”) channel provides customers with instant inducements on select

ENERGY STAR® qualified LED lighting products at a variety of retail locations across OG&E’s territory in

the state of Oklahoma. The CPS channel also provides education to in-store employee staff as well as

shopping customers to promote better energy consumption decisions with lighting. In addition to the

retail channel, CPS also has focused efforts on large Food Bank donations. Offering the same ENERGY

STAR qualified LED bulbs to recipients at food pantries.

HEEP School Outreach

The channel uses Resource Action Programs’ (“RAP”) LivingWise™ education kit to provide 5th grade

teachers and students a curriculum and a take home “hands-on” kit about home energy efficiency. At

the completion of the curriculum the LivingWise™ education kit provides students the opportunity to

participate with their families in energy efficiency. The LivingWise™ education kit contains two LED

bulbs, two faucet aerators, one low-flow showerhead, one LED night light, a refrigerator thermometer, a

flow rate test bag, and a student handbook on EE for the home and community. The students take the

LivingWise™ kit home and install the EE measures with the assistance of their parents. After completion

of the curriculum, the students receive a LivingWise™ wristband and a certificate of achievement for

participating in the program.

OG&E provides a list of schools each semester to RAP for potential participation in the school outreach

channel and LivingWise™ kits. RAP contacts the school, enrolls the teacher and quantifies the number

15



of students. A list of enrolled schools and participation information is sent to OG&E each month. RAP

mails the kits to the enrolled teachers. Finally, RAP follows up with teachers on class participation during

the curriculum and the students’ interaction with parents including the installation of the energy savings

measures. There was an overwhelming consensus from all participating teachers that it was an

informative, easy to understand curriculum. The teachers expressed that the teaching materials were

both timely and important. More details can be found in the LivingWise™ report in attachment 5.4.

Program Highlights


Residential Solutions underwent a series of changes leading into 2017. Most notably, five new specialists

were hired and trained for deployment starting Feb 1st, 2017, to perform single-family home

assessments. This provided greater control over lead conversion and customer scheduling. The Multi-

Family direct install component of the Residential Solutions Program was expanded for 2017 and

launched in mid-February. Both single-family and multi-family components ran steadily through the first

weeks of November. Due to high volume early in the year, the mail-in rebate opportunity stopped

accepting new applications after August 15th.

Total Assessments:

10,377 multi-family unit assessments completed

2,657 single family assessments completed

Additional Performance Activity:

8,258 audits completed

3,510 leads for additional services captured

Rebates Processed:

768 attic insulation

14 air sealing

7 pool pumps

393 windows

Channel Totals:

$2,731,058 inducements paid

2,036 gross kW saved

12,328,660 gross kWh saved

HEEP HVAC Tune-ups

In 2017 this channel’s 62 partner HVAC contractors completed:

5,059 AC Tune-ups for 3,874 OG&E Customers

555 duct seals

$996,801 inducements paid

16



In 2017 the high-performance AC replacement program involved mini splits greater than 18 SEER, 18

SEER direct expansion, 16 and 18 SEER dual fuel heat pump, and a geothermal program to reduce peak

demand for the residential market for current residents. The 2017 AC Tune-up season officially closed

December 9, 2017, however customer enrollments continued through the end of 2017 for participation

in the 2018 AC Tune-up channel.


Consumer Products, an up-stream point of purchase incentive channel, began in 2016, continued

through 2017. OG&E Consumer Products channel Representatives spent time inside 228 participating

retailer locations focusing on customer and employee engagement. All interested parties were trained

instores during site visits and during weekend product demonstrations promoting OG&E’s instant and

non-instant inducements as well as other HEEP program offerings. Dollar General was added to the

program in June 2017 to serve hard-to-reach customers. OG&E also distributed utility logo branded 60-

watt replacement LED 4-packs to three service area Food Banks. The Food Banks serve a total of 157

Food Pantries that are within OG&E service territory.

Food Bank Distributions:

200,000 Bulbs distributed

$500,000 Inducement budget

In-store Engagement:

2,670 Site visits

4,833 Trainees o 3,695 Customers o 1,138 Store Employees

11,245 Training segments

11,786 Pieces of OG&E branded point-of-purchase materials Channel Totals:

$2,147,073 inducements paid

1,193,228 bulbs invoiced

3,109 net kW saved

26,755,865 net kWh saved


The School Outreach channel uses the LivingWise™ Program to provide EE and environmental

awareness education for 15,252 students and teachers from January 2017 through December 31, 2017,

targeting 452 public school classrooms in the OG&E service territory. OG&E partnered with the OKC

Thunder to customize the box with the Thunder mascot Rumble to improve the generic look and appeal

for the LivingWise™ Kits. The kit included the addition of a Rumble night light. OG&E Community

17



Coordinators were used along with key contact personnel to promote the program.

A report is submitted to OG&E at the end of each semester detailing the activity, the results and the

participation level and acceptance of the program.

Program Budget, Savings, Participation Table 11 - HEEP Costs

Table 12 - HEEP Savings

Table 13 - HEEP Cost-Effectiveness Ratios

Table 14 - HEEP Budget Variance

Budget Variance: The budget was reduced $550,000 per letter dated June 30, 2017 (Attachment 5.8).

HEEP ended 2017 4% under budget.

Description of Participants


Participants in this channel are residential customers in single family homes as well as all-electric,

individually metered multi-family apartment complexes. All addresses and OG&E account numbers are

verified prior to any rebates being distributed and, in the case of direct install measures, accounts are

validated prior to work being completed.

HEEP HVAC Tune-ups

Residential customers with electric unitary AC systems are eligible to participate in this channel.


Residential customers shopping in select retail locations in OG&E’s territory are eligible to participate in

this offering. Food pantry recipients accepting food and other donated goods in OG&E’s territory are

eligible to participate.

Delivery Marketing

HEEP $3,721,076 $55,428 $6,491,820 $327,387 $205,735 $10,801,446

TotalProgramProgram Administration

Inducements EM&V Utility Administration

kWh kW kWh kW kWh kW

HEEP 45,590,079 7,399 60,636,999 9,433 75% 78% 572,863

MeasuresProgramNet Savings Gross Savings Net to Gross


HEEP 3.37 3.34 0.63 8.65 4.95

Plan Actual Variance % Variance

HEEP $11,214,053 $10,801,446 ($412,607) (4)

ProgramBudget

18




This channel focuses on 5th grade students in the Oklahoma public school system inside OG&E service

territory.

Challenges and Opportunities


One area of opportunity for our multi-family direct install component is awareness of participation and

attribution for OG&E. A concern raised by tenants of apartments was a lack of awareness that the

upgrades were provided by OG&E. A simple solution to this challenge was to create an OG&E branded

refrigerator magnet to be left behind in each apartment in 2018 so that residents would know that the

LEDs, advanced power strips, and efficient water measures were installed by OG&E’s energy efficiency

programs.

HEEP HVAC Tune-ups

The launch of the new energy efficiency audit in 2017 ushered in opportunities for a steady base of

customer enrollments as energy advisors helped customers participate in the AC Tune-up channel.

During each residential audit performed, customers were advised of the other offerings for energy

savings, and eligible customers were signed up. Of the 6,300 customers enrolled, a total of 5,509

participated in other offerings.

In 2017 participating HVAC contractors extended the overall reach of the AC Tune-up channel by

promoting it to their established customer base.


OG&E expanded the number of participating retailers to address hard-to-reach and low-income

customers in small towns and rural areas. Continuation of the program will hinge on incorporating

smaller price-focused, low-cost store footprints within the retail mix.


The school kits have provided opportunities for OG&E to personally visit several schools providing first

hand energy efficiency education.

Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction, Termination


Continued focus on customer outreach events and education provides opportunities to drive cross-

promotion of all residential energy efficiency programs offered by OG&E. This not only drives

participation, but also helps to promote brand awareness within the community.

HEEP HVAC Tune-ups

OG&E will continue to offer increased inducements for 18 SEER high efficiency replacements. High-

performance AC replacement was also expanded into New Home Construction.

19




This program will continue to see implementation and expansion into low-income and hard-to-reach

customer markets. OG&E is also exploring incorporating a small amount of online lighting sales into the

sales mix. The number of LEDs donated through the Food Bank channel may also be increased.


OG&E will continue to provide the LivingWise™ kits and education for students.

Planned or Proposed Changes and Budget


The Residential Solutions channel proposes the following changes for the 2018 Program Year:

Single-family:

Increase the number of LEDs installed per home from 10 to 15.

Multi-family:

Increase the number of LEDs installed per apartment unit from 15 to 20.

Add a 1.5 GPM swivel head aerator for kitchen sinks.

Increase the contractor payment amount per multi-family apartment unit.

Rebates:

Increase the number of window rebates per household to 10 windows per account

HEEP HVAC Tune-ups

The HVAC Tune-up channel proposes the following changes:

Initiating a capacitor pilot in 2018

Conducting a true (versus deemed) duct seal savings.


An instant rebate offering will be introduced.


OG&E has no planned changed for 2018.

Program Events and Trainings


The Residential Solutions team attended several events in 2017:

Oklahoma Home & Garden Show

Oklahoma Home & Outdoor Living Show

Oklahoma Restaurant Expo

Oklahoma State Fair

Dal-Tile Energy Fair in Muskogee, OK

20



Team members also volunteered at several cross-training events with Consumer Products

representatives to educate customers about in-home assessments.

HEEP HVAC Tune-ups

Trade Allies of the AC Tune-up channel have the following credentials.

State HVAC License

Federal EPA certification

General liability and auto insurance

Pass an eight-hour classroom test and field test


50 HEEP cross-promotional events were held in stores in October and November.

21



3.2 Positive Energy – New Home Construction (“PE-NHC”)

Program Description

The PE-NHC program is a long-term energy efficiency program designed to reduce energy demand and

consumption for the residential new construction market within OG&E’s service territory. Its

comprehensive standards address heightened performance requirements attached to the building

envelope, attic insulation, fenestration, and mechanical systems which must be verified by a third-party

Home Energy Rater. Inducements are paid to contractors that successfully meet or exceed all the

minimum requirements defined by the program standards manual.

Program Highlights

OG&E believes that new homes should be built to the highest standards of construction with recognition

for energy efficiency. A new home built and inspected per OG&E’s PE-NHC guidelines provides the

homeowner opportunities for energy savings, improved durability, and quality otherwise unavailable in

standard construction.

In 2017, OG&E partnered with forty-six construction companies and four Home Energy Rating System

(“HERS”) rating organizations to successfully complete 1,243 new homes with an average HERS index of

59. The HERS index is the industry standard by which a home's energy efficiency is measured. It is also

the nationally recognized standard for inspecting, testing, and calculating a home's energy performance.

A certified HERS Rater assesses the energy efficiency of a home, assigning it a relative performance

score. The lower the number, the more efficient the home. The U.S. Department of Energy has

determined that a typical resale home scores 130 on the HERS Index, while a standard new home is

awarded a rating of 100. A score of 59 would project a 41 percent savings in energy over a standard

home.

Program Budget, Savings, Participation Table 15 - PE-NHC Costs

Table 16 - PE-NHC Savings

Table 17 - PE-NHC Cost-Effectiveness Ratios

Delivery Marketing

PE-NHC $246,742 $2,029 $954,822 $36,862 $86,490 $1,326,946


Inducements EM&VUtility

Administration


PE-NHC 4,251,672 1,255 5,042,218 1,327 84% 95% 1,243

Gross Savings Net to GrossMeasuresProgram

Net Savings


PE-NHC 2.48 4.04 0.61 2.67 3.48

22



Table 18 - PE-NHC Budget Variance

Program Budget


PE-NHC $1,247,249 $1,326,946 $79,697 6

Budget Variance: The PE-NHC program was 6% over budget.


Oklahoma residential home builders or contractors and Home Energy Raters


Challenges included:

Maintaining builder interest after the revocation of the federal incentive for energy efficient

new home construction

Reduction in savings due to increased federal minimum standards and adoption of more

stringent building codes


The adoption and enforcement of more stringent building codes will be in place on January 1, 2018.

Although the enforcement of these new codes will have a negative impact on the reported kWh savings,

our forecasted savings will continue to exceed the 2018 planned savings. As such, there are no plans to

amend or adjust the program in PY2018.


OG&E will initiate an HVAC inducement pilot to encourage contractors to install cooling equipment with

elevated efficiencies. Currently we are reviewing cost test impacts for inducement rates applied to 16

SEER and 18 SEER air conditioning units as well as geothermal heat pumps.


Each PE-NHC program manager is certified in:

HERS Rater

ENERGY STAR

EPA Indoor Air Plus

EPA Water Sense

OG&E is an education sponsor for the Central Oklahoma Home Builders Association, and a major

sponsor for the Oklahoma Building Summit in 2017.

23



3.3 Weatherization Residential Assistance Program (“WRAP”)

Program Descriptions

The WRAP is designed for OG&E residential customers. Customers can enroll in the program by calling

the OG&E call center or logging on to OG&E’s website (i.e. www.OGE.com/weatherization). This

program helps the customer to manage energy costs. OG&E Oklahoma residential customers are

eligible to apply for WRAP if they own, rent, or lease their single-family home, duplex, or mobile home

and who have incomes at or below $50,000, or are owners of multi-family units whose rental units are

66% occupied by hard-to-reach customers pursuant to OAC 165:35-41-3 Definition of “hard-to-reach

customers”. There are also restrictions on the home which may prevent a customer from participating.

This includes, but is not limited to, unvented space heater and open flame heaters as a main source of

heat. WRAP is designed to improve the thermal envelope of the dwelling, thereby decreasing the

amount of energy consumed and improving the comfort and safety of the home.

OG&E is proud to have WRAP as a significant component in its demand portfolio. OG&E has partnered

with Central Oklahoma Habitat for Humanity and Rebuilding Together OKC, which enabled these non-

profit agencies to provide weatherization services to qualified OG&E customers based on OG&E’s WRAP

requirements. Skyline Energy Solutions, the primary OG&E weatherization contractor for WRAP, is a

Residential Energy Services Network (“RESNET”) Home Energy Rating System (“HERS”) Rater. Skyline

Energy Solutions also has lead base paint certification as well as mold inspector training. Assessors and

crews receive on-going training for energy efficiency improvements in proper home weatherization

methods.

OG&E and ONG entered a Joint Weatherization Program in the fall of 2015. The Program was well

received by customers. In 2017 OG&E and ONG continued the Joint Weatherization Program delivering

WRAP services to inefficient homes. The program allowed shared funds to be used by both utilities

which led to additional homes being weatherized.

The contractor and non-profits use EnerTrek®, an on-line database and modeling tool supported by

Frontier Associates. EnerTrek® is used to record contractor measure inputs for each home and calculate

actual kW and kWh savings by measure.

The contractors’ crews installed essential weatherization measures in homes to upgrade them to energy

efficient standards. During the site visit, blower door testing is performed with depressurization

testing to identify air leakage to the home. Then testing is done in a worst-case scenario to check for

back drafting and spillage to identify any possible issues with combustion appliances. During this

process, a carbon monoxide (“CO”) test and a gas leakage test are performed on all gas appliances. A

visual inspection of insulation, HVAC system, and duct work is also performed to determine if these

areas need work. A pre and post duct blaster test may be performed to determine duct leakage. Lead

paint testing is performed when required as well as mold inspections. After work is completed, a post-

Blower Door test is performed to determine air loss reduction. All work is inspected along with final CO

and gas leak testing. Measurable air leakage in cubic feet per minute (“CFM”) reduction resulted in

24



capturing kW and kWh reductions. Duct repair/sealing is performed to increase kW and kWh savings.

Some measures installed include: ceiling insulation, air infiltration, window caulking, door weather-strip-

ping, LED energy efficient light bulbs, duct and plenum seal, supply and return air cavity sealing, and CO

detectors. Smoke detectors are installed if homes do not have any smoke detectors.

OG&E performs post inspections on approximately 10% of the homes that were weatherized. OG&E

continues to audit the Program to ensure that proper installation procedures and safety standards are

followed.

Program Highlights

OG&E weatherized 3,453 homes during 2017 at an average total OG&E cost of $1,507 per home.

Since 2008, OG&E has weatherized over 28,781 energy-inefficient homes.

OG&E and Oklahoma Natural Gas (“ONG”) continued their Joint Weatherization Program during 2017. A total of 537 homes were jointly weatherized in 2017.

Program Budget, Savings, Participation Table 19 - WRAP Costs

Table 20 - WRAP Savings

Table 21 - WRAP Cost-Effectiveness Ratios

Table 22 - WRAP Budget Variance

Budget Variance: The budget was reduced $550,000 per letter dated June 30, 2017 (Attachment 5.8).

WRAP was 2% under budget.


The participants of the WRAP program are OG&E residential customers living in Oklahoma who are

financially-challenged, including customers on the Low-Income Assistance Program (“LIAP”) as well as

Delivery Marketing

$130,236 $177,684 $4,697,997 $110,796 $195,798 $5,312,511

Program AdministrationInducements EM&V

Utility

AdministrationTotal


WRAP 11,733,069 3,296 11,733,069 3,296 100% 100% 3,453

Gross Savings Net to GrossHomesProgram

Net Savings


WRAP 2.83 2.83 0.83 3.77 4.30


WRAP $5,400,915 $5,312,511 ($88,404) (2)

ProgramBudget

25



those with disabilities, veteran status, limited income security, high energy usage residential customers,

and other classes of customers that OG&E determines would greatly benefit from weatherization in the

home and whose residence is energy inefficient. These are customers who are not likely to have the

necessary funds to pay for the installation of measures that will optimize energy efficiency.


Customers may be eligible for the program, but the home may not qualify due to program restrictions.

For health and safety reasons, OG&E will not weatherize a home that has unvented combustion space

heaters or open flame heaters as its main source of heat. The home must have proper ventilation before

any air sealing is performed. Pre and post blower door tests are performed to ensure the Combustion

Appliance Zone (“CAZ”) does not have any safety issues and is operating properly and to capture the

CFM reduction from envelope sealing measures. Pre and post carbon monoxide tests are also

performed.

OG&E and ONG began discussions in the fall of 2014 for a potential Oklahoma Joint Weatherization

Program. In fall of 2015, OG&E and ONG entered into a Joint Residential Collaborative Weatherization

Program using OG&E’s current weatherization contractor to perform cost-effective energy efficiency

improvements and using OG&E’s online database tracking tool, EnerTrek. OG&E and ONG continued

the Joint Weatherization Program for 2017. Homes served by both OG&E and ONG will have the costs

of weatherization measures divided between the parties in proportion to the ratio of gas to electric

savings. Homes served by OG&E and not ONG will have all weatherization measure costs covered by

OG&E. This joint venture benefits the customer, the community, and the utilities by maximizing the

savings. This helps customers manage the costs of the utility bills, educate the community in ways to

reduce consumption, and share some of the cost of the program between utilities.


The 2017 customer satisfaction surveys for WRAP performed by Evolve Research found the program was

extremely well received by OG&E customers. Of those WRAP customers surveyed, 100% would

recommend the program to family or friends. The survey found that customers’ highest satisfaction was

with the courtesy of Skyline and the quality of worked performed on their home. Customers are starting

to understand the correlation of more efficient homes with lower bills. Respondents say the biggest

benefit of the program is to lower their energy bill and have a more efficient home.


There are no planned changes for 2018.


Many presentations were made by OG&E members to inform people of the programs. These

presentations included, but not limited to, civic organizations, senior citizen groups, and church groups

throughout the OG&E service territory informing customers of the program.

OG&E provided a Weatherization pocket folder to customers containing; a “12-Month To-Do List”

26



brochure, Oklahoma Energy Efficiency Programs brochure, OG&E weatherization brochure, and Multi-

Family brochure (at apartments).

OG&E provided ID badges and uniforms as a safety and security feature for the weatherization

contractors and crews. This provided the customer a way of identifying the weatherization crews as

contractors for OG&E. Additionally, OG&E provided signs for any vehicles the contractors drove while on

the job.

The WRAP Manager is:

A certified RESNET HERS rater

RESNET CAZ certified Lead base paint certified by the Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”)

27



3.4 Commercial Energy Efficiency Program (“CEEP”) The CEEP consists of six main channels of customer participation opportunities:

Commercial & Industrial Solutions (“C&I Solutions”), which targets prescriptive and custom

measures for commercial customers

HVAC Tune-ups

Schools and Government Entities (“SAGE”)

Small Business Midstream, which incentivizes efficient lighting at point of purchase

Small Business Direct Install (“SBDI”), which targets small businesses for turn-key efficiency

solutions

Continuous Energy Improvement (“CEI”), which targets large customers and provides behavioral

and other low/no-cost energy-saving opportunities.

Program Description

CEEP C&I Solutions

The C&I Solutions channel is designed to serve OG&E’s largest demand customers. These customers are

primarily single sites that have a demand of 150kW or more, or multiple sites with 250kW demand or

more. These customers’ projects in many cases require months from planning to completion. Lighting

change outs remained the single largest energy savings measure. New construction lighting was also a

significant savings measure. Additional emphasis was placed on generating more custom work within

the portfolio including motors and compressed air. This channel was extremely effective in reaching

commercial and industrial customers. The C&I Solutions channel was effective in communicating to

partners the value of energy efficiency and demand side management and minimizing the need to build

new generation.

CEEP HVAC Tune-ups

Started in 2016, the CEEP AC Tune-up channel continued a tablet-based platform for a suite of state-of-

the-art diagnostic tools. Trade allies were required to attend and pass classwork and field training for

these tools. This channel is designed to reduce energy demand and consumption for commercial

customers and improve comfort levels in the workplace during peak performance season.

Customers can sign up through several different avenues:

OG&E website

Call center

Participating contractor

Contractor communication

CLEAResult commercial division

Response to direct-mail marketing

Customers who have not participated in the past five years of the CEEP HVAC Tune-up channel and have

HVAC units more than 2 years old are eligible for a comprehensive AC Tune-up. Leads are generated

28



through contractors, the CLEAResult commercial division, OG&E’s website, and direct mail marketing.

The measures are performed for commercial customers by licensed HVAC contractors. The measures

included in the CEEP AC Tune-up are:

Clean condenser

Clean evaporator coil

Clean blower wheel

Adjustment to system air flow

Adjustment to refrigerant levels

Clean/Change system air filters

The value of the AC Tune-up service to commercial customers is $175 per system (5 tons or less), $250

for 6-25 ton systems, and $400 for 26-50 ton systems. These amounts are deducted from their invoices

through the participating HVAC contractor if additional services are rendered. If the customer’s system

requires no further repairs or services from the participating HVAC contractors, then the AC Tune-up

services have no out-of-pocket cost to the consumer.

CEEP SAGE

The SAGE channel provides energy efficiency inducements to any educational or publicly funded facility.

It is intended to drive participation both through direct outreach by channel staff and through an

extensive contractor network. Instructional services are also offered to educational facilities. These

offerings include energy benchmarking (“BM”), Energy Master Planning (“EMP”), and Continuous Energy

Improvement – Schools (“CEI-Schools”). The benchmarking services provide a report to the school

district highlighting their annual energy use for a full year and ranking them alongside other school

districts in Oklahoma that have participated previously. The EMP is a half-day workshop in which

channel staff guide school district decision makers through the report to help them design a plan specific

to their school to achieve its energy reduction target. Finally, CEI-Schools is a behavioral measure that

can clearly and accurately impact the schools’ electric use.

CEEP Small Business Midstream

The Small Business Midstream channel is designed to offer point-of-sale inducements for pre-qualified

lighting products to OG&E commercial customers through participating local and national lighting

distributors. Distributors can offer a wide range of these inducements across multiple lighting

applications to both contractors and end users. This program is intended to offer inducements to those

customers whose projects are not large enough to qualify for other program channels or to help

supplement current projects.

CEEP Small Business Direct Install

The Small Business Direct Install (“SBDI”) channel targets OG&E small business customers that have an

annual peak demand of 150 kW or less and that have multiple locations with a combined peak demand

of 250 kW or less. The channel is intended to drive participation through an extensive contractor

network, utilizing an internet-based software application called the Open tool. Open tool allows

contractors to approach and qualify a customer, provide a free audit of their lighting technologies, and

29



provide a scope of work with clearly defined costs, savings, and inducements while in the field. This high

level of autonomy enjoyed by participating contractors is balanced by an intense level of scrutiny

through both desk audits and site inspections performed by the channel staff.

CEEP CEI

The CEI channel is a one-to-two year engagement with large OG&E customers using about 20 million

kWh per year. The CEI includes a combination of group and individual site workshops for eight to twelve

companies that go through the channel as a group (i.e. Cohort). Other key components of the channel

include on-site audits by engineers, a whole-site energy model to measure savings, a workshop focusing

on co-worker engagement, and coaching. The primary focus is on low or no cost behavioral, operational

or maintenance changes to save energy. Capital project opportunities are often identified during the CEI

engineering audit and are then referred to other channels.

Program Highlights

CEEP C&I Solutions

The C&I Solutions was extremely successful in 2017. Commercial customers were made very aware of

the channel due to the channel’s web access, as were a variety of vendors and national energy

management companies. This was particularly noteworthy given that direct marketing is a challenge

with large C&I customers. Customer outreach benefitted from trade allies and direct meetings.

Marketing materials were developed and updated to provide hard-copy information for delivery to

customers and for usage in trade shows, seminars, and other public events. This channel required pre

and post inspections of projects to improve realization rates for projects and to reduce free ridership

concerns.

CEEP HVAC Tune-ups

In 2017, 18 HVAC contractor partners completed a total of 3,200 AC Tune-ups for eighty-three OG&E

customers. The 2017 AC Tune-up season officially closed December 9, 2017, however customer

enrollments continued through the end of 2017 for participation in the 2018 AC Tune-up channel.

CEEP SAGE

The SAGE channel experienced success in 2017. The channel surpassed savings expectations with

additional funding received very late in the year. The contractor base had a very strong showing this

year, bringing more participants and capturing more savings than ever before.

Multiple partners participated in the benchmarking of their schools and campuses. OG&E also hosted

four EMP workshops throughout the year. Continued efforts with Mustang Public Schools in the

Resource Management Services (“RMS”) pathway yielded promising results. In addition, OG&E

partnered with the district to create a two-minute promotional video highlighting the partnership’s

success. Such success led to an expansion of the CEI-Schools offering with five additional customers

enrolled.

30




The Midstream channel experienced a successful year in 2017. The channel exceeded its energy savings

expectations.


The SBDI channel was successful in 2017, exhausting its budget and reaching its kWh savings

expectations. Additionally, the program team trained and supported 35 contractors in 68 different cities

and towns throughout OG&E territory.

CEEP CEI

CEI’s highly successful year was particularly noteworthy given that 2017 was its inaugural year,

exceeding its savings expectations and receiving positive feedback from participants. Seven of the ten

companies experienced energy savings, and all expressed appreciation for the training, workshops, and

coaching they received throughout the year. Due to the CEI success and participant feedback, OG&E

started another cohort group in October.

Program Budget, Savings, Participation Table 23 - CEEP Costs

Table 24 - CEEP Savings

Table 25 - CEEP Cost-Effectiveness Ratios

Table 26 - CEEP Budget Variance

Program Budget


CEEP $17,836,397 $17,112,624 ($723,773) (4)

Budget Variance: Budget was increased $1.12 million per letter dated June 30, 2017 (see Attachment

5.8). CEEP was 4% under budget.

Delivery Marketing

CEEP $7,876,595 $247,968 $8,200,204 $469,023 $318,833 $17,112,624



Administration


CEEP 83,802,238 12,885 100,021,926 15,484 84% 83% 5,065

Gross Savings Net to GrossProjectsProgram

Net Savings


CEEP 1.58 3.42 0.69 2.62 2.21

31




CEEP C&I Solutions

This channel targets large commercial and industrial facilities. Other segments include medium-size

customers whose combined sites’ demand exceeds 250 kW. The C&I Solutions channel also filled a void

in SBDI by performing HVAC measures. Lastly, overflow customers from other CEEP programs were

served through the C&I Solutions channel.

CEEP HVAC Tune-ups

Commercial customers with electric unitary AC systems.

CEEP SAGE

SAGE serves large and small public school districts in both urban and rural settings. SAGE also serves a

variety of different-sized government facilities ranging from rural municipalities to large federal

institutions (e.g. Federal Aviation Administration).


Participants in this program are smaller businesses or small projects with a few dozen lights and fixtures.


This channel targets small business customers with an annual peak demand of 150 kW or less and have

multiple locations with a combined peak demand of 250 kW or less.

CEEP CEI

The CEI channel participants are OG&E’s largest commercial and industrial customers. Typically, a

company in the program will use about 20 million kWh or more annually at a single site.


CEEP C&I Solutions

The main opportunity is expanding into more challenging projects. Highly effective low-wattage LED

lighting solutions have long lifespans, and the next generation of lighting technology will struggle to

sufficiently reduce wattage to be cost-effective. The success of C&I Solutions channel over the long term

will require creative project options such as motors, compressed air, and variable speed drives. As

planned, the program saw an upswing in these and other custom measures during 2017.

CEEP HVAC Tune-ups

During each commercial audit performed through the CEEP channels, customers were informed of other

offerings for energy savings, and eligible customers were signed up to participate in the HVAC Tune-up.

In 2017, participating HVAC partner contractors extended the overall reach of the HVAC Tune-up

channel by promoting it to their established customer base.

Challenges arose as HVAC Tune-up methods were revised. OG&E required participating HVAC

32



contractors to use a specific set of equipment called iManifold. This toolset, along with a tablet (iPad or

Android), enabled AC systems’ performance data to be submitted electronically to the channel’s

database. This process allowed for measured and verifiable calculations of savings per AC unit.

CEEP SAGE

The popularity of the SAGE channel exhausted the budget by early summer. A budget increase was

made in late summer to continue serving customers.

Another challenge stemmed from trade ally management. While contractors performed admirably in

driving high participation rates and selling substantial lighting projects using channel inducements, some

contractors presented the channel in a manner that did not align with OG&E’s standards. OG&E resolved

the situation by realigning these contractors’ behavior with the program goals.

The SAGE program has an opportunity to expand its role in the behavior-based CEI-Schools pathway.

After the tremendous success with Mustang Public Schools, OG&E recruited an additional five school

districts into this channel.


One challenge stemmed from a third party’s inability to process Point-of-Sale data and invoices within a

thirty-day turnaround. OG&E will move this service to another third party for 2018. The new process

incorporates QA/QC checks to ensure integrity.

The second challenge was ensuring that OG&E’s distributors were using Midstream incentive budgets

for the appropriate sized projects. To correct this, OG&E will implement additional QA/QC scrutiny.


SBDI met its kWh and incentive targets.

CEEP CEI

The biggest challenge with CEI was staffing in the first quarter of 2017. Since CEI was new to CLEAResult

in Oklahoma, support was initially provided by a remote resource in Utah, who managed the early

stages of the program. Travel issues and reliance on additional nearby third parties caused additional

strain on already-taxed local resources. A dedicated CEI Coach was hired at the end of Q1 2017 to

supplement the remote support and alleviate the strain on other office personnel.


The CEEP program enjoyed great success in 2017, a trend expected to continue in 2018.

Some consideration has been given to performing a pilot of twenty HVAC systems for measured and

verified savings in air-cooled chillers.


There are currently no significant planned changes to the CEEP program.

33




Numerous presentations are delivered every year to business groups, trade shows, individual customers,

and contractors. A program kick-off meeting in 2017 convened eligible CEEP vendors, contractors, and

distributors to discuss participation details in commercial programs.

In addition, several events and training sessions were held as part of the CEI channel. A total of eleven

workshops (six on-site with individual company teams and five group workshops with all ten

participating companies) were held in 2017. One of the group workshops educated its participants on

properly engaging employees, namely by encouraging energy savings at home and applying the same

techniques at work. Two companies held three employee events at their sites where OG&E

representatives and CLEAResult program managers presented residential energy savings programs.

34




35



3.5 Education Program

Program Description

The program goal is to allow customers to make informed decisions about long-term energy efficiency

and participate in programs that will help them manage their energy costs and take advantage of price

response tariffs. The Education Program provides face-to-face presentations to customers of all classes,

equipping them to make educated decisions about how they use energy. The program also allows

customers to look at alternatives to improve their consumption, thereby decreasing demand and energy

usage. A community EE education outreach began in 2016 to get communities and companies more

involved with EE. Each meeting attendee received an OG&E LED night light and EE pamphlet explaining

the programs. Twenty-three community meetings, six rural school projects and fifteen internal lunch

and learns were held in 2017 at various locations. The outreach strategies are divided into a residential

component and a commercial component.

Program Highlights

This program was able to actively engage with residential customers and communities across the OG&E

service territory. A total of twenty-three community meetings were held in 2017 at various locations

across the service territory. Similarly, the commercial sector received educational services tailored to

their needs.

Program Budgets, Savings, and participation

This program does not directly claim savings, therefore there are no savings nor are there cost-

effectiveness results to report.

Table 27 - Education Program Costs

Table 28 - Education Budget Variance

Budget Variance: Several of the planned projects had not been completed and some did not develop as

planned resulting in the Education Program being 2% under budget.


Any residential and commercial customers.


OG&E continues to provide updated material to all classifications of consumers throughout the OG&E

service territory. Challenges are to educate residential, commercial and industrial consumers to initiate

Delivery Marketing

Education $0.00 $738,137 $0.00 $0.00 $49,008 $787,145



Administration


Education $800,000 $787,145 ($12,855) (2)

ProgramBudget

36



timely and important energy improvements to homes and businesses. Education to the consumer is a

key in stressing the importance of energy efficiency in all applications.

Outlook for Continuation, Reduction, Expansion, Termination

OG&E plans to continue the Education program in 2018.


There are no planned or proposed changes to the Education program.


A Building Operator Certification (“BOC”) Class was conducted in 2017. Approximately twenty-five

students representing businesses throughout the OG&E service area took advantage of the opportunity

to receive BOC training at the OG&E Energy Technology Center.

For 2017, some of the external events were held in the following locations:

Fan day with the Thunder

Newalla Church

Bethany Great Neighborhoods Meeting

Tinker Air Show

Enid Community Outreach

Country Estates Church

Admin Day at Francis Tuttle

Education Seminar in Norman

PTA meetings at local schools

Woodward Chamber of Commerce Community Event

Midwest City Carnival

Noble Foundation

37



3.6 Integrated Volt Var Control (“IVVC”) The IVVC program provided several unique challenges in 2017. Below is an accounting of the program

year 2017. For OG&E’s opinions on the performance of the IVVC program, please see attachment 5.2.

Program Description

The IVVC program is a system of devices, controls, software, and communications equipment used to

manage OG&E’s distribution system reactive power flow and voltage level. This technology is used to

minimize electrical losses and reduce energy demand during peak periods, while ensuring acceptable

customer voltage levels. IVVC infrastructure is installed on both 12.47kV and 34.5kV distribution circuits,

and includes installation of capacitor controls, line voltage regulator controls, load tap changer controls,

and communication equipment.

Program Objectives

The primary goal of OG&E’s IVVC program is to optimize voltage and reactive power flow to achieve

demand reduction on existing feeders. During non-peak periods, IVVC will normally operate in loss

reduction mode. In loss reduction mode, IVVC compensates for inefficiencies caused by reactive loads

such as electric motors. As a result, energy loss reductions (i.e. energy savings) are expected to be

realized during non-peak periods. The Volt-Var Control system (“VVC”) will be placed in demand

reduction or combined loss/demand reduction mode when needed to help reduce system peak energy

demand. Demand reduction mode reduces voltage to achieve a corresponding reduction in peak energy

consumption. Based on study results achieved to date, a peak demand reduction approaching 2% across

the entire population of circuits on which this technology has been deployed.

Program Budget, Savings, and Participation Table 29 - IVVC Costs

Table 30 - IVVC Savings

Table 31 - IVVC Cost-Effectiveness Ratios

Delivery Marketing

IVVC $2,054,267 $15,056 $0.00 $44,285 $0.00 $2,113,607



Administration


IVVC 2,102,200 4,040 2,102,200 4,040 100% 100% 39

Gross Savings Net to GrossBanksProgram

Net Savings


IVVC 0.52 0.52 0.47 1.11 0.73

38



Table 32 - IVVC Budget Variance

Budget Variance: The program cost variance was 27% under budget. Some of the 2017 deployments

were constructed during 2016 and the associated costs were paid during 2016.

Deployment Year 2017

The summer of 2017 was a challenging test season for the IVVC deployment at OG&E. Seventy-seven (77)

circuits deployed in 2017 yielded a total of 4.04 MW of peak demand reduction and 2,102 MWh of

annualized energy savings based on the continuous method of analysis as discussed in the ADM 2017 IVVC

EM&V Report. IVVC is operated on substation transformer banks (a substation bank typically serves two

to three circuits), with results aggregated to the substation bank level. An adjustment was added to

account for substation and transmission losses using the substation and transmission loss factors of

0.9137 for peak demand and 0.96 for energy.

The table below provides a summary of the 2017 banks and their demand (MW) and energy (MWh)

reduction contributions the overall OG&E demand reduction and energy efficiency programs. Red

highlight indicates banks that were enabled in loss reduction mode only.

Table 33 - IVVC Demand Reductions and Energy Savings

Substation/Bank

Peak Demand

Reduction (MW)

Peak Demand

Reduction (%)

Summer Demand

Reduction Energy Savings

(MWh)

Annualized Loss

Minimization Energy Savings (MWh)

Total Energy Savings (MWh)

Ardmore Bank 4 0.12 0.01 14.10 9.30 23.40

Ardmore Bank 6 0.22 0.02 8.00 25.20 33.20

Ardmore West Bank 3 0.21 0.02 14.70 7.10 21.80

Beeline Bank 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.70

Bowden Bank 1 0.01 0.00 19.90 35.10 55.00

Cedar Ave Bank 1 0.12 0.01 36.20 39.80 76.00

Cedar Ave Bank 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.80

Cedar Ave Bank 3 0.08 0.01 47.20 8.40 55.60

Cherry Creek Bank 1 0.03 0.00 35.60 9.70 45.30




IVVC $2,884,148 $2,113,607 ($770,541) (27)

ProgramBudget

39



Chestnut Bank 1 -0.16 -0.01 30.70 18.80 49.50

Cleveland Ave Bank 1 -0.07 -0.01 34.00 16.50 50.50

Cleveland Ave Bank 2 -0.04 0.00 53.80 9.60 63.40

Crescent Bank 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 137.50 137.50

Glenwood Bank 2 0.23 0.02 53.50 4.30 57.80

Glenwood Bank 3 0.04 0.00 12.70 2.20 14.90

Hancock Bank 1 0.31 0.02 48.10 54.20 102.30

Hancock Bank 2 0.25 0.02 42.00 13.30 55.30

Hancock Bank 3 0.08 0.01 -3.80 6.60 2.80

Hemlock Bank 1 0.14 0.01 40.50 3.60 44.10

Hemlock Bank 2 0.29 0.02 39.60 7.90 47.50

Inglewood Bank 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.70 87.70

Inglewood Bank 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.10 88.10

Lone Grove Bank 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.50

NE Enid Bank 1 -0.10 -0.01 11.30 12.10 23.40

Park Lane Bank 3 0.41 0.03 91.70 29.20 120.90

Remington Park Bank 2 0.12 0.01 45.40 0.60 46.00

Riverside Bank 1 -0.04 0.00 12.40 3.40 15.80

Riverside Bank 2 0.11 0.01 11.60 10.60 22.20

SE 15th St Bank 1 0.28 0.02 79.70 8.50 88.20

South Ada Bank 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.20 17.20

South Ada Bank 3 -0.02 0.00 10.00 1.80 11.80

St Gregory Bank 2 -0.02 0.00 40.40 81.10 121.50

St Gregory Bank 3 0.31 0.02 26.70 4.90 31.60

Tower Heights Bank 1 0.16 0.01 8.80 16.60 25.40

Tower Heights Bank 2 0.16 0.01 6.40 49.90 56.30

Valley View Bank 1 0.03 0.00 74.90 3.00 77.90

Valley View Bank 2 0.03 0.00 53.40 27.90 81.30

Sub Totals/Averages 3.69 0.01 1121.50 896.50 2018.00 Trans. & Sub Loss Reduction

84.10 84.10

Total incl. Trans & Sub Loss Reduction 980.60 2102.10

OG&E utilized the Open System International (“OSI”) VVC system, which improves distribution system

visibility, provides better accuracy and granularity of data, and allows for better forecasting and

integration of real-time data.


The energy and demand savings from the IVVC program were measurably less than planned values for

40



2017. Several factors contributed to the underperformance:

1) OG&E encountered significant deployment and operational challenges. In particular, several circuits included line voltage regulators that were not fully commissioned for the majority of the summer testing period, which contributed to operational constraints and reducing the measured demand and energy impacts.

2) The OSI VVC System was not fully commissioned until June 15, 2017, adversely affecting 2017 overall savings estimates. Further, seven of the thirty-nine deployed banks were not enabled in demand reduction mode due to operational constraints and construction delays. However, these seven banks were enabled in loss reduction mode.

3) Reporting and measurement in the year of deployment presented challenges. In previous deployment years, OG&E has delayed the reporting of benefits to allow for fine tuning of the VVC control scheme to accommodate unexpected field conditions that adversely impact IVVC operation.

OG&E expects the overall operation of VVC to improve with the fine tuning of VVC controls, which

should contribute to significantly improved results from the 2017 deployment going forward.

The following is a general overview of lessons learned:

Refining analytic processes can yield a larger reduction

Additional reduction can be achieved through minor capital improvements

Deploying a new IVVC system can result in commissioning delays of VVC operation, short-term operational constraints, and changes in control schemes

Information technology, effective processes and trusted partners are keys to program success

Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction, or Termination

2018 is the sunset year for IVVC as a Demand Program.

Table 34 - IVVC Circuit Deployment Schedule

Circuits 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Plan 52 60 60 60 72

Actual 61 63 62 68 77

Program Benefits

A key benefit derived from IVVC is shaving peak demand which, if objectives are achieved, will

contribute to OG&E’s effort to avoid new fossil fuel generation until 2020. Also, by shaving peak

demand, OG&E customers avoid the additional incremental energy costs associated with power

generation or purchase during peak periods. Optimizing the voltage profile along the length of the

circuit and reducing voltage at the circuit head creates energy savings that will be passed along to OG&E

customers through a reduction in consumption. IVVC also provides the added benefit of reducing line

losses throughout the year, as well as increased visibility into the condition of IVVC circuits.

41



3.7 Research & Development (“R&D”) Introduction

Research to test and validate new features of program offerings is vital to the success of OG&E's ability to

meet program metrics and customer expectations that will, or may, emerge in Oklahoma. The intent of

R&D activities is to develop knowledge related to potential new EE processes, products, or services.

Findings will be incorporated into future demand portfolio planning. When designing its R&D programs,

OG&E has intentionally focused on the potential of measures to positively impact demand programs and

end-use energy efficiency in general for its customers in Oklahoma.

Technology advancements and cost reductions are creating opportunities to accomplish demand program

goals and objectives with new measures that are increasingly cost-effective. OG&E’s desire with the R&D

programs is to stay ahead of the curve to be prepared for application of emerging technologies in future

energy efficiency and DR programs. OG&E seeks to develop programmatic opportunities with new

technologies now, while their cost-effectiveness under existing demand program cost-effectiveness tests

is marginal or below benefit to cost ratios of one. This will enable OG&E to evaluate the viability of

emerging technologies in practical use cases while simultaneously studying cost trends to develop

forecasts of cost reductions that will help identify the timeframes within which such measures are market-

ready and sufficiently cost-effective to be included in demand programs.

OG&E’s R&D projects seek to strike a balance of multiple considerations: peak demand reduction, energy

savings, capacity savings, customer and market education, and market development and transformation.

In addition, OG&E endeavors with its R&D projects to learn how application of these tools and

technologies can empower customers to make the most efficient use of utility capacity and energy, thus

reducing energy waste.

Program Budget Table 35 - R&D Costs

Table 36 – R&D Budget Variance

Budget Variance: 2017 R&D budget needs were not as extensive as originally estimated. R&D was 76%

under budget.

Findings and Analysis

For the 2016-2018 DPR Research and Development program, OG&E originally planned 4 studies.

Specifically, they were:

Delivery Marketing

R&D $132,880 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $132,880

ProgramProgram Administration


AdministrationTotal


R&D $565,000 $132,880 ($432,120) (76)

ProgramBudget

42



Residential In-Home Premium Technology products and services

Commercial and Small Industrial Price Response Participation

Load Disaggregation / Technology

LED Lighting Services

As described in the “OG&E 2016 Demand Portfolio R&D report”, OG&E recommended that no further R&D

investment be made in pursuing the research projects of Residential In-Home Premium Technology and

fee paid products and services, Commercial and Small Industrial Price Response Participation, and Load

Disaggregation / Technology, due to research findings indicating less than favorable impact on EE / DR.

The LED Lighting Services project continued to move forward and results of the Moore and OKC R&D

programs were discussed in the OG&E Demand Portfolio Stakeholder meeting held October 26th, 2017

and are described below.

As also communicated in the Stakeholder meetings held March 10th, 2017 and October 26th, 2017, OG&E

proposed alternative research and development to replace the planned studies that were discontinued.

These updated programs are:

2017-2108 DR / EE Revised Research Studies

• New Technologies

• Direct Solar Panel Powered Hot Water Efficiency

• Storage for Low Income / Senior Multi-Family Demand Response / Energy Efficiency

• Electric Vehicle Charging

• Electric Vehicle charging with Batteries for Demand Response

• Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment Efficiency

In 2017 for each of the DR/EE revised research studies, OG&E identified and defined the problem,

researched viable solutions and designed the experiment with hypotheses related to the expected

outcomes. Results of any of the research and development undertaken in 2017 on these revised studies

is documented below.

Direct Solar Panel Powered Hot Water Efficiency

Water heaters are energy intensive, whether used in the home or for commercial purposes. As an

example, for homeowners, heating water is the 2nd largest energy expense behind heating and cooling.

Recently, technology for hot water heaters that use energy generated by rooftop photovoltaic (“PV”) solar

panels has become commercially available.

It is important for OG&E to understand the potential for this renewable energy technology to save energy

in both residential and commercial settings.

43



There are two hypotheses for this project:

1. Solar PV powered water heating is practical in a single-family home application in OG&E’s service

territory and can produce energy savings when compared to conventional water heating

methods.

2. There are several specific commercial applications where Solar PV powered water heating may

be appropriate and can produce energy savings when compared to conventional water heating.

This project is intended to quantify the efficiencies of this technology in comparison to traditional water

heating systems in real-world usage scenarios and understand if it can result in a positive cost / benefit

energy efficiency measure for inclusion in a future demand program.

OG&E initiated the design of the research in October of 2017, based upon the following high-level

requirements:

Requirement Objective Measurement

Install residential and commercial test systems

Install testing systems for evaluation of future DR

/ EE program measures / programs

Measure install time / cost /

issues / risks

Meter and collect data on energy use

Understand impacts / savings opportunity of solar PV systems

Understand sizing of systems for residential and commercial product design

Capture data for usage in study

Measure forecasted consumption vs actual consumption of energy to heat water

Measure energy production by PV vs energy consumption to completely heat water

Document benefits from developing this study

Capture benefits as a product of the study as an input to future programs / measures utilizing this technology

Measure actual vs hypothesized benefits

Document and track all costs related to developing and deploying this R&D project

Fully understand all costs related to development and installation of this project to have inputs to future DR / EE program measures / programs

[All] Cost metrics

Understand, document and track all related / ongoing O&M

Understand what this will cost to own / maintain in order to provide this benefit to customer segment

All O&M data / information documented and tracked

OG&E began the implementation in late December 2017 at its North District Service Department. This

location was selected to test the technology for several reasons. First, this is an existing OG&E owned

facility which resulted in no additional cost to procure or prepare the research site. Next, this site had

more than sufficient available space to perform the installation and engineering of the test technology

without effect on the facility or the personnel. Finally, this location is isolated from any customer induced

variations and allows for a controlled experiment upon which to test the hypotheses. The completion of

the project will be accomplished in 2018. This includes the conclusion of implementation, conducting the

research, testing the hypothesis, analyzing the data and then formulating conclusions by reviewing the

44



data and determining if it confirms or disproves the hypothesis.

Storage for Low Income / Senior Multi-Family Demand Response / Energy Efficiency

As the cost of electric energy storage (batteries) continues to decline, the use of this technology to manage

energy use and shift peak demand will become more prevalent. It is important that OG&E gain a deeper

understanding of how this technology works in a real-world application. This project is intended to

quantify the efficiencies and effectiveness of this technology and understand if it can result in a positive

cost / benefit energy efficiency measure for inclusion in a future demand program.


1. Battery technology can be effectively applied on a multi-family, low-income (or senior / fixed-

income) housing facility and operated in a way that improves load factor of the facility by storing

energy in the battery during off-peak periods and dispatching energy from the battery during peak

periods, thus reducing stress on grid infrastructure assets. In doing so, it will also reduce

customers’ energy bills at the facility through charging the batteries with low cost (off peak)

energy and discharging the batteries during the (on peak) higher priced energy times of the day.

As an added benefit, the batteries will provide improved reliability especially for this sensitive

customer segment that have life-sustaining medical devices or critical needs that require energy

to keep the devices functioning.

2. Applying battery technology in a low-income (or senior / fixed-income) neighborhood will

increase the penetration of the broader energy efficiency programs with these customers and

others.

This technology is applicable to most residential customers however, this project is targeted to low-

income and senior / fixed-income customers who may not have financial access to battery technology

unless specific programs are put in place to engage this traditionally hard-to-reach market. This may be

particularly true with low-income or senior customers living in multi-family dwelling units where there

may be even less incentive for facility owners and property managers to participate in technology

programs such as energy storage/batteries. In an effort to address this concern, a number of utilities

around the country have piloted low-income electric energy storage (battery) projects integrated with

energy efficiency programs in order to gain the benefits of this technology and, at the same time, increase

the penetration of EE programs with these customers.

OG&E initiated the design of the research in 2017, based upon the following high-level requirements:

Requirement Objective(s) Measurement

Install battery and control technology at a multi-family / low income (and/or senior) housing facility

Deploy DER technology

Create model for future low-income DR / EE programs / measures

Understand grid impacts with this type of system / install

Measure install time / cost / issues / risks

Measure impacts on Grid / systems

45



Meter and collect data on storage system utilization and customer energy use

Capture data for usage in study Measure forecasted storage utilization vs actual storage utilization

Measure forecasted customer usage vs actual customer usage

Study customer behavior and usage in relationship to implementation of technology

Understand behavioral changes due to having DER technology

Understand sizing of DER installation in relationship to forecasted consumption

Study changes in customer consumption in comparison to forecasted and actual storage availability






[All] Cost metrics




The completion of project is targeted to be accomplished in 2018. This includes the conclusion of

experimental design, conducting the research, testing the hypothesis, analyzing the data and then

formulating conclusions by reviewing the data and determining if it confirms or disproves the hypothesis.

Electric Vehicle Charging with Batteries for Demand Response

The adoption of electric vehicles (“EV”) in OG&E’s service territory will drive the installation of EV charging

stations at homes, businesses and public locations. The impact of EV charging stations on the OG&E grid

could be significant due to the potential for

usage during system peak periods. This

may be especially true for the use of fast

chargers (also known as Level 3 chargers)

located on the Interstate Highway system

where drivers are likely to charge during

peak drive times, including afternoons

which coincide with OG&E’s system peak.

This is in contrast to home EV charging,

which is more likely to be scheduled

overnight during the off peak. Additionally,

Level 3 chargers draw a greater demand on

grid capacity when they are in use when

compared with level 1 or level 2 charging.

A potential solution to lessen the impact of

Level 3 charging on OG&E’s grid capacity is

46



to use electric energy storage (batteries). The batteries would store energy prior to OG&E system peak

and then discharge the energy during EV charging on the system peak, offsetting customer energy demand

and reducing the strain of the grid infrastructure.

There is one hypothesis for this project:

1. Electric energy storage (battery) technology can be effectively operated to support a Level 3

charging station on a highway corridor in a manner that offsets customer energy demand and

associated demand charges and improves the load factor on the associated circuit.

This project will quantify the Level 3 charging station load in relationship to the opportunity to discharge

the electric energy storage during the system peak. This will measure the offset of customer energy

demand and associated demand charges as well as improvement to the load factor and capacity reduction

on the associated circuit. This project is intended to quantify the efficiencies and effectiveness of this

technology and understand if it can result in a positive cost / benefit energy efficiency measure for

inclusion in a future demand program.

This project will benefit all customers as it tests whether electric energy storage (i.e. battery) technology

is effective in managing OG&E system impact of an emerging, potentially significant load (i.e. Level 3

charging stations).



Install level 3 EVSE,

battery and control

technology

Deploy technology

Create model for future DR / EE programs / measures

Understand grid impacts with this type of system / install




Capture data for usage in study

Understand sizing of DER installation in relationship to forecasted consumption

Measure forecasted storage utilization vs actual storage utilization







[All] Cost metrics


Understand what this will cost to own / maintain in order to provide this benefit to future customers


47



Completion of the project is targeted to be accomplished in 2018. This includes the conclusion of

experimental design, conducting the research, testing the hypothesis, analysing the data and then

formulating conclusions by reviewing the data and determining if it confirms or disproves the hypothesis.

Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment Efficiency

EV charging equipment is available in varying voltage and electric current configurations, referred to in

the marketplace as Level 1 (110-120 V AC), Level 2 (220-240 V AC) and Level 3 (480 V DC +). These three

different chargers are reported to require different amounts of grid energy to produce the same level of

battery charge in an EV.

As EVs become more prevalent in the OG&E service territory, it becomes important for OG&E to

understand the demand program/energy efficiency potential for each type of EV charger under real world

conditions (e.g., temperature, EV battery charge state, length of charge, type of vehicle, etc.).


1. EV Level 2 charging equipment is more energy

efficient than EV Level 1 charging equipment and is

practical in home and office charging applications.

2. EV Level 3 charging equipment is more energy

efficient than EV Level 2 charging equipment and is

practical in office, retail and other charging applications.

This project will quantify the efficiencies of each of these

technologies in comparison to each other and model the

optimized energy efficiency situational and customer

application of each of these levels of EV charging.

This project will benefit all customers as it tests whether higher level EV charging equipment can reduce

the use of OG&E grid energy. This project will also benefit EV customers as it will demonstrate the

potential cost savings that can be achieved by owning more efficient charging equipment.



Install level 1, level 2 and

level 3 equipment

appropriate for test

Have level 1, 2 and 3 in a controlled environment to measure

Reuse of existing level 2 in study



48




Capture data for usage in study Measure forecasted storage utilization vs actual storage utilization







[All] Cost metrics




Completion of the project will be accomplished in 2018. This includes the conclusion of experimental

design, conducting the research, testing the hypothesis, analyzing the data and then formulating

conclusions by reviewing the data and determining if it confirms or disproves the hypothesis.

LED Lighting Services

In 2017, OG&E successfully deployed two technical demonstrations in the Oklahoma City Metro area to

confirm that LED technology was viable, provided additional energy efficiencies to their customers, and

advanced controls and management to the utility. To implement this research project, OG&E installed 102

LED luminaires in three locations (Buck Thomas Park in Moore,

Adventure and Innovation Districts in OKC). These LED luminaires

are equipped with 102 sample smart photo controls each with

integrated Silver Springs Network (SSN) network viability. These

luminaires were tested with 1-10v dimming (10% to 100%), GPS

reporting, and on/off functionality. They were tested as well for

communications utilizing both a local communication test software

and Street Light Vision (SLV).

49



The findings of the study are that the efficiency of the LED compared to an HPS (HID) light is approximately

a 50% energy savings based on the installed wattage of the LED's. Most LED fixtures will have a 40-60%

savings based on comparison to past configurations. As to the fixtures, no outages or failures of any type

has been reported. A few of the controls had minimal issues due to wiring and installation problems, but

otherwise the 3 systems have worked flawlessly.

The SLV software has

performed as projected

and has more features

than expected.

Midwest City Geo

Targeting Pilot

The Midwest City geo-targeting pilot was undertaken to determine if a focused energy efficiency effort

targeted to a specific geographic area could 1) increase participation rates in energy efficiency

programs, 2) potentially lower the transformer loading, and 3) reduce billing related call volumes to the

OG&E call center in the target area. Internal research identified an area in Midwest City as a good

candidate for this pilot. The targeted area has relatively low participation in OG&E’s energy efficiency

programs, peak summer transformer loading at or just above capacity, and a high volume of billing

related calls. In addition to the target neighborhood in Midwest City, a neighborhood in The Village,

with a similar customer mix, energy efficiency participation, transformer loading and call volume, was

identified as a good candidate for a control neighborhood. The purpose of the control neighborhood

was to provide data on a geographic area receiving energy efficiency services on business as usual basis

for comparison to the Midwest City target neighborhood. The pilot was designed so only the marketing

effort was increased in the target neighborhood; there were no changes in the existing programs or the

inducement structure.

The Midwest City geo-targeting area below shows the overloaded transformers identified in the specific

targeted area. This area is located just north of Tinker Air Force Base.

50



Once both the target and control areas were identified, marketing plans were developed to focus on the

Midwest City neighborhood. The control neighborhood in The Village was planned to receive the same

energy efficiency marketing as the rest of the OG&E service territory. The increased marketing activity

and outreach in the Midwest City target area over the summer is shown below.

51



After the summer promotion period, the data collected indicate the marketing and outreach were

successful when comparing participation uptake between the target and control neighborhoods. The

results are shown below.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Test Control Test Control Test Control

Weatherization HEEP Small Business

Completions Enrollments Inquiries

52



While the data gathering for energy efficiency program uptake was relatively straightforward, the data

for transformer loading and call center billing call volumes proved to be more difficult to capture.

Equally challenging was developing models to adjust the data for weather, determining other variables

that may impact results and ensuring robust statistical models. Although data gathering and modeling

were planned to be complete early in the summer, this work continued through the end of 2017.

Despite the extended data collection modeling period, some anecdotal results proved positive,

however, more work needs to be completed before more meaningful results can be determined.

As a result of efforts in 2017 there were some lessons learned the will help guide efforts in 2018. These

include:

Start Early

o Plan marketing in advance with geo-targeting in mind

o Secure buy-in and alignment among project team

o Establish certainty that data is available, and any issues have been identified

Data is Key

o Cement understandings about who is collecting what and how

o Secure alignment on data assembly and exchange logistics

o Agree upon systems and processes to be used and support to be provided

Modeling Challenges

o Weather normalization is not trivial and can be done several ways

o Model specification, selection of explanatory terms drives results

o Statistical robustness is the key, more than just an R-Squared and alignment around

“what is good enough”.

To better analyze the data to determine if the desired outcomes are being achieved, the pilot study and

analysis will continue into 2018.

Next Steps

Results of any of this research undertaken will be discussed in the next OG&E Demand Portfolio

Stakeholder meeting as well in the fall of 2018.

53



3.8 Planning & Regulatory Table 37 - Planning Costs

Table 38 – Planning Budget Variance

Variance: Most of the planning and regulatory expense will occur in 2018.

Delivery Marketing

Planning &

Regulatory$0.00 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $263 $263



Administration


Planning &

Regulatory$120,000 $263 ($119,737) (100)

ProgramBudget

54




55



4.0 Evaluation Measurement & Verification (“EM&V”)

4.1 EM&V Overview EM&V services where provided by ADM Associates. Their extensive report can be seen in attachment

5.1. At the Portfolio level the results are a NET savings of 28,876 kW and 147,479,258 kWh which is

152% of kWh goal with a TRC of 1.65 and a UCT of 2.32.

56




57



4.2 Program Evaluations Table 39 - Program Evaluations

Impact Metric HEEP PE-NHC WRAP CEEP IVVC Total

Goals (Net) 27,857,573 1,991,220 7,983,302 53,222,962 5,938,800 96,993,857

Reported (Gross) 58,013,381 4,416,075 12,606,403 92,793,181 n/a 167,829,040

Evaluated (Gross) 60,636,999 5,042,218 11,733,069 100,021,926 2,102,200 179,536,413

Realization Rate 105% 114% 93% 108% n/a 107.0%

Evaluated (Net) 45,590,079 4,251,672 11,733,069 83,802,238 2,102,200 147,479,258

NTG Ratio 75% 84% 100% 84% 100% 82.1%

% of Goal (Net) 164% 214% 147% 157% 35% 152.1%

Lifetime (Net) 548,894,808 63,775,078 184,003,588 911,799,308 31,533,000 1,740,005,782

Goals (Net) 7,206 1,306 2,106 10,360 15,150 36,128

Reported (Gross) 9,991.29 1,289.82 3,830.16 14,916.49 n/a 30,028

Evaluated (Gross) 9,432.67 1,326.75 3,296.27 15,484.10 4,040.00 33,579.78

Realization Rate 94% 103% 86% 104% n/a 111.8%

Evaluated (Net) 7,399.19 1,255.22 3,296.27 12,885.44 4,040.00 28,876

NTG Ratio 78% 95% 100% 83% 100% 86%

% of Goal (Net) 103% 96% 157% 124% 27% 79.9%

Energy Savings

(kWh)

Annual Demand

Reduction (kW)

58




59



4.3 Program Ratios Table 40 - Program Cost-Effectiveness Ratios with revised Labor

Program TRC UCT RIM PCT SCTTRC Net

Benefits

HEEP 3.37 3.34 0.63 8.65 4.95 $23,541,213.57

PE-NHC 2.48 4.04 0.61 2.67 3.48 $3,196,816.28

WRAP 2.83 2.83 0.83 3.77 4.30 $8,490,182.12

CEEP 1.58 3.42 0.69 2.62 2.21 $21,407,491.24

IVVC 0.52 0.52 0.47 1.11 0.73 -$8,375,970.02

Energy Education Res0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -$354,215.40

Energy Education C&I0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -$432,929.93

Planning 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -$262.58

Regulatory 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00

R&D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -$132,880.08

Total 1.65 2.32 0.65 2.85 2.37 $47,339,445.19

60




61



5.0 Attachments

62




63



5.1 ADM Demand Program Evaluation for 2017 with Cost Effectiveness

Analysis

64




65



5.2 ADM IVVC Report

66




67



5.3 Smart Hours Report

68




69



5.4 RAP LivingWise™ Report

70




71



5.5 Marketing Materials

72




73



5.6 Water Savings Calculation Methodology

74




75



5.7 Implementer Information

76




77



5.8 Letter to PUD

78




Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OG&E) Oklahoma Demand Program Evaluation for PY2017

Final Report

Prepared for:

Oklahoma Gas & Electric (OG&E) in Oklahoma

In accordance with annual reporting requirements:

Title 165: Oklahoma Corporation Commission

Chapter 35. Electric Utility Rules

Subchapter 41. Demand Programs

165:35-41-7. Reporting

September 25, 2018

Prepared by:

Joshua Levig

Mike Matheus, PE, CEM

Mark Ewalt

Jeremy Offenstein, Ph.D.

Robert Oliver

Lisa Stefanik, PMP, MBA with Tetra Tech Pam Rathbun with Tetra Tech

OG&E Oklahoma Demand Program Portfolio Evaluation

3

Table of Contents

TABLES OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... 12

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 13

1.1 DEMAND PROGRAM OFFERINGS ........................................................................................................ 13

1.2 EVALUATION OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................. 15

1.3 EVALUATION FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 15

1.4 SUMMARY OF PORTFOLIO BENEFIT-COST RATIOS .............................................................................. 19

1.5 SUMMARY OF PROCESS EVALUATION FINDINGS ................................................................................. 20

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT ............................................................................................................ 23

2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 24

2.1 PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................................................. 24

2.1.1 Residential Portfolio Programs .............................................................................................. 24

2.1.2 Commercial & Industrial Programs........................................................................................ 25

2.2 HIGH-VOLUME ELECTRICITY USER OPT OUT ..................................................................................... 27

2.3 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION & STRATEGIC ALLIANCES ....................................................................... 27

2.4 EVALUATION MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION ................................................................................ 27

2.5 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION EFFORT ................................................................................................... 28

2.6 HIGH IMPACT MEASURES (HIMS) ...................................................................................................... 28

2.6.1 Residential Programs ............................................................................................................ 28

2.6.2 C&I Programs ........................................................................................................................ 29

3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 32

3.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 32

3.2 GLOSSARY OF TERMINOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 32

3.3 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 33

3.3.1 Sampling ................................................................................................................................ 33

3.3.2 Census .................................................................................................................................. 33

3.3.3 Simple Random Sampling ..................................................................................................... 34

3.3.4 Stratified Random Sampling .................................................................................................. 34

3.3.5 Free ridership ........................................................................................................................ 35

3.3.6 Impact Evaluation Activities by Program ............................................................................... 35

3.3.7 Net-to-Gross Approach by Program ...................................................................................... 36

3.4 OVERVIEW OF PROCESS EVALUATION ............................................................................................... 36

3.4.1 General Approach ................................................................................................................. 36

4. HOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM (HEEP) ......................................................................... 38

4.1 EVALUATION FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 38

4.2 PROGRAM OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 38

4.2.1 Residential Solutions (RSOL) and Schools Outreach ........................................................... 39

4.2.2 HVAC Replacement & Tune-up Channel .............................................................................. 39

4.2.3 Consumer Products ............................................................................................................... 40

4.3 IMPACT EVALUATION APPROACH ....................................................................................................... 41

4.3.1 Energy Savings Calculations ................................................................................................. 41

4.3.2 On-site Procedures and Findings .......................................................................................... 56


4

4.3.3 Verified Savings by Measure ................................................................................................. 58

4.4 GROSS SAVINGS SUMMARY AND FINDINGS ........................................................................................ 64

4.4.1 Residential Solutions ............................................................................................................. 64

4.4.2 Schools Outreach .................................................................................................................. 66

4.4.3 HVAC Replacement and Tune-up ......................................................................................... 67


4.5 NET SAVINGS SUMMARY AND FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 68

4.5.1 Residential Solutions ............................................................................................................. 68

4.5.2 Schools Outreach .................................................................................................................. 74

4.5.3 HVAC Replacement and Tune-up ......................................................................................... 75


4.6 PROCESS EVALUATION SUMMARY AND FINDINGS ............................................................................... 84

4.6.1 Residential Solutions Channel .............................................................................................. 84

4.6.2 HVAC Replacement and Tune-up Channel .......................................................................... 98

4.6.3 Consumer Products Channel .............................................................................................. 110

4.7 PLANNED PROGRAM CHANGES ....................................................................................................... 117

4.8 CONCLUSIONS & PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 117

4.8.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 117

4.8.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 118

5. POSITIVE ENERGY – NEW HOME CONSTRUCTION (PE-NHC) ................................................. 120

5.1 EVALUATION FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 120

5.2 PROGRAM OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 120

5.3 IMPACT EVALUATION APPROACH ..................................................................................................... 123

5.3.1 Energy Savings Calculations ............................................................................................... 123

5.3.2 UDRH baseline homes ........................................................................................................ 124

5.3.3 On-site Verification Procedure ............................................................................................ 124

5.4 GROSS SAVINGS SUMMARY AND FINDINGS ...................................................................................... 125

5.4.1 Sampling Plan ..................................................................................................................... 125

5.4.2 Verified Savings................................................................................................................... 126

5.4.3 Realization Rates ................................................................................................................ 127

5.5 NET SAVINGS SUMMARY AND FINDINGS ........................................................................................... 127

5.5.1 Program Components Score ............................................................................................... 127

5.5.2 Program Influence Score ..................................................................................................... 128

5.5.3 PE-NHC No Program Score ................................................................................................ 128

5.5.4 Participant Spillover Methodology ....................................................................................... 128

5.5.5 Net Savings Results ............................................................................................................ 129

5.6 PROCESS EVALUATION ................................................................................................................... 130

5.6.1 Data Collection Activities ..................................................................................................... 130

5.6.2 Process Evaluation Results and Findings ........................................................................... 130

5.6.3 Builder Feedback ................................................................................................................ 132

5.7 PLANNED PROGRAM CHANGES ....................................................................................................... 134

5.8 CONCLUSIONS & PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 134

5.8.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 134


6. WEATHERIZATION RESIDENTIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (WRAP) ..................................... 136



5


6.3 GROSS IMPACT EVALUATION APPROACH ......................................................................................... 139

6.3.1 Air Infiltration Reduction Savings Calculations .................................................................... 139

6.3.2 Ceiling Insulation Savings Calculations .............................................................................. 141

6.3.3 Ceiling Fan Savings Calculations ........................................................................................ 142

6.3.4 Duct Sealing Savings Calculations...................................................................................... 143

6.3.5 Light-emitting Diodes (LEDs) Savings Calculations ............................................................ 146

6.3.6 Water Heater Pipe Insulation Savings Calculations ............................................................ 147

6.3.7 Windows Savings Calculations ........................................................................................... 148

6.4 ON-SITE PROCEDURES AND FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 149

6.4.1 Sampling Plan for the Impact Evaluation ............................................................................ 149

6.4.2 Verification Procedure ......................................................................................................... 150

6.5 IMPACT EVALUATION SUMMARY AND FINDINGS ................................................................................ 153


6.6.1 Data Collection Activities ..................................................................................................... 156

6.6.2 Process Evaluation Results and Findings ........................................................................... 157

6.7 TRACKING DATABASE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 161

6.8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 162

6.8.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 162


7. COMMERCIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM (CEEP) ......................................................... 164



7.3 GROSS IMPACT EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 172

7.3.1 Midstream Lighting Impact Evaluation Activities ................................................................. 174

7.3.2 HVAC Tune-up Impact Evaluation Activities ....................................................................... 179

7.3.3 CEI Impact Evaluation Activities.......................................................................................... 179

7.4 IMPACT DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................ 180

7.5 GROSS IMPACT FINDINGS ............................................................................................................... 181

7.5.1 Large C&I Gross Impact Findings ....................................................................................... 182

7.5.2 SAGE Gross Impact Findings ............................................................................................. 183

7.5.3 SBDI Gross Impact Findings ............................................................................................... 184

7.5.4 Midstream Lighting Gross Impact Findings ......................................................................... 185

7.5.5 HVAC Tune-up Gross Impact Findings ............................................................................... 186

7.5.6 CEI Gross Impact Findings ................................................................................................. 187

7.6 NET TO GROSS EVALUATION ........................................................................................................... 188

7.6.1 Free Ridership Estimation ................................................................................................... 188

7.6.2 Spillover Estimation ............................................................................................................. 192

7.7 NET SAVINGS RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 193

7.7.1 Large C&I ............................................................................................................................ 193

7.7.2 SAGE ................................................................................................................................... 194

7.7.3 SBDI .................................................................................................................................... 195

7.7.4 Midstream Lighting .............................................................................................................. 196

7.7.5 HVAC Tune-up .................................................................................................................... 197

7.7.6 CEI ....................................................................................................................................... 198

7.7.7 Summary of Net Savings Results........................................................................................ 199



6

7.8.1 Program Staff Interviews ..................................................................................................... 200

7.8.2 Participating Customer Surveys .......................................................................................... 200

7.8.3 Participating Trade Ally / Midstream In-Depth Interviews ................................................... 200

7.8.4 Process Evaluation Findings ............................................................................................... 201

7.9 PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 220

APPENDIX A. PORTFOLIO COST-EFFECTIVENESS ........................................................................... 223

A.1 OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 223

A.2 APPROACH ................................................................................................................................ 223

A.3 ECONOMIC INPUTS FOR COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS ............................................................ 226

A.4 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................... 226

APPENDIX B. CEEP PARTICIPANT SURVEY RESPONSE RATE ....................................................... 229

APPENDIX C. HEEP PARTICIPANT SURVEY RESPONSE RATE ....................................................... 230


7

Table of Tables

Table 1-1 OG&E’s Demand Program Portfolio ..........................................................................13

Table 1-2 PY2017 OG&E Portfolio Evaluation Impacts .............................................................16

Table 1-3 OG&E's 2017 Performance against Energy Savings Targets (kWh) ..........................18

Table 1-4 Summary of Budgets and Actual Spend ....................................................................19

Table 1-5 Cost Benefit Estimates and Net Benefits Summary ...................................................20

Table 2-1 High Volume Electricity User Opt Out – Demand Programs ......................................27

Table 2-2 OG&E’s Portfolio EM&V Expenditures ......................................................................28

Table 3-1 NTG Approach by Program .......................................................................................36

Table 4-1 Energy Savings Summary for HEEP in PY2017 ........................................................38

Table 4-2 Demand Reduction Summary for HEEP in PY2017 ..................................................38

Table 4-3 PY2017 HEEP Participation Summary by Channel ...................................................41

Table 4-4 Arkansas TRM Sections by Measure Type................................................................43

Table 4-5 Ceiling Insulation (R-38) – Deemed Savings Values - Zone 8 ...................................45

Table 4-6 Ceiling Insulation (R-49) – Deemed Savings Values - Zone 8 ...................................45

Table 4-7 ENERGY STAR® Replacement for Single-Pane Window - Zone 8 ...........................45

Table 4-8 ENERGY STAR® Replacement for Double-Pane Window - Zone 8 ..........................46

Table 4-9 ENERGY STAR® Variable Speed Pool Pumps .........................................................46

Table 4-10 ENERGY STAR® Multi-Speed Pool Pumps ............................................................46

Table 4-11 Arkansas TRM Sections by Measure Type ..............................................................48

Table 4-12 Deemed Savings Values for Duct Sealing Calculations ...........................................52

Table 4-13 PY2017 Leakage Estimates ....................................................................................56

Table 4-14 Energy Star Window Savings Summary ..................................................................59

Table 4-15 Ceiling Insulation Savings Summary .......................................................................59

Table 4-16 Air Infiltration Savings Summary .............................................................................60

Table 4-17 Pool Pump Savings Summary .................................................................................60

Table 4-18 Showerhead Savings Summary ..............................................................................60

Table 4-19 Aerator Savings Summary ......................................................................................60

Table 4-20 Single-family LED Bulbs Savings Summary ............................................................61

Table 4-21 Multifamily LED Bulbs Savings Summary ................................................................61

Table 4-22 Single-family Advanced Power Strip Savings Summary ..........................................61

Table 4-23 Multifamily Advanced Power Strip Savings Summary..............................................61

Table 4-24 Kits Ex Post Savings Savings Summary..................................................................62


8

Table 4-25 HVAC Replacement Savings Summary ..................................................................62

Table 4-26 Tune-up Savings Summary .....................................................................................63

Table 4-27 Duct Sealing Gross Savings Summary ....................................................................63

Table 4-28 Gross Summary for Consumer Products .................................................................63

Table 4-29 SF and MF Combined Savings Summary for PY2017 .............................................64

Table 4-30 Single-family Savings Summary by Measure for PY2017 ........................................65

Table 4-31 Multifamily Savings Summary by Measure for PY2017 ...........................................65

Table 4-32 SF and MF Combined Lifetime Savings Summary for PY2017 ................................65

Table 4-33 Single-family Lifetime Savings Summary by Measure for PY2017 ..........................66

Table 4-34 Multifamily Gross Lifetime Savings Summary by Measure ......................................66

Table 4-35 Schools Outreach Savings Summary ......................................................................66

Table 4-36 Lifetime Savings Summary by Measure for PY2017 ...............................................67

Table 4-37 Gross Savings Summary for HVAC Replacement ...................................................67

Table 4-38 HVAC Replacement Lifetime Savings Summary .....................................................67

Table 4-39 Savings Summary for Consumer Products ..............................................................68

Table 4-40 Lifetime Savings Summary for Consumer Products ................................................68

Table 4-41 Single-family Measure Level Free ridership .............................................................72

Table 4-42 Single-family Spillover Savings for Reported Measures ..........................................72

Table 4-43 Net Energy (kWh) Savings for HEEP Residential Solutions ....................................73

Table 4-44 Peak Demand (kW) Reductions for HEEP Residential Solutions .............................73

Table 4-45 SF and MF Combined Net Lifetime Savings Summary ............................................73

Table 4-46 SF Combined Net Lifetime Savings Summary .........................................................74

Table 4-47 MF Combined Net Lifetime Savings Summary ........................................................74

Table 4-48 Net Energy (kWh) Savings for HEEP Schools Outreach .........................................74

Table 4-49 Peak Demand (kW) Reductions for HEEP Schools Outreach..................................75

Table 4-50 Schools Outreach Net Lifetime Savings Summary ..................................................75

Table 4-51 Final Interview Dispositions for Multifamily Contacts ...............................................79

Table 4-52 HEEP HVAC Measure Level Free ridership ............................................................79

Table 4-53 HEEP HVAC Spillover Savings for Reported Measures ..........................................80

Table 4-54 Net Energy Savings (kWh) Savings for HVAC Channel ...........................................80

Table 4-55 Net kW Demand Reductions for HVAC Channel .....................................................80

Table 4-56 Net Lifetime Energy Savings for HVAC Channel .....................................................81

Table 4-57 Net kWh Savings for HEEP Consumer Products .....................................................83

Table 4-58 Net kW Peak Demand Reductions for HEEP Consumer Products ..........................83


9

Table 4-59 Net Lifetime Savings Summary for Consumer Products Channel ............................83

Table 4-60 How learned of program ..........................................................................................86

Table 4-61 Reasons for program participation...........................................................................87

Table 4-62 When you had your home energy assessment, did the assessor. . . .......................90

Table 4-63 HEEP Residential Solutions: Satisfaction by Program Component..........................92

Table 4-64 Familiarity with benefits of energy efficiency improvements prior to assessment .....94

Table 4-65 Familiarity with benefits of energy saving activities prior to assessment ..................95

Table 4-66 As a result of program, how much more knowledgeable about energy efficiency? ..96

Table 4-67 HEEP Residential Solutions Participant Characteristics ..........................................97

Table 4-68: How Customer learned of program....................................................................... 100

Table 4-69 Reasons for program participation......................................................................... 101

Table 4-70 HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement: Satisfaction by Program Component ... 104

Table 4-71 Familiarity with benefits of energy efficiency improvements prior to program participation ..................................................................................................................... 106

Table 4-72 Familiarity with benefits of energy saving activities prior to program participation.. 107

Table 4-73 As a result of program, how much more knowledgeable about energy efficiency? 108

Table 4-74 HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement Participant Characteristics .................... 110

Table 4-75 Could you correctly identify a typical incandescent light bulb, a CFL, and a LED light bulb if placed in front of you, outside of their packaging? ................................................. 112

Table 4-76 OG&E program participants who have purchased LEDs ....................................... 113

Table 4-77 Type of bulbs LEDs replaced ................................................................................ 113

Table 4-78 Name of retailer where LED bulbs were purchased in past six months ................. 114

Table 4-79 Deciding factors when selecting bulbs for purchase .............................................. 115

Table 4-80 Likelihood of purchasing LEDs if they cost more than $2.50 per bulb .................... 116

Table 4-81 Aware OG&E discounted certain LED bulbs in 2017 ............................................. 116

Table 4-82 Bulb Types Purchased Prior to 2017 ..................................................................... 116

Table 5-1 Energy Savings Summary for PE-NHC in PY2017 .................................................. 120

Table 5-2 Demand Reduction Summary for PE-NHC in PY2017 ............................................ 120

Table 5-3 Participants and Savings per Program Strata .......................................................... 121

Table 5-4 Participating and Savings per Builder ...................................................................... 122

Table 5-5 Participation and Savings per HERS Rater ............................................................. 123

Table 5-6 UDRH Key Assumptions ......................................................................................... 124

Table 5-7 Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings per Strata ................................................................. 125

Table 5-8 Sampling Plan ......................................................................................................... 126

Table 5-9 Gross Program Energy Savings .............................................................................. 126


10

Table 5-10 Gross Program Demand Reduction....................................................................... 126

Table 5-11 Summary of Builder Net Savings Results .............................................................. 129

Table 5-12 Summary of Net kWh Savings for PE-NHC ........................................................... 129

Table 5-13 Summary of Net kW Peak Demand Reductions for PE-NHC................................. 130

Table 6-1 Gross Electric Savings Summary, by Measure, for PY2017 .................................... 136

Table 6-2 Gross Lifetime Savings Summary by Measure for PY2017 ..................................... 136

Table 6-3 Participation by Residence Type ............................................................................. 138

Table 6-4 Number of Residences Receiving Measure Types .................................................. 139

Table 6-5 Deemed Savings Values for Air Infiltration Reduction ............................................. 140

Table 6-6 Deemed Savings Values for R-38 Ceiling Insulation, Zone 8A ................................ 141

Table 6-7 Deemed Savings Values for Energy Star Windows, Zone 8A .................................. 148

Table 6-8 Ex Ante Savings by Measure, OG&E ...................................................................... 153

Table 6-9 Ex Post Gross Savings by Measure ........................................................................ 154

Table 6-10 Overall Gross Realization Rates by Measure ........................................................ 155

Table 6-11 Ex Post Net Electricity Savings, OG&E ................................................................. 155

Table 6-12 Interview and Survey Data Collection Summary .................................................... 157

Table 6-13 How Participants Learned of the Program ............................................................. 158

Table 6-14 Reasons for program participation......................................................................... 158

Table 6-15 Length of wait between scheduling and appointment ............................................ 160

Table 6-16 Length of wait between assessment and work day ................................................ 160

Table 6-17 WRAP Participant Characteristics ......................................................................... 161

Table 7-1 Ex Ante and Ex Post Gross kWh Savings by Sampling Stratum .............................. 164

Table 7-2 CEEP Net kWh Savings Summary .......................................................................... 165

Table 7-3 CEEP Net kW Savings Summary ............................................................................ 165

Table 7-4 CEEP Gross Lifetime Savings by Stratum ............................................................... 166

Table 7-5 OG&E’s PY2017 CEEP Program Summary ............................................................ 169

Table 7-6 Baseline, Ex-Ante and Ex Post Watts by Fixture Type ............................................ 176

Table 7-7 Deemed vs. POS HOU and CFs ............................................................................. 178

Table 7-8 Sample Design ........................................................................................................ 181

Table 7-9 Sample Sizes for Data Collection Efforts ................................................................. 181

Table 7-10 Quantity Sold Comparison .................................................................................... 186

Table 7-11: CEI Findings Summary ........................................................................................ 187

Table 7-12 Free Ridership Scores for Combinations of Indicator Variable Responses ............ 191

Table 7-13 Sample Sizes for CEEP Participant Surveys ......................................................... 193


11

Table 7-14 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – Large C&I ................................ 194

Table 7-15 Summary of Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW) – Large C&I .............................. 194

Table 7-16 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – SAGE ...................................... 195

Table 7-17 Summary of Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW) – SAGE .................................... 195

Table 7-18 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – SBDI ........................................ 196

Table 7-19 Summary of Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW) – SBDI ...................................... 196

Table 7-20 Free ridership by Lamp Type ................................................................................. 197

Table 7-21 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – Midstream Lighting .................. 197

Table 7-22 Summary of Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW) – Midstream Lighting ................ 197

Table 7-23 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – HVAC Tune Up ........................ 198

Table 7-24 Summary of Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW) – HVAC Tune Up ...................... 198

Table 7-25 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – CEI .......................................... 198

Table 7-26 Summary of CEEP Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) .......................................... 199

Table 7-27 Summary of CEEP Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW) ....................................... 199

Table 7-28 How learned of program ........................................................................................ 202

Table 7-29 Method learned of program provided enough information ..................................... 203

Table 7-30 Worked with contractor / vendor / internal staff to implement project ..................... 208

Table 7-31 Parties involved in submitting program application or paperwork .......................... 209

Table 7-32 Did you experience barriers purchasing or installing program measures? ............. 210

Table 7-33 Satisfaction with various program components?.................................................... 211

Table 7-34 What would you change about the program? ........................................................ 212

Table 7-35 CEEP Participant Characteristics .......................................................................... 218

Table 7-36 How CEEP Participants Make Energy Efficiency Project Decisions....................... 219


12

Tables of Figures

Figure 1-1 Contribution to Portfolio Savings by Program ...........................................................17

Figure 1-2 Contribution to Residential Savings by End use .......................................................17

Figure 1-3 Ex Ante Energy Savings by Measure CEEP ............................................................18

Figure 2-1 Residential High Impact Measures ...........................................................................29

Figure 2-2 C&I Measures by End-Use .......................................................................................30

Figure 2-3 CEEP Lighting Measures .........................................................................................30

Figure 4-1 Contributions to Ex Ante Energy Savings by Measure in PY2017 ............................42

Figure 4-2 Contributions to Ex Ante Energy Savings by Channel in PY2017 .............................42

Figure 4-3 Multifamily Direct Install and Single-family Rebated Measure Free ridership ............70

Figure 4-4 Single-family Direct Install Free ridership .................................................................71

Figure 4-5 HVAC Measure Free ridership .................................................................................78

Figure 4-6 Lighting Free Ridership Scoring ...............................................................................82

Figure 5-1 Participation per Month .......................................................................................... 123

Figure 5-2 Procedure for Checking Duplicate Record ............................................................. 131

Figure 6-1 Homes Participating by Month, PY2017 ................................................................. 138

Figure 6-2 Geographical Distribution of WRAP EM&V Site Visits ............................................ 151

Figure 7-1 CEEP Savings and Project by Month ..................................................................... 169

Figure 7-2 Contributions to Savings by Measure – Large C&I ................................................. 170

Figure 7-3 Contributions to Savings by Measure – SAGE ....................................................... 171

Figure 7-4 Contributions to Savings by Measure – SBDI ......................................................... 171

Figure 7-5 Contributions to Savings by Measure – Midstream ................................................ 172

Figure 7-6 Midstream Contribution to Savings (ex post) by Building Type ............................... 177


13

1. Executive Summary

This report presents an evaluation of the performance of the Demand Portfolio of energy

efficiency programs offered by Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E) in 2017. OG&E is

submitting this report to fulfill the requirements outlined in Title 165: Oklahoma

Corporation Commission Chapter 35. Electric Utility Rules Subchapter 41. Demand

Programs 165:35-41-6.

On July 01, 2015, OG&E submitted a comprehensive portfolio of demand Programs to

the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) for Program Years 2016-2018. This

portfolio was approved by the OCC in Cause No. PUD 201500247 by Order No. 648327

on November 17, 2015. The focus of this report is participation in the demand programs

during the second program year (PY2016) of the implementation cycle, spanning from

January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017.

1.1 Demand Program Offerings

OG&E offered five programs, three residential, one commercial and industrial (C&I), and

one voltage reduction program. Program names, program channels, and customer sector

targeted are shown in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 OG&E’s Demand Program Portfolio

Program Channel Sector

Demand Programs

Home Energy Efficiency Program (HEEP)

Residential Solutions (RSOL) Residential

HVAC Replacement & Tune-up Residential

Consumer Products Residential

Positive Energy - New Home Construction (PE-NHC) Residential

Weatherization Residential Assistance Program (WRAP) Residential

Commercial Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP)

Large C&I Commercial & Industrial

Schools and Government Efficiency Commercial & Industrial

Small Business Direct Install Commercial & Industrial

HVAC Tune-up Commercial & Industrial

Midstream Lighting Commercial & Industrial

Continuous Energy Improvement (CEI) Commercial & Industrial

VoltVar Programs

Integrated Volt Var Control (“IVVC”)1

1 Measurement and Verification results from the IVVC program are presented in a separate MV report.


14

The Evaluators evaluated the results for three residential programs, one commercial and

industrial (C&I) program and one VoltVar program. These programs are listed below. The

descriptions for the residential and commercial programs can be found in Section 2.1.

The measurement and verification results for the IVVC program are provided in a

separate M&V report.

Residential Portfolio Programs

o Home Energy Efficiency Program (HEEP)

Residential Solutions and Schools Outreach

Residential HVAC Replacement & Tune-up

Consumer Products

o Positive Energy – New Home Construction Program (PE-NHC)

o Weatherization Residential Assistance Program (WRAP)

Commercial & Industrial Programs

o Commercial Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP)

Large Commercial and Industrial (Large C&I)

Schools and Government Efficiency (SAGE)

Small Business Direct Install (SBDI)

Midstream Lighting

Commercial HVAC Tune-up

Continuous Energy Improvement (CEI)

Integrated Volt Var Control Program

o Integrated Volt Var Control (IVVC) Program

Program impacts including projected, reported, and verified annual energy savings and

peak demand reduction during PY2017 are summarized in the following sections. These

will be expressed as ex ante, ex post and net savings.

All impacts presented in this report represent energy (kWh) savings or peak demand (kW)

reduction at-the-meter.


15

1.2 Evaluation Objectives

The goals of the PY2017 EM&V effort are as follows:

For prescriptive measures, verify that savings are being calculated according to

appropriate TRM guidelines. For most measures, this constitutes applying TRM

version 6.02 methodologies.

For custom measures, this effort comprises the calculation of savings according

to accepted protocols (such as IPMVP). This is to ensure that custom measures

are cost-effective and providing reliable savings.

Conduct process evaluation of all programs and of the portfolio overall. This is

to provide a comprehensive review of program operations, marketing and

outreach, quality control procedures, and program successes relative to goals.

From this, the Evaluators are to provide program and portfolio-level

recommendations for OG&E. Process evaluation activities include interviews

of key program actors, surveys of participants and non-participants, literature

reviews and best-practices assessments, and documentation of program

activities, successes, and shortcomings.

Conduct net-to-gross assessments. The Evaluators developed net-to-gross

ratios specific to each program.

1.3 Evaluation Findings

OG&E’s portfolio was successful, achieving 152% of planned net energy savings (kWh)

and 80% of planned net demand reduction (kW) for the energy efficiency programs in the

Demand Program portfolio. As in previous years, the primary C&I program, CEEP,

provided most of the net savings (83,802,238 kWh and 12,885.44 kW), but the HEEP

also made significant contributions, with 45,590,079 in net energy (kWh) savings.

In addition to verifying the savings reported by OG&E, the Evaluators calculated lifetime

impacts for the programs and measures. Table 1-2 shows the savings goals, reported

gross impacts, ADM evaluated ex post gross energy (kWh) savings and ex post gross

demand (kW) reductions, gross realization rates, net impacts, net-to-gross (NTG) ratios,

and lifetime impacts.3

2 The Arkansas Technical Reference Manual (TRM) version 6.0 can be found here:

http://www.apscservices.info/EEInfo/TRM6.pdf 3 Lifetime impacts are the sum of energy savings over the course of the measure’s effective useful life (EUL) and the

weighted average demand reduction across the lifetime of the measure divided by the EUL (in years).


16

Table 1-2 PY2017 OG&E Portfolio Evaluation Impacts

Impact Metric HEEP PE-NHC WRAP CEEP IVVC Total

Energy Savings (kWh)

Goals (Net) 27,857,573 1,991,220 7,983,302 53,222,962 5,938,800 96,993,857

Reported (Gross)

58,013,381 4,416,075 12,606,403 92,793,181 n/a 167,829,040

Evaluated (Gross)

60,636,999 5,042,218 11,733,069 100,021,926 2,102,200 179,536,413

Realization Rate

105% 114% 93% 108% n/a 107.0%

Evaluated (Net)

45,590,079 4,251,672 11,733,069 83,802,238 2,102,200 147,479,258

NTG Ratio 75% 84% 100% 84% 100% 82.1%

% of Goal (Net)

164% 214% 147% 157% 35% 152.1%

Lifetime (Net) 548,894,808 63,775,078 184,003,588 911,799,308 31,533,000 1,740,005,782

Annual Demand

Reduction (kW)

Goals (Net) 7,206 1,306 2,106 10,360 15,150 36,128

Reported (Gross)

9,991.29 1,289.82 3,830.16 14,916.49 n/a 30,028

Evaluated (Gross)

9,432.67 1,326.75 3,296.27 15,484.10 4,040.00 33,579.78

Realization Rate

94% 103% 86% 104% n/a 111.8%

Evaluated (Net)

7,399.19 1,255.22 3,296.27 12,885.44 4,040.00 28,876

NTG Ratio 78% 95% 100% 83% 100% 86%

% of Goal (Net)

103% 96% 157% 124% 27% 79.9%

The contribution to portfolio savings by program is summarized in the figure below.


17

Figure 1-1 Contribution to Portfolio Savings by Program

The ex ante energy (kWh) savings and measure counts, both by end-use for the

residential programs can be seen in the figure below. Lighting, HVAC and envelope

measures comprises 82% of the program saving. Overall, lighting measures accounted

for over 90% of the measures installed.

Figure 1-2 Contribution to Residential Savings by End use

The savings share by end use was different in the C&I program, which is shown in Figure

1-3. Lighting accounted for the overwhelming majority of ex ante savings. New

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

80,000,000

90,000,000

100,000,000

CEEP HEEP WRAP PE-NHC

Ex Ante Energy Savings (kWh) Measure Count

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

50,000,000

Lighting HVAC Envelope Domestic HotWater

NewConstruction

Appliances Kits

Ex Ante Annual Savings (kWh) Measures


18

construction, retrofit, and lighting controls projects accounted for over 78% of CEEP ex

ante energy (kWh) savings. Lighting and HVAC projects comprise 98.0% of the

participation.

Figure 1-3 Ex Ante Energy Savings by Measure CEEP

Further, the Evaluators put the net savings into the context of OG&E’s PY2017 filed

targets. The table below summarizes the performance against those targets of programs

evaluated in this report.

Table 1-3 OG&E's 2017 Performance against Energy Savings Targets (kWh)

Program 2017 Verified Net Savings

2017 Net Savings

Goal

% of Goal Attained

HEEP 45,590,079 27,857,573 164%

PE-NHC 4,251,672 1,991,220 214%

WRAP 11,733,069 7,983,302 147%

CEEP 83,802,238 53,222,962 157%

IVVC 2,102,200 5,938,800 35%

Total 147,479,258 96,993,857 152%


19

The PY2017 budgets and actual spend are summarized in the table below.

Table 1-4 Summary of Budgets and Actual Spend

Program Budgeted Spend Actual Spend4 % Attained

HEEP $ 11,214,053.00 $10,801,446 96%

PE-NHC $ 1,247,248.90 $1,326,946 106%

WRAP $ 5,400,915.00 $5,312,511 98%

CEEP $ 17,836,397.00 $17,112,624 96%

IVVC $ 2,884,148.00 $17,533,999 608%

Energy Education Res $ 360,000.00 $354,215 98%

Energy Education C&I $ 440,000.00 $432,930 98%

Planning $ 100,000.00 $263 0%

Regulatory $ 20,000.00 $0 0%

R&D $ 565,000.00 $132,880 24%

Total $ 40,067,761.90 $53,007,815 132%

1.4 Summary of Portfolio Benefit-Cost Ratios

ADM calculated the cost-effectiveness of OG&E’s 2017 programs based on reported total

spending, verified net energy savings, and verified net demand reduction for each of the

Demand Programs. Additional inputs to the cost effectiveness testing include estimates

of line-loss adjustments, measure lives, discount rates, participant costs, and avoided

costs. All program spending inputs were provided by OG&E. The methods used to

calculate cost-effectiveness are informed by the California Standard Practice Manual.5

The specific tests used to evaluate cost-effectiveness are: The Utility Cost Test (UCT),

Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test, Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM), Societal Cost Test

(SCT), and Participant Cost Test (PCT). OG&E’s 2017 portfolio of programs passes all of

these tests except the ratepayer impact measure. Few programs pass the ratepayer

impact measure, so the latter finding is not unusual. The benefit-cost ratios developed

through the cost-effectiveness analysis are presented in the table below.

4 The sum of incentive expenditures was derived from implementation project data, all other expenditures were

reported by OG&E.

5 California Standard Practice Manual: Economic Analysis of Demand Side Management Programs, October 2001.

Available at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/004ABF9D-027C-4BE1-9AE1-

CE56ADF8DADC/0/CPUC_STANDARD_PRACTICE_MANUAL.pdf

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/004ABF9D-027C-4BE1-9AE1-CE56ADF8DADC/0/CPUC_STANDARD_PRACTICE_MANUAL.pdf

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/004ABF9D-027C-4BE1-9AE1-CE56ADF8DADC/0/CPUC_STANDARD_PRACTICE_MANUAL.pdf


20

Table 1-5 Cost Benefit Estimates and Net Benefits Summary

Program TRC UCT RIM PCT SCT TRC Net Benefits

HEEP 3.37 3.34 0.63 8.65 4.95 $23,541,213.57

PE-NHC 2.48 4.04 0.61 2.67 3.48 $3,196,816.28

WRAP 2.83 2.83 0.83 3.77 4.30 $8,490,182.12

CEEP 1.58 3.42 0.69 2.62 2.21 $21,407,491.24

IVVC 0.52 0.52 0.47 1.11 0.73 -$8,375,970.02

Energy Education Res 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -$354,215.40

Energy Education C&I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -$432,929.93

Planning 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -$262.58

Regulatory 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00

R&D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -$132,880.08

Total 1.65 2.32 0.65 2.85 2.37 $47,339,445.19

The portfolio, and all energy efficiency programs pass all cost tests, except for the RIM

test.

1.5 Summary of Process Evaluation Findings

This section presents the high-level findings and recommendations developed through

process evaluation activities for the PY2017 portfolio. The results of the process

evaluation research are largely positive. Program participants, service providers and

program staff were largely satisfied with the PY2017 Demand Program offerings. The

programs gained traction in PY2017, with increasing participation from service providers

and customers as compared to previous years. Key process related findings and

recommendations from the PY2017 evaluation are summarized below:

Key Process Findings for HEEP

High Participant Satisfaction: Results from the participant survey effort

indicate that customers highly value the services offered by HEEP, and recall

very positive experiences with the assessment and measure installation

process. Very few participants expressed dissatisfaction with any program

elements, and several participants provided open-ended commentary that

praised the program for the services it provides and the professionalism of its

trade ally staff. Satisfaction scores on nearly all program components were

consistently rated 4 out of 5 or higher, for both trade allies and participants

Demonstrated Education Effects: Feedback from the participant survey

suggests that the program is increasing customer knowledge of energy

efficiency equipment and energy efficiency behaviors that can be employed to

conserve energy and lower utility bills. Some customers have learned about

other utility offerings through the HEEP, potentially leading to additional energy

savings.


21

Smooth Enrollment Process: Regardless of how they requested an

assessment to begin participating in the HEEP, customers had an easy time

communicating with the program and scheduling their home assessment.

Among those who called the Customer Service center, 93 percent indicated

their experience was ‘very easy’, while the remaining customers rated their

experience as “easy”.

Adequate Database Quality: Except for the ex ante savings issues described

below, the Evaluators found the ex ante savings values within the database to

be accurate for most measures. Additionally, CLEAResult was very consistent

in responding to data requests and correcting errors when necessary.

Effective Trade Ally Portal: An elevated level of satisfaction was reported by

trade allies in relation to the portal that CLEAResult utilizes to share information

with trade allies.

Key Process Findings for PE-NHC

Simplified Marketing Approach: Staff simplified the program marketing

approach. The new approach focuses on key benefits of efficient new

construction. All builders were provided brochures and yard signs to promote

the program to their customers. Some builders also received counter signs for

use at home shows.

Duplication of Records Resulted in Overpayment: The evaluator found

duplicate records in the program tracking records. CLEAResult staff identified

the underlying cause and implemented a procedural change to prevent the

issue from re-occurring in the future. Rather than require builders to repay the

additional incentive payment, staff decided to double the incentive payment for

all builders to maintain goodwill. The evaluator concurs that this was the best

approach to resolving the issue.

Builders Interested in Additional Communication: There was a general

consensus that overall communication had decreased, and while builders

agreed that the program was running smoothly and they were receiving their

checks, they would appreciate more in-person communication from staff.

Builders offered suggestions such as personal outreach when the program

launches to ensure builders are aware of the appropriate point of contact for

the implementation contractor, host a short format lunch meeting, or visit in

person to present checks.

Key Process Findings for WRAP

Program Functioning Well: WRAP was first offered as a full program in 2010.

Over the years staff has continually made improvements and at this time


22

believe that it is running very well. No changes were made to the delivery and

participation process in 2017.


indicate that customers highly value the services offered by WRAP, and recall





contractor staff.

Adequate Database Quality: With the exception of the ex ante savings issue

described below, the Evaluators found the ex ante savings values within the

EnerTrek database to be accurate for nearly all measures. Additionally, Frontier

Associates was very consistent in responding to data requests and correcting

errors when necessary. There were a few inconsistencies regarding home level

savings and measure-level claimed savings but these were very infrequent.

Key Process Findings for CEEP

Program communications and marketing: The wide variety of program

marketing tactics employed under the CEEP program umbrella were apparent

within the participant data we collected for this evaluation. Fifty percent of

participants reported hearing about this program directly from a contractor or

vendor, and another 19 percent confirmed that they heard about the program

through word of mouth – a colleague, other business, etc. Fifteen percent cited

a Business Energy Advisor or Program Representative and 14 percent cited an

account representative. Between six to seven percent each cited a

conference/trade show/expo, a mailing from OG&E, the OG&E website, and

previous experience with an OG&E program. Respondents generally reported

having received enough information about the program when they first heard

about it. Ninety-three percent of CEEP respondents overall confirmed they

received enough information about the program through their communication

channel; this is a slight increase from PY16 (88 percent).

Program participant satisfaction: Among all participants, the highest

satisfaction ratings were for the incentive amount compared to the total project

cost (8.5 out of 10), the technical assistance from a contractor or vendor (8.4),

and the energy efficient measures that OG&E provides through the program

(8.4). Satisfaction with program components varied somewhat by program

channel. CEI and SAGE participants were the most satisfied with the various

program components. HVAC Tune-up customers were least satisfied with the

communication from program representatives (7.2), the technical assistance


23

from a contractor/vendor (7.5), the materials they received describing the

program requirements and benefits (7.6), and the technical assistance from

OG&E or CLEAResult (7.7).

Trade ally and Midstream Lighting distributor satisfaction: Trade allies

were asked to rate their satisfaction with the OG&E program channel(s) they

worked with. Over two-thirds (69 percent) of the trade ally ratings given for the

Large C&I, SBDI, and HVAC Tune-up program channels were an 8 through 10

on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means “very dissatisfied” and 10 means

“extremely satisfied.” Midstream Lighting distributors rated their overall

satisfaction with the program on a 5-point scale—very satisfied, somewhat

satisfied, neither satisfied or dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, and very

dissatisfied. Ten of 12 lighting distributors were very satisfied with the program

overall, while two were somewhat satisfied.

Additional detail regarding these and other process evaluation findings and

recommendations can be found in the body of this report.

1.6 Structure of the Report

This report is structured as shown below:

Section 1 Executive Summary;

Section 2 Introduction;

Section 3 Methodology;

Section 4 HEEP Program Findings;

Section 5 PE-NHC Program Findings;

Section 6 WRAP Program Findings;

Section 7 CEEP Program Findings;

Appendix A – Portfolio Cost-effectiveness;

Appendix B – CEEP Participant Survey Response Rate; and

Appendix C – HEEP Participant Survey Response Rate.


24

2. Introduction

This report presents an evaluation of the performance of the energy efficiency and

demand response programs offered by Oklahoma Gas and Electric (OG&E) in 2017.

OG&E is submitting this report to fulfill the requirements outlined in Title 165: Oklahoma

Corporation Commission Chapter 35. Electric Utility Rules Subchapter 41. Demand

Programs 165:35-41-7.

2.1 Program Descriptions

2.1.1 Residential Portfolio Programs

Home Energy Efficiency Program (HEEP): HEEP is a multipronged

residential offering designed to incentivize OG&E’s Oklahoma customers to

reduce their energy consumption by performing energy efficient upgrades to

their homes. Designed to provide homeowners with multiple options, the

proposed program combines Residential Solutions, HVAC Replacement and

Tune-up, and Consumer Products channels. Providing homeowners with

increased choices to participate is expected to result in increased customer

engagement, greater measure adoption, and increased program savings.

o Residential Solutions (RSOL) and Schools Outreach: The

Residential Solutions channel of the HEEP program is a market-driven

approach that promotes energy efficiency by providing homeowners

with low-cost home assessment, direct install measures, community

educational outreach, and incentives on home retrofits. Incentives are

provided to encourage participation and decrease the upfront costs of

energy efficient upgrades.

The Schools Outreach channel includes a direct outreach channel

targeted at reaching residential customers through partnerships with

local schools and education for school aged children. This school portion

provides 5th grade students an educational opportunity to learn about

how they can affect the energy efficiency of their home. Teachers work

directly with the program team to obtain the teaching materials and

energy efficient direct install kits to distribute to students.

o Residential HVAC Replacement & Tune-up: The A/C Tune up and

HVAC Replacement channel of the HEEP program focuses on

improving the energy efficiency of the HVAC systems of residences. It

provides incentives to improve operating efficiency of the existing HVAC

unit or to replace it with a higher efficiency unit.


25

o Consumer Products: The consumer products channel promotes the

purchase of energy efficient LED Lighting. To help customers offset a

portion of the incremental cost associated with higher efficiency

products, the program utilizes upstream incentives. There was also a

Food Bank component which distributed CFLs and later LEDs to low-

income customers across the territory.

Positive Energy – New Home Construction Program (PE-NHC): The PE-

NHC program is designed to work with builders and contractors and incentivize

them to include energy efficient practices and measures when constructing new

homes within the OG&E Oklahoma territory.

Weatherization Residential Assistance Program (WRAP): The

Weatherization program has been designed to achieve energy savings by

helping to improve the comfort and reduce energy costs for OG&E Oklahoma’s

residential customers. This is achieved by providing free energy efficiency

upgrades for residential ratepayers with an annual income at or less than

$50,000 per year or LIAP customer, and is available to rental properties if an

eligible customer lives in the home and receives approval from the property

owner.

2.1.2 Commercial & Industrial Programs

Commercial Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP): CEEP is like HEEP, in that

it is a multipronged program approach designed to address the needs of

OG&E’s commercial and industrial customer base. Specifically, the program

provides an umbrella participation channel for all Commercial and Industrial

(“C&I”) customers to participate through either a custom or performance path.

Within this larger program offering there are targeted outreach channels to

further engage with specific commercial customers. The outreach channels

available through CEEP are:

o Large C&I: The Large C&I channel offers direct installation of low-cost

measures and both a performance and custom participation path for

customers to perform energy upgrades. Technical support is also

provided to assist in project identification and development.

Performance: The performance path provides incentives based

on the estimated energy savings achieved with the measures

installed primarily as defined by regionally accepted deemed

savings calculations.


26

Custom: The custom path gives participants an opportunity to

achieve their energy efficiency goals by proposing measures that

are outside of the deemed measure list. Proposed measures are

evaluated for savings and costs, and an appropriate incentive

amount is approved if the project is deemed cost-effective.

o SAGE: This channel offers assistance to the institutional and public

sectors to overcome barriers to energy improvement that are unique to

their market segment, such as conflicting organizational goals, outdated

specifications, limited technical knowledge, and counterproductive

energy budgeting. The program is also designed to provide some energy

management guidance and support services to qualifying customers.

o SBDI: The SBDI channel offers direct installation of low cost energy

efficiency measures, facility walkthroughs and incentives for a suite of

energy efficiency measures. This offer is targeted at, but not limited to

business customers with peak demand less than or equal to 150 kW, or

with multiple accounts less than or equal to 250 kW. Direct install

measures include LEDs and other low-cost lighting, low flow devices for

electric water heating, HVAC upgrades, vending misers and low cost

refrigeration measures. This targeted channel is also eligible to

participate in the Large C&I performance or custom channels if the

customer’s needs are beyond the scope of services outlined within the

outreach approach.

o Midstream Lighting: The commercial lighting midstream channel is

designed to encourage C&I customers to purchase and install high

efficiency lighting by providing point of sale (POS) discounts on selected

products through local distributors.

o Commercial HVAC Tune-up: The A/C Tune up channel of the CEEP

program focuses on improving the energy efficiency of the HVAC

systems of commercial facilities. It provides incentives to improve

operating efficiency of the existing HVAC unit through duct sealing,

cleaning, and refrigerant charge adjustments.

o CEI: The Continuous Energy Improvement (CEI) channel is a new

program offering for PY2017. CEI is a multiyear behavioral offering that

provides energy conservation training to all levels of employees within a

customer’s organization with a focus on low/no cost savings

opportunities. CEI also offers customers a facility wide energy

assessment of energy usage and provides customers with continuous

energy usage monitoring.


27

2.2 High-Volume Electricity User Opt Out

The Oklahoma Title 165:35-41-4 Rules allow for High-Volume Electricity Users “to opt out

of some or all energy efficiency or demand response programs by submitting notice of

such decision to the director of the Public Utility Division and to the electric utility.” A High-

Volume Electricity User represents a customer within a utility company’s service territory

whose annual consumption is 15 million kWh of electricity or greater regardless of the

number of meters or service locations.

In the table below is the number of customers eligible for High-Volume Electricity User

opt out, the number of such customers that opted out of energy efficiency programs for

PY2017, and the percentage of total energy sales that they comprise.

Table 2-1 High Volume Electricity User Opt Out – Demand Programs

Metric C&I

Customers Chose to opt

out -EE % Opt-Out

Number of accounts 110,394 1,450 1.3%

2017 electric sales (MWh) 15,536,323 4,816,638 31%

2.3 Program Implementation & Strategic Alliances

OG&E had eight fulltime employees dedicated to the implementation of demand

programs in 2017. Additionally, OG&E entered contracts with several energy services

companies and contractors to aid in program implementation. The total FTE count for

those is 37 FTEs.

CLEAResult (CR) was contracted to implement HEEP, PE-NHC, and the entirety of the

CEEP. The WRAP is managed in-house by OG&E, with Skyline Energy Solutions

conducting audits and measure installation, and Frontier Associates being responsible

for hosting the program database and calculating ex ante savings for program measures.

OG&E contracted with Resource Action Programs (RAP) to provide energy efficiency kits

distributed to students through the Schools Outreach channel in HEEP.

2.4 Evaluation Measurement and Verification

OG&E engaged ADM Associates, Inc. (ADM), with collaboration from Tetra Tech, to

conduct an evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) of its Demand Program

portfolio. The ADM and Tetra Tech staff, collectively referred to as ‘the Evaluators,’

evaluated each program within the OG&E portfolio for PY2017.


28

2.5 Summary of Evaluation Effort

The table below summarizes the EM&V expenditures by the Evaluators, total EM&V

expenditures by all parties, and total program budgets.

Table 2-2 OG&E’s Portfolio EM&V Expenditures

Total EM&V Expenditures

Program Expenditures

EM&V as % of Total Expenditures

$988,353 $52,505,420 1.9%

To facilitate a thorough evaluation, the Evaluators conducted several primary research

and data collection activities, including interviews with program and implementer staff,

customer surveys, and site visits.

The Evaluators conducted participant surveys for each program using the collected self-

reported data to inform free ridership and spillover calculations for that program. The

results of these analyses informed our calculation of NTG values.

For all programs, the Evaluators performed telephone discussions with the primary OG&E

program staff and the primary implementation staff for each program. Specific primary

data collection activities are included in the table below.

Table 2-3 Summary of Data Collection Efforts

Program # of Site

Visits # of

Surveys # of

Interviews

HEEP 89 171 2

PE-NHC 20 0 8

WRAP 73 71 2

CEEP 69 244 6

2.6 High Impact Measures (HIMs)

This section outlines the High Impact Measures (HIMs) for each program and sector in

the OG&E portfolio of Demand Programs. A HIM is a measure that is responsible for

more than 5% of the sectors total savings.

2.6.1 Residential Programs

Four measures, LED bulbs, duct sealing, HVAC tune-up, and whole house new

construction projects comprise 84.0% of the residential sector’s energy savings (kWh).

Those measures, along with the percentage of savings and total energy (kWh) savings,

are shown in the figure below. The final measure, assessments that are performed in the

HEEP, had no measured savings.


29

Figure 2-1 Residential High Impact Measures

2.6.2 C&I Programs

Figure 2-2 shows the relative energy savings of measures installed through OG&E’s C&I

program. The overwhelming majority of program level ex ante savings were due to lighting

measures. High efficiency lighting and lighting controls accounted for 76.8% of the

program level savings. Within the high efficiency lighting measures, projects were

categorized within three measure categories, depending on the project type; new

construction, retrofit, and Midstream lighting. The contributions to the ex ante savings of

each of these are shown in Figure 2-3 below.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

50,000,000


30

Figure 2-2 C&I Measures by End-Use

Retrofit lighting represented 63% of high efficiency lighting savings, with a total ex ante

savings of 45,572,081 kWh. The Midstream Lighting program channel contributed the

next highest amount with claimed savings of 20,143,968 kWh, 28% of high efficiency

lighting measure savings. New construction projects accounted for 5,581,790 kWh, 8%

of lighting savings. Finally, lighting controls contributed 1,142,436 kWh to the program ex

ante savings, accounting for 1.6% of lighting savings.

Figure 2-3 CEEP Lighting Measures


31

In addition to lighting, two other measure categories were above the threshold for HIMs.

Both custom and CEI projects contributed more than 5% to total program claimed

savings. The custom measure category includes all projects that used a custom

calculation approach to determine savings. These could either be lighting projects that

did not use deemed hours of use, or non-lighting projects that did not have TRM

algorithms. Overall, custom projects accounted for 6,271,000 kWh, 6.8% of program level

ex ante savings.

The final HIM was the new CEI program channel. This channel included behavioral

changes to commercial and industrial customers’ facility operations. The first cohort of

customers to participate in this program channel included seven customers, resulting in

a claimed savings of 8,239,906 kWh, accounting for 8.9% of program ex ante savings.

OG&E Oklahoma Demand Program Evaluation

32

3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction

This section details general impact evaluation methodologies by program-type as well as

data collection methods applied. This section will present full descriptions of:

Gross Savings Estimation;

Sampling Methodologies;

Free ridership determination;

Process Evaluation Methodologies; and

Data Collection Procedures.

3.2 Glossary of Terminology

As a first step to detailing the evaluation methodologies, the Evaluators provide a glossary

of terms to follow:

Deemed Savings – An estimate of an energy savings or energy demand savings outcome

(gross savings) for a single unit of an installed energy efficiency measure. This estimate (a) has been developed from data sources and analytical methods that are widely accepted for the measure and purpose and (b) is applicable to the situation being evaluated.

Ex ante Savings Estimate – Forecasted savings used for program and portfolio planning purposes (from the Latin for “beforehand”).

Ex post Evaluation Estimated Savings – Savings estimates reported by an evaluator after the energy impact evaluation has been completed (from the Latin for “from something done afterward”).

Ex Post Net Savings – When Ex Post Evaluation Estimated Savings are multiplied by the Net-to-Gross Ratio.

Free rider – A program participant who would have implemented the program measure or practice in the absence of the program. Free riders can be total, partial, or deferred.

Gross Realization Rate – The ratio of Ex Post Gross Savings and Ex Ante Savings.

Participant – A consumer who received a service offered through the subject efficiency

program in a given program year.

Net-to-Gross (NTG) – A factor representing net program savings divided by gross program savings that is applied to gross program impacts, converting them into net program load impacts after adjustments for free ridership and spillover. (1 – Free ridership % + Spillover %).


33

Spillover – Reductions in energy consumption and/or demand caused by the presence of the energy efficiency program that exceed the program-related gross savings of the participants. There can be participant and/or non-participant spillover rates depending on the rate at which participants (and non-participants) adopt energy efficiency measures or take other types of efficiency actions on their own (i.e., without an incentive being offered).

Stipulated Values – See “deemed savings.”

This glossary is drawn from several evaluation-related reference documents, such as the

2007 IPMVP, 2004 California Evaluation Framework, 2006 DOE EERE Guide for

Managing General Program Evaluation Studies and the Arkansas Technical Reference

Manual (TRM) version 5.0.

3.3 Overview of Methodology

The proposed methodology for the evaluation of the 2017 OG&E portfolio is intended to

provide:

Net impact results at the 90% confidence and +/-10% precision level; and

Program feedback and recommendations via process evaluation; and

In doing so, this evaluation will provide the verified net savings results, provide the

recommendations for program improvement, and ensure cost-effective use of ratepayer

funds. By leveraging experience and lessons learned from prior evaluations, the 2017

evaluation is streamlined to focus on areas in need of research and improvement.

3.3.1 Sampling

Sampling is necessary to evaluate savings for the OG&E portfolio insomuch as

verification of a census of program participants is typically cost-prohibitive. As per

evaluation best practices, samples are drawn to ensure 90% confidence at the +/- 10%

precision level. Programs are evaluated on one of three bases:

Census of all participants;

Simple random sample; or

Stratified random sample.

3.3.2 Census

A census of participant data was used for select programs or program channels where

such review is feasible. All program measures were evaluated.


34

3.3.3 Simple Random Sampling

For programs with relatively homogenous measures (largely in the residential portfolio),

the Evaluators conducted a simple random sample of participants. The sample size for

verification surveys is calculated to meet 90% confidence and 10% precision (90/10). The

sample size to meet 90/10 requirements is calculated based on the coefficient of variation

of savings for program participants. Coefficient of Variation (CV) is defined as:

𝑉 =𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑥

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑥

Where x is the average kWh savings per participant. Without data to use as a basis for a

higher value, it is typical to apply a CV of 0.5 in residential program evaluations.

The resulting sample size is estimated with the following:

𝑛0 = (1.645 ∗ 𝐶𝑉

𝑅𝑃)

2

Where:

1.645 = Z score for 90% confidence interval in a normal distribution

CV = Coefficient of Variation

RP = Required Precision, 10% in this evaluation

3.3.4 Stratified Random Sampling

For the OG&E C&I programs, Simple Random Sampling is not an effective sampling

methodology as the CV values observed in business programs are typically very high

because the distributions of savings are generally positively skewed. Often, a relatively

small number of projects account for a high percentage of the estimated savings for the

program.

To address this situation, the Evaluators use a sample design for selecting projects for

the M&V sample that considers such skewedness. With this approach, the Evaluators

select several sites with large savings for the sample with certainty and take a random

sample of the remaining sites. To improve the precision, non-certainty sites are selected

for the sample through systematic random sampling. That is, a random sample of sites

remaining after the certainty sites have been selected is selected by ordering them per

the magnitude of their savings and using systematic random sampling. Sampling

systematically from a list that is ordered according to the magnitude of savings ensures

that any sample selected will have some units with high savings, some with moderate

savings, and some with low savings. Samples cannot result that have concentrations of

sites with atypically high savings or atypically low savings.


35

3.3.5 Free ridership

In determining ex post net savings for the OG&E portfolio, the Evaluators provide

estimates of free ridership for individual programs. Free riders are program participants

that would have implemented the same energy efficiency measures at nearly the same

time absent the program. As per the Arkansas TRM version 6.0 guidelines, free riders are

defined as:

“…program participants who received an incentive but would have

installed the same efficiency measure on their own had the program not

been offered. This includes partial free riders, defined as customers who,

at some point, would have installed the measure anyway, but the

program persuaded them to install it sooner or customers who would

have installed the measure anyway but the program persuaded them to

install more efficient equipment and/or more equipment. For the

purposes of EM&V activities, participants who would have installed the

equipment within one year will be considered full free riders; whereas

participants who would have installed the equipment later than one year

will not be considered to be free riders (thus no partial free riders will be

allowed).”6

Given this definition, participants are defined as free riders through a binary scoring

mechanism, in being either 0% or 100% free riders.

3.3.6 Impact Evaluation Activities by Program

The Evaluators used established, industry-standard approaches to estimate energy

savings and demand reductions at the measure, program, and portfolio levels. The

Evaluators followed all applicable measure- and program-level guidelines and protocols

from the AR TRM 6.0.

To evaluate program impacts, ADM adjusted program-reported gross savings using the

results of our research, relying primarily on engineering desk reviews, AR TRM deemed

savings calculation, and on-site verification and metering for applicable programs. To

calculate deemed savings, the Evaluators verified the appropriateness of savings

algorithms and values in program tracking data as compared to guidelines in the AR TRM

6.0. Where sampling was used (for surveys and site visits), the Evaluators designed a

sampling plan to achieve a minimum precision of ±10% of the gross realized savings

estimate with 90% confidence.

6 Arkansas TRM V5.0, Pg. 49, found here: www.apscservices.info/EEInfo/TRM5.pdf


36

For each program and measure category, the Evaluators estimated energy savings and

demand reduction by applying a verified gross savings adjustment to program-reported

savings.

3.3.7 Net-to-Gross Approach by Program

The Evaluators estimated NTG for each program in the portfolio. Table 3-1 shows the

NTG approach the Evaluators followed for each program based on our assessment of

specific program needs and the availability of accurate, existing information. These data

collection and analysis activities are in compliance with one of the five accepted

approaches listed in the AR TRM 6.0.

Table 3-1 NTG Approach by Program

Program and Channel Approach

HEEP Residential Solutions: Home Assessment Self-reporting survey

HEEP Residential Solutions: Schools Outreach Stipulated net-to-gross ratio

HEEP HVAC Replacement and Tune-up Self-reporting survey

HEEP Consumer Products Lighting Purchase Survey of HEEP / Stipulated for Food Bank Distributions Participants

PE-NHC (New Homes Construction) Self-reporting survey

CEEP C&I Solutions

Self-reporting survey

CEEP Educational & Government Self-reporting survey

CEEP Small Business Solutions Self-reporting survey

CEEP HVAC Replacement & Tune-up Self-reporting survey

CEEP Midstream Lighting Distributor interviews

3.4 Overview of Process Evaluation

The Evaluators took the following steps to determine the scope of the process evaluation

for the PY2017 programs in OG&E’s Oklahoma Demand Program portfolio.

3.4.1 General Approach

The Evaluator’s general approach to process evaluation begins with a review of the tests

for timing and appropriateness of process evaluation as defined in Protocol C of the

Arkansas TRM. In this review, the Evaluators determine what aspects of the program

warrant a process evaluation (due to issues identified in the 2016 evaluations). Since

PY2017 is the second year of a triennial portfolio period, which is from 2016-2018, the

Evaluators were not required to perform a full process evaluation for each program.

However, due to significant changes to the programs in the previous program year, a full

process evaluation was completed on all programs.


37

The 2017 process overviews began with interviews of program staff. These interviews

inform the establishment of goals for the process evaluation, provide background history

of programs, and introduce portfolio-level issues. From this, the Evaluators then develop

a list of data collection activities. The data collection procedures for process evaluations

typically included:

Participant Surveying. The Evaluators surveyed statistically significant samples

of participants in each program to provide feedback for the program and

provide an assessment of participant satisfaction.

In-Depth Interviews. The Evaluators conducted in-depth interviews with high-

level program actors, including OG&E program staff, third-party implementation

staff, and program Trade Allies. These interviews are semi-structured, in having

general topics to be covered, without fully prescribed question and answer

frameworks.

Review of Marketing Materials. The Evaluators reviewed marketing materials

for each program, providing feedback as to the appropriateness of the message

in reaching its target audience, the breadth of the audience that the effort is

attempting to reach, and identifying possible cross-promotional opportunities.

OG&E Oklahoma Demand Program Evaluation

38

4. Home Energy Efficiency Program (HEEP)


Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 presents the ex ante energy (kWh) and demand (kW) savings,

ex post energy (kWh) and demand (kW) savings, energy (kWh) and demand (kW)

realization rates, energy (kWh) and demand (kW) net savings and net-to-gross (NTG) for

the PY2017 HEEP, by channel.

Table 4-1 Energy Savings Summary for HEEP in PY2017

Channel

Ex Ante Energy Savings (kWh)

Ex Post Energy Savings (kWh)

Reali-zation Rate

Net-to-Gross

Net Energy Savings (kWh)

Net Lifetime Energy Savings (kWh)

RSOL & Schools Outreach 13,895,898 12,872,124 93% 96% 12,355,582 135,566,818

HVAC Replacement & Tune-up 6,981,459 6,995,809 100% 93% 6,478,631 81,325,824

Consumer Products 37,136,024 40,769,066 110% 66% 26,755,865 332,002,166

HEEP Total 58,013,381 60,636,999 105% 75% 45,590,079 548,894,808

Table 4-2 Demand Reduction Summary for HEEP in PY2017

Channel

Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)

Reali-zation Rate

Net-to-

Gross

Net Demand

Reductions (kW)

RSOL & Schools Outreach 2,214.35 1,948.09 88% 92% 1,784.93

HVAC Replacement and Tune-up 2,791.72 2,792.89 100% 90% 2,505.33

Consumer Products 4,985.23 4,691.69 94% 66% 3,108.92

HEEP Total 9,991.29 9,432.68 94% 78% 7,399.19

Additional details, including approaches, are found in the following sections.

4.2 Program Overview

The HEEP program offering in PY2017 was a multipronged approach that is designed to

incentivize residential customers to reduce the energy consumption of their homes. It

provides the customer multiple avenues for participation, including home assessments,

HVAC replacement and tune-ups, and consumer product offerings.


39

4.2.1 Residential Solutions (RSOL) and Schools Outreach

In PY2017, there are two primary offerings in the Residential Solutions channel within

HEEP. One is a home assessment offered to residential customers, the other is a school’s

outreach offering for 5th grade students. The description of both is found in the section

below.

4.2.1.1 Residential Solutions

The OG&E PY2017 Oklahoma Home Energy Efficiency Program (HEEP) Residential

Solutions track differed significantly from the program track delivered the previous year.

The PY2016 Oklahoma Residential Solutions track was originally designed to offer online

home energy audits, low-cost home energy assessments, and direct install energy saving

measures to single family residential customers in OG&E’s Oklahoma service territory;

however, in the second half of 2016, the program moved its focus to multifamily

customers. In 2017, OG&E and the program implementer CLEAResult again chose to

focus less on recruiting single family customers and instead move to a stronger focus on

multifamily assessments. The energy savings potential available to the program within

that sector largely drove the change in target market focus in PY2017.

4.2.1.2 Schools Outreach

This channel includes an outreach channel targeted at school students, and was

designed to provide an educational opportunity to learn about energy efficient

opportunities in their home. This approach included an established teaching curriculum

that teachers use to review and teach their students what activities they can do to help

save energy. The students were given an energy efficiency kit with easy to install

measures (e.g., LEDs, aerators, etc.) that they took home to have their guardians help

them install.

This channel is targeted at 5th grade school students and included a survey for the

students to fill out at home and return to their teacher. Teachers received the completed

survey responses and submitted them to the program.

4.2.2 HVAC Replacement & Tune-up Channel

The HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement track was designed to offer incentives for

HVAC replacements installed and tune-ups performed in qualifying OG&E residential

customer homes. The objectives of the HVAC replacement and tune-up portion of the

program are to generate energy and demand savings from residential HVAC systems

through replacement of older inefficient equipment, or tune-up of customer’s existing

central air system to optimize its operation and efficiency, effectively reducing energy

intensity of the residence.


40

OG&E customer requests for HVAC tune-ups or unit replacements are completed through

a network of participating contractors. When customers contact the program, the project

team refers them to available contractors or schedules an appointment for them.

Contractors complete the tune-up or HVAC unit replacement, the data collection on

system performance and the paperwork required to submit for the applicable program

rebates. Once the application has passed the program requirements review, the

application is processed, and the rebate paid.

This program targets all residential customers living within the OG&E Oklahoma territory

that have HVAC systems at their residence. Incentives offered by the Program include

$175 for a HVAC Tune-up and $250-$500 for HVAC Replacement. The program is

implemented by CLEAResult.

4.2.3 Consumer Products

The OG&E PY2017 Oklahoma Home Energy Efficiency Program (HEEP) Consumer

Products track, implemented by CLEAResult, offered discounted LEDs to its participants

through Upstream and Food Bank lighting giveaways participation channels within this

program year. Below are brief descriptions of these two HEEP Consumer Products

channels.

Upstream: CLEAResult works with retailers and manufacturers to offer instant, in-store

rebates on qualifying energy efficient lighting products to OG&E customers. In PY2017,

OG&E moved from offering a combination of CFLs and LEDs to a more LED focus and

offered instant rebates that generally ranged between $1.75 and $4.00 on a variety of

LED light bulbs. CLEAResult confirmed they worked with many of the big box retailers

that they had partnered with in previous years, such as Home Depot, Wal-Mart, etc.

However, new this year was a focus to reach more low-income customers, and the

program did that through working with new-to-the-program retailers such as Dollar Tree

to promote and discount energy efficient LEDs at those additional retail locations.

Food Bank lighting giveaways: CLEAResult offered an OG&E branded giveaway box that

provided LED light bulbs to each household participating in local food banks within OG&E

territory this year. The box included a flyer educating the customer about the importance

of energy efficiency lighting.


41

Table 4-3 PY2017 HEEP Participation Summary by Channel

Channel

Total Quantity

of Measures


Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

RSOL & Schools Outreach 206,881 13,895,898 2,214.35

HVAC Replacement & Tune-up 7,021 6,981,459 2,791.72

Consumer Products 358,960 37,136,024 4,985.23

HEEP Total 572,862 58,013,381 9,991.29

4.3 Impact Evaluation Approach

The impact evaluation effort of the HEEP included the following:

Desk Review of Residential Calculations. The Evaluators utilized the

Arkansas Technical Reference Manual Version 6.0 (Arkansas TRM) values in

assessing savings from residential measures.

On-site Visits. The Evaluators provided field verification in 57 single-family and

32 multifamily residences throughout the OG&E service territory.

Free ridership Estimation. The Evaluators determine free ridership through

primary research including stakeholder interviews and customer surveys.

In addition to the Arkansas TRM, the Evaluators also examined the Excel workbook

utilized by the third-party implementation (TPI) staff (CLEAResult and RAP) to assess

savings by measure. The workbook utilizes Arkansas TRM savings algorithms with trade

ally inputs to calculate savings based on the measure and input parameters. The

Evaluators verified the factor tables for each measure to ensure the values were

appropriate.

4.3.1 Energy Savings Calculations

Four measures accounted for 93.3% of the gross energy savings (kWh) for the HEEP,

which were: LEDs, HVAC tune-ups, showerheads and Advanced Power Strips (Smart

Strips).

Figure 4-1 reports both total savings and percentage of total energy savings (kWh) for

each measure in the HEEP. The bars represent energy savings (kWh) and the line and

data callouts represent the percentage of total program energy savings (kWh). Figure 4-2

shows the percentage of total savings for HEEP by channel.

The calculation methodologies for these measures are detailed in the following sections.


42

Figure 4-1 Contributions to Ex Ante Energy Savings by Measure in PY2017

Figure 4-2 Contributions to Ex Ante Energy Savings by Channel in PY2017

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

45,000,000

50,000,000

21%

12%

67%

Residential Solutions HVAC Tune-up and Replacement Consumer Products


43

4.3.1.1 Residential Solutions (RSOL)

The following sections outline the impact evaluation approach for the RSOL channel.

For equipment and retrofits rebated through the PY2017 HEEP, calculation

methodologies were performed as described in the Arkansas TRM. Table 4-4 Arkansas

TRM Sections by Measure Type identifies the sections in the AR TRM that were used for

verification of measure-level savings.

Table 4-4 Arkansas TRM Sections by Measure Type

Measure Section in TRM

LED Bulbs 2.5.1

Ceiling Insulation 2.2.2

Windows - Energy Star 2.2.7

Faucet Aerators 2.3.4

Low Flow Showerhead 2.3.5

Advanced Power Strips 2.4.4

Pool Pumps- Energy Star 2.4.5

Air Infiltration 2.2.9

4.3.1.1.1 Air Infiltration

Air infiltration savings was calculated using the following savings algorithms from the

Arkansas TRM.

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝐶𝐹𝑀50 × 𝐸𝑆𝐹

Where:

𝐶𝐹𝑀50 = Air infiltration reduction in Cubic Feet per Minute at 50 Pascals, as measured by

the difference between pre- and post-installation blower door air leakage tests

𝐸𝑆𝐹 = corresponding energy savings factor (Table 130 through Table 133 of Arkansas

TRM)

Peak demand impacts were calculated via the following formula:

𝑘𝑊𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝐶𝐹𝑀50 × 𝐷𝑆𝐹

Where:

𝐷𝑆𝐹 = corresponding demand savings factor (Table 130 through Table 133 of Arkansas

TRM)

4.3.1.1.2 ENERGY STAR® LED Bulbs

Energy savings for LED Bulbs was calculated using the following savings algorithms from

the Arkansas TRM:


44

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = ((𝑊𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 − 𝑊𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡)/1000) ∗ 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 ∗ 𝐼𝑆𝑅 ∗ 𝐼𝐸𝐹𝐸

Where:

𝑊𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒= Based on wattage equivalent of the lumen output of the purchased LED omni-

directional lamp and the program year purchased/installed

𝑊𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = Wattage of LED purchased/installed

𝐼𝑆𝑅 = In Service Rate (first year, 0.98). The percentage of LEDs distributed that are

installed within one year of purchase, as estimated through the general population survey.

The ISR was only be used to discount first year savings. The evaluation assumes that all

purchased bulbs will be installed within three years.

𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 = Average hours of use per year = 365 days in year * Daily usage (hours/day) for

residential lamps. ADM has reviewed appropriate metering studies and calculated an

unweighted average across HOU per lamp across all studies to reduce the possibility of

bias. ADM will use a value of 2.63 hours * 365.25 days/year = 960.61 hours.

𝐼𝐸𝐹𝐸 = Interactive Effects Factor to account for cooling energy savings and heating energy

penalties.

Peak demand impacts were calculated via the following formula, adjusting peak demand

impacts for the percentage of indoor and outdoor bulbs based on the survey results:

𝑘𝑊𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = ((𝑊𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 − 𝑊𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡)/1000) ∗ 𝐶𝐹 ∗ 𝐼𝑆𝑅 ∗ 𝐼𝐸𝐹𝐷

Where:

𝑊𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒= Based on wattage equivalent of the lumen output of the purchased LED omni-

directional lamp and the program year purchased/installed

𝑊𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = Wattage of LED purchased/installed

𝐶𝐹 = Summer Peak Coincidence Factor for measure (Indoor = 10%, Outdoor = 0%)

𝐼𝑆𝑅 = In Service Rate (first year, 0.98). The percentage of LEDs distributed that are

installed within one year of purchase, as estimated through the general population survey.

The ISR was only used to discount first year savings. The evaluation assumes that all

purchased bulbs will be installed within three years.

𝐼𝐸𝐹𝐷= Interactive Effects Factor to account for cooling energy savings and heating energy

penalties.

4.3.1.1.3 Ceiling Insulation

Deemed savings values were calculated for ceiling insulation based on the following

deemed savings tables in Arkansas TRM.


45

Table 4-5 Ceiling Insulation (R-38) – Deemed Savings Values - Zone 8

Ceiling Insulat

ion Base R-

value

AC/Gas Heat kWh

Gas Heat

(no AC) kWh

Gas Heat

Therms

AC/Electric

Resistance

kWh

Heat Pump kWh

AC Peak

Savings (kW)

Peak Gas

Savings108

(therms)

0 to 1 1.8642 0.2203 0.3060 8.734 4.572 0.00107 0.00539

2 to 4 1.0497 0.1215 0.1687 4.846 2.495 0.00061 0.00284

5 to 8 0.6330 0.0728 0.1011 2.909 1.495 0.00038 0.00165

9 to 14 0.3909 0.0446 0.0618 1.784 0.917 0.00025 0.00099

15 to 22 0.1847 0.0216 0.0299 0.858 0.439 0.00011 0.00048

Table 4-6 Ceiling Insulation (R-49) – Deemed Savings Values - Zone 8

Ceiling Insulat

ion Base R-

value

AC/Gas Heat kWh

Gas Heat

(no AC) kWh

Gas Heat

Therms

AC/Electric

Resistance

kWh

Heat Pump kWh

AC Peak

Savings (kW)

Peak Gas

Savings108

(therms)

0 to 1 1.907 0.225 0.313 8.931 4.673 0.00109 0.00550

2 to 4 1.093 0.126 0.176 5.043 2.596 0.00064 0.00295

5 to 8 0.676 0.077 0.108 3.105 1.596 0.00040 0.00176

9 to 14 0.434 0.049 0.069 1.981 1.018 0.00027 0.00110

15 to 22 0.228 0.026 0.037 1.055 0.539 0.00013 0.00058

Deemed savings are based on the R-value of the ceiling insulation pre-retrofit and a

combined post-retrofit R-value (R-values of the existing insulation and the insulation being

added) of at least R-38. Savings are also provided for R-49, and linear interpolation may

be used to claim savings for final R-values between R-38 and R-49.

4.3.1.1.4 Energy Star Windows

Deemed savings values were calculated for Energy Star Windows based on the following

deemed savings tables in Arkansas TRM.

Table 4-7 ENERGY STAR® Replacement for Single-Pane Window - Zone 8

Equipment Type kWh

Savings / sq. ft.

kW Savings /

sq. ft.

Therm Savings / sq.

ft.

Peak Therm Savings / sq.

ft.

Electric AC with Gas Heat 5.800 0.0036 0.253 0.011

Gas Heat Only (no AC) 0.187 n/a 0.256 0.011

Elec. AC with Resistance Heat 11.485 0.0036 n/a n/a

Heat Pump 7.768 0.0036 n/a n/a


46

Table 4-8 ENERGY STAR® Replacement for Double-Pane Window - Zone 8

Equipment Type kWh

Savings / sq. ft.

kW Savings /

sq. ft.

Therm Savings / sq.

ft.

Peak Therm Savings / sq.

ft.

Electric AC with Gas Heat 3.730 0.0037 0.210 0.0077

Gas Heat Only (no AC) 0.156 n/a 0.214 0.0077

Elec. AC with Resistance Heat 8.476 0.0037 n/a n/a

Heat Pump 5.484 0.0031 n/a n/a

4.3.1.1.5 Pool Pumps

Deemed savings values were calculated for Pool Pumps based on the following deemed

savings tables in Arkansas TRM:

Table 4-9 ENERGY STAR® Variable Speed Pool Pumps

Pump

HP

kW

Savings

kWh

Savings

0.5 0.24 1,713

0.75 0.28 1,860

1 0.36 2,063

1.5 0.47 2,465

2 0.52 2,718

2.5 0.57 2,838

3 0.72 3,364

Table 4-10 ENERGY STAR® Multi-Speed Pool Pumps

Pump HP

kW Savings

kWh Savings

1 0.30 1,629

1.5 0.40 1,945

2 0.41 1,994

2.5 0.46 2,086

3 0.54 2,292

4.3.1.1.6 Faucet Aerators

The deemed savings for aerators were calculated by using the following equation, which

is found in the Arkansas TRM.

𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝜌 × 𝐶𝑃 × 𝑉 × (𝑇𝑀𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 − 𝑇𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦) × (

1

𝑅𝐸)

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

Where:

ρ = Water density = 8.33 lb/gal


47

Cp = Specific heat of water = 1 BTU/lb·°F

V = gallons of water saved per year per faucet from

Tmixed = Mixed water temperature, 102.6°F

TSupply = Average supply water temperature (Water Main Temperature dependent on

climate zone).

RE = Recovery Efficiency (or in the case of HPWH, EF); if unknown, use 0.98 as a default

for electric resistance water heaters, 2.2 for heat pump water heaters, or 0.79 for natural

gas water heaters

Conversion Factor = 3,412 Btu/kWh for electric water heating or 100,000 Btu/Therm for

gas water heating

𝑘𝑊𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 × 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑘𝑊

Where:

RatioPeak kW Annual kWh = 0.000104

4.3.1.1.7 Low Flow Showerhead

The deemed savings for showerheads were calculated by using the following equation.

Equation 1: Energy Savings Calculation for Showerheads

𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝜌 × 𝐶𝑃 × 𝑉 × (𝑇𝑀𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑 − 𝑇𝑆𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦) × (

1

𝑅𝐸)

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

Where:

ρ =Water density = 8.33 lb/gallon

Cp = Specific heat of water = 1 BTU/lb·°F

V = 2.0, 1.75, or 1.5 gpm showerhead water gallons saved per year

Tmixed = Mixed water temperature, 104.3°F, from Table 156 (average for Arkansas)

Tsupply = Average supply water temperature (Water main temperature)

RE = Recovery Efficiency (or in the case of HPWH, EF); if unknown, use 0.98 as a default

for electric resistance water heaters, 2.2 for heat pump water heaters, or 0.79 for natural

gas water heaters


48

Conversion Factor = 3,412 Btu/kWh for electric water heating or 100,000 Btu/therm for

gas water heating

𝑘𝑊𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 × 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑘𝑊

Where:

RatioPeak kW Annual kWh = 0.000104

4.3.1.1.8 Advanced Power Strips

Section 2.4.4 of the Arkansas TRM, provides deemed energy savings for advanced power

strips based on type; home entertainment, home office, or average. Where possible, the

Evaluators used stipulated savings per plug load based this section. If plug loads are

identified that do not conform to this list, savings values were developed based upon

secondary research of the applicable equipment.


At the outset of each program year, RAP calculates an average per-kit savings based on

the then most current Arkansas and some assumptions about installation and NTG. RAP

sends electronic reports to OG&E throughout the year on the number of kits delivered to

classrooms and the associated impacts. RAP provides OG&E with a final report after the

program year is complete that shows the number of kits delivered, as well as their final

estimates of annual kWh and kW impacts for the program year.

OG&E maintains a tracking system that shows the number of participants in the program

each year and recorded impacts. The data are provided by RAP and transferred into the

Saratoga tracking system by OG&E. OG&E uses the participation information and impact

estimates provided by RAP as the reported amounts for the program year.

For measures rebated through the PY2017 Schools Outreach participation channel,

calculation methodologies were performed as described in the Arkansas TRM. Table 4-11

identifies the sections in the Arkansas TRM that were used for verification of measure-

level savings.

Table 4-11 Arkansas TRM Sections by Measure Type

Measure Section in

TRM

LED Bulbs 2.5.1

Faucet Aerators 2.3.4

Low Flow Showerhead 2.3.5


49

The impact evaluation effort of the Schools Outreach participation channel included the

following:

Desk Review of Residential Calculations. The Evaluators utilized Arkansas

TRM values in assessing savings from residential measures found within each

kit.

Net-to-Gross Estimation. Schools Outreach has a net-to-gross (NTG) of

100%.


utilized by implementation staff (RAP) to assess savings by project. The workbook utilizes

the Arkansas TRM savings algorithms to estimate per kit savings based on input

parameters, and was reported in net numbers. The Evaluators verified the project savings

for each kit to ensure the values were appropriate, and applied those values to the number

of kits that were distributed in the program for PY2017. The TRM algorithms were

modified by verification rates calculated using customer surveys provided by RAP. For

domestic hot water measures, the Evaluators determined the mix of water heater fuel

types (standard electric, heat pump, or gas) from the customer survey.

4.3.1.2.1 LED Bulbs

See Section 4.3.1.1.2 for details on how the Arkansas TRM outlines the savings

estimation approach.

4.3.1.2.2 Faucet Aerators



4.3.1.2.3 Low Flow Showerhead



4.3.1.3 HVAC Replacement and Tune-up

The impact evaluation effort of the HVAC Replacement and Tune-up participation channel

included the following:

Desk Review of Residential Calculations. The Evaluators utilized the

Arkansas TRM values to perform a review of all projects submitted in PY2017.

Net-to-Gross Estimation. The Evaluators estimated the NTG based on survey

responses.


50

4.3.1.3.1 Central Air Conditioner Replacement

This measure involves a residential retrofit with a new central air conditioning system or

the installation of a new central air conditioning system in a residential new construction

(packaged unit, or split system consisting of an indoor unit with a matching remote

condensing unit). This measure applies to all residential applications. All projects were

replace-on-burnout (ROB) per the tracking data provided by CLEAResult.

The savings for central air conditioning units were calculated by using the following

equation.

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝐶𝐴𝑃𝑐 ∗1 𝑘𝑊

1000 𝑊∗ 𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝑐 (

1

𝑆𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒−

1

𝑆𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡)

𝑘𝑊𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝐶𝐴𝑃𝑐 ∗1 𝑘𝑊

1000 𝑊∗ (

1

𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒−

1

𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡) ∗ 𝐶𝐹

Where:

𝐶𝐴𝑃 = Rated equipment cooling capacity of the new unit (Btu/hr)

𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝑐 = Equivalent full-load cooling hours

𝑆𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 = Seasonal energy efficiency rating of the baseline equipment for cooling

𝑆𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡= Seasonal energy efficiency rating of the installed equipment for cooling

𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒= Full-load energy efficiency rating of the baseline equipment for cooling

𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡= Full-load energy efficiency rating of the installed equipment for cooling

𝐶𝐹 = Coincidence factor = 0.87 (default)

All projects were in weather zone 8 Ft. Smith, and therefore EFLHc was 1432.

4.3.1.3.2 Central Heat Pump Replacement

This measure consists of a residential retrofit with a new heat pump system or the

installation of a new central heat pump system in residential new construction (packaged

unit, or split system consisting of an indoor unit with a matching remote condensing unit).

Maximum cooling capacity per unit is 65,000 BTU/hour. This measure applies to all

residential applications. All projects were replace-on-burnout (ROB) per the tracking data

provided by CLEAResult.

The savings for central heat pump replacements were calculated by using the following

equation.

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐶 + 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐻


51

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐶 = 𝐶𝐴𝑃𝑐 ∗1 𝑘𝑊

1000 𝑊∗ 𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝑐 (

1

𝑆𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒−

1

𝑆𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡)

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐻 = 𝐶𝐴𝑃ℎ ∗1 𝑘𝑊

1000 𝑊∗ 𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻ℎ (

1

𝐻𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒−

1

𝐻𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡)

𝑘𝑊𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝐶𝐴𝑃𝑐 ∗1 𝑘𝑊

1000 𝑊∗ (

1

𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒−

1

𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡) ∗ 𝐶𝐹

Where:

𝐶𝐴𝑃𝑐 = Rated equipment cooling capacity of the new unit (Btu/hr)

𝐶𝐴𝑃ℎ = Rated equipment heating capacity of the new unit (Btu/hr)

𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝑐 = Equivalent full-load cooling hours

𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻ℎ = Equivalent full-load cooling hours

𝑆𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 = Seasonal energy efficiency rating of the baseline equipment for cooling

𝑆𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡= Seasonal energy efficiency rating of the installed equipment for cooling

𝐻𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒= Heating seasonal performance rating of the baseline equipment for heating

𝐻𝑆𝑃𝐹𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡= Heating seasonal performance rating of the installed equipment for heating

𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒= Full-load energy efficiency rating of the baseline equipment for cooling

𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡= Full-load energy efficiency rating of the installed equipment for cooling

𝐶𝐹 = Coincidence factor = 0.87 (default)

All projects were in weather zone 8 Ft. Smith, and therefore EFLHc was 1432.

4.3.1.3.3 HVAC Tune-up

The CoolSaver Program provided financial incentives to encourage residential customers

to improve the efficiency of their HVAC systems. Incentives were provided for a tune-up

of the system and for HVAC system replacements.

Tune-ups were provided by a qualified technician and involve testing the performance of

the unit before and after measures are implemented. Typical measures implemented as

part of the tune-up procedure include air flow correction; cleaning of the indoor blower,

evaporator coils, condenser coils; and correction of refrigerant charge.

Evaluation of the program is based on the CoolSaver 2017 M&V Plan provided by

CLEAResult. The evaluators examined the Excel workbook containing a census of

program participants to assess savings by measure. The workbook provided contains


52

data exported from the program tracking tool. The Evaluators examined the data and

recreated the overall savings calculations. Savings from AC and heat pump tune-ups

were based on the Arkansas TRM stipulated equivalent full-load hours along with unit-

specific capacity and deemed efficiency loss recovered due to work performed in

accordance with the program.

4.3.1.3.4 Duct Sealing

Duct sealing savings was calculated using the following savings algorithms from the

Arkansas TRM.

Cooling Savings (Electric):

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐶 =(𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑟𝑒 − 𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡) 𝑥 𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝐶 𝑥 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡𝜌𝑜𝑢𝑡 − ℎ𝑖𝑛𝜌𝑖𝑛) 𝑥 60

1,000 𝑥 𝑆𝐸𝐸𝑅

Where:

𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑟𝑒 = Pre-improvement duct leakage at 25 Pa (ft3/min)

𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = Post-improvement duct leakage at 25 Pa (ft3/min)

𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝐶= Equivalent Full Load Hours.

ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡= Outdoor design specific enthalpy (Btu/lb)

ℎ𝑖𝑛 = Indoor design specific enthalpy (Btu/lb)

Table 4-12 Deemed Savings Values for Duct Sealing Calculations

Parameter Value

EFLHC 1,432

HDD 3,919

hout 39

hin 29

ρin .076

Ρout .074

SEER 11.5

𝜌𝑜𝑢𝑡= Density of outdoor air at 95°F = 0.0740 (lb/ft3)

𝜌𝑖𝑛 = Density of conditioned air at 75°F = 0.0756 (lb/ft3)

60 = Constant to convert from minutes to hours

𝐶𝐴𝑃 = Cooling capacity (Btu/hr)

1,000 = Constant to convert from W to kW


53

𝑆𝐸𝐸𝑅 = Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio of existing system (Btu/W·hr)

Default value for SEER = 11.5

Heating Savings (Heat Pump):

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐻 =(𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑟𝑒 − 𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡)𝑥 60 𝑥 𝐻𝐷𝐷 𝑥 24 𝑥 0.018

1,000 𝑥 𝐻𝑆𝑃𝐹

Where:



𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝐻 = Equivalent full load heating hours


𝐻𝐷𝐷 = Heating degree days

24 = Constant to convert from days to hours

0.018 = Volumetric heat capacity of air (Btu/ft3°F)

𝐶𝐴𝑃 = Heating capacity (Btu/hr)

1,000 = Constant to convert from W to kW

𝐻𝑆𝑃𝐹 = Heating Seasonal Performance Factor of existing system (Btu/W·hr)

Default value for HSPF = 7.30

Heating Savings (Electric Resistance):

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐻 =(𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑟𝑒 − 𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡) 𝑥 60 𝑥 𝐻𝐷𝐷 𝑥 24 𝑥 0.018

3,412

Where:

𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑟𝑒= Pre-improvement duct leakage at 25 Pa (ft3/min)

𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡= Post-improvement duct leakage at 25 Pa (ft3/min)


HDD = Heating degree days



EFLHH = Equivalent full load heating hours

CAP = Heating capacity (Btu/hr)


54

3,412 = Constant to convert from Btu to kWh

Demand Savings (Cooling):

𝑘𝑊𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐶 =𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐶

𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝐶 𝑥 𝐶𝐹

Where:

kWhsavings,C = Calculated kWh savings for cooling

EFLHC = Equivalent full load cooling hours

CF = Coincidence factor = 0.87

4.3.1.4 Consumer Products

The impact evaluation effort of the Consumer Products channel included the following:

Desk Review of Residential Calculations. The Evaluators utilized Arkansas

TRM values in assessing savings from residential measures found within each

kit.

Net-to-Gross Estimation. The Evaluators determined the NTG through

surveys of the PY2017 HEEP participants.

Leakage Estimation: Leakage was estimated for each of the retailers and food

banks in the program.


utilized by implementation staff to assess program savings. The workbook utilizes

Arkansas TRM savings algorithms to estimate per kit savings based on input parameters,

and was reported in net numbers. The Evaluators verified the project savings for each kit

to ensure the values were appropriate and applied those values to the number of kits that

were distributed in the program for PY2017.

4.3.1.4.1 LED Bulbs


estimation approach. Please note that the ISR for the food bank distribution will be

modified from the TRM value. Through a discussion with implementation team and utility

staff, the Evaluators have determined that the ISR of 0.77 from the Vermont TRM7 is more

appropriate for this distribution method.

7 See page 353: http://puc.vermont.gov/sites/psbnew/files/doc_library/ev-technical-reference-manual.pdf

http://puc.vermont.gov/sites/psbnew/files/doc_library/ev-technical-reference-manual.pdf


55

4.3.1.4.2 Leakage

Leakage refers to cross-territory sales that occur when program discounted bulbs are

installed outside of OG&E’s service territory. When this occurs, the energy and demand

impacts from the discounted bulbs are not being realized within the territory that paid for

and claimed the savings. Estimates of leakage were assessed using an approach that

combined survey responses with Geo-mapping. The leakage analysis centered on the

following approach:

First, the Evaluators developed a mapping of concentric circles surrounding the

participating retailers or food pantries. The initial modeling assumed the “reach”

of a retailer is a 60-minute drive, which is then modified by the presence of an

alternative sponsoring retailer or food pantry (i.e., if a customer is within a 60-

minute drive of two sponsoring retailers, it is assumed they purchased from the

closest one). This allows for an initial leakage score to be applied to each

participating retail location based upon the percent of customers within the

concentric circle that are served by the sponsoring utility.

Second, the survey was used to assess the shopping habits of customers within

the radius of participating retailers. This was used to assess the total and

maximum drive time that Oklahoma consumers accepted when shopping for

products incentivized by the channel. This was used in modifying the initial 60-

minute drive assumption established in Step 1.

Lastly, the percentage of LEDs that leaked out of OG&E territory (but still within

OK) and the percent that leaked out of state were calculated.

4.3.1.4.3 Cross Sector Sales Adjustments

The Evaluators estimated annual hours of use (HOU) in PY2017. This reflects an average

daily HOU of 2.63 times 365.25 days per year. The time period in which the savings occur

affects the applicable baseline wattage and discount factor for cost-effectiveness savings.

The Evaluators used responses from the customer surveys to estimate the percentage of

purchased bulbs that are installed in non-residential facilities. For these bulbs, HOU were

estimated to be 3,253 based on the established evaluation framework in Oklahoma. This

has the effect of increasing annual energy savings and peak demand reduction for the

7.9% of bulbs estimated to be installed in non-residential settings. Lifetime energy savings

for these bulbs also increases to the extent that the savings occur sooner, before EISA

Tier 1 and EISA Tier 2 baselines become effective.

Table 4-13 shows the estimated leakage for each participation channel in the Consumer

Products channel for PY2017.


56

Table 4-13 PY2017 Leakage Estimates

Participation Channel

Estimated Leakage for Energy Savings

(kWh)

Estimated Leakage for

Demand Reductions (kW)

Food Bank 325,057 43.61

Retail 2,096,999 236.85

Total 2,422,055 280.46

The channel-level leakage rate was 5.61%, the leakage rate for mass merchant stores

was 5.42%, do-it-yourself stores was 5.22%, discount stores was 8.04%, and food banks

was 7.35%.

4.3.1.4.4 Net-to-Gross Estimation Methodology

Program measures were separated into two categories for net-to-gross estimation.

For bulbs distributed through local food pantries, the net-to-gross ratio is

assumed to be 100%. The 100% net-to-gross ratio is assumed because

customers do not shop for the lighting products but rather are simply offered

bulbs without prompting. Individuals who received bulbs through the food banks

are also more likely to represent low income customers, potentially limiting their

ability or willingness to purchase high efficiency lighting products. Overall, the

bulbs giveaways represent approximately 17% of reported energy savings.

For bulbs discounted at participating retail stores, the Evaluators estimated free

ridership as described throughout the rest of this section.

Determining the net effects of the in-store retail discounts requires estimating the

percentage of energy savings from efficient lighting purchases that would have occurred

without program intervention. Ideally, participating retailers could provide light bulb sales

data for non-program time periods and/or from similar non-program retail locations. This

data would provide adequate information from which to calculate the lift in bulb sales

attributable to the program price mark downs. However, retailers are reluctant to release

sales data for this purpose and non-program sales data was not made available to the

Evaluators.

The Evaluators instead conducted surveys with HEEP participants. Additional details are

provided in Section 4.5.4 below.

4.3.2 On-site Procedures and Findings

To facilitate a thorough evaluation, the evaluators conducted several primary research

and data collection activities, including site visits. For PY2017, those site visits focused

on the Residential Solutions and HVAC Tune-up channels.


57

The Evaluators conducted 89 on-site verification visits for this programs during PY2017.

OG&E provided significant support, notifying site verification participants and identifying

the most appropriate contact at sites where it was needed. During these visits, the

Evaluators confirmed which measures were installed and operational.

The section below outlines the process for site visits and findings.

4.3.2.1 On-site Verification Procedure

The primary goal of field verification was to ensure that the reported measures were

installed and operating correctly in participant homes. Participants were given Walmart

gift cards for their time; these were in the amount of $20. During the on-site visits, the

Evaluators’ field technicians accomplished the following:

Verified the implementation status of the measures; verified that the measures

were installed, that they were installed correctly, and were functioning properly.

Photographs were taken of most of the installed measures.

Data collected at each site focused on obtaining more specific information

regarding the characteristics of the home where the measures were

implemented.

A field visit form was completed for each visited site to document measure quantities,

home characteristics, and any needed additional commentary regarding the visit.

Specifically, the field form included the following fields:

Home Characteristics: The field engineer documented the type of home (i.e.

single story vs. multi-story), number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, total

conditioned area, and heating type.

Measure Quantity Verification: The engineer documented reported vs. actual

quantities of each measure type (e.g. LEDs, water heater measures) and any

applicable notes regarding burnt out bulbs or non-operational equipment.

Insulation Assessment: The form includes fields for insulation square footage,

the R-value or inches of insulation, and the type of insulation (e.g. blown cell).

Supplemental Notes: The field engineer recorded any notable comments

provided by the customer regarding the work that was performed, and identified

any verification issues that had occurred during the visit (e.g. if the attic was

not accessible).

4.3.2.1.1 Residential Solutions

The Evaluators conducted on-site verification visits to 89 participant homes, broken up by

housing type (57 single-family and 32 multifamily). Due a low response rate with the

multifamily component, the results from PY2016 were combined with the results for

PY2017.


58

These site visits were conducted to verify complete and proper measure installation, to

conduct post-implementation measurements, and to collect information regarding

residence characteristics such as square footage and heating type.

The field verification activity showed that the measures for both programs had for the

most part been installed in the quantities reported within program tracking data. This

section summarizes the verification findings by measure category.

Specific notes regarding the on-site verification findings for the single-family segment

include:

Energy Star Windows: No sampled energy star windows were removed or not

installed, resulting in a 100% verification rate.

LED Bulbs: 41 of 441 claimed LED bulbs were found to have been removed or

not installed, which resulted in a 90.7% verification rate.

Advanced Power Strips: 4 of 64 claimed power strips were found not installed

or used, which resulted in a 94% verification rate. The majority, 75% of power

strips were found to be installed with entertainment devices plugged into them.

Ceiling Insulation: for the 9 sites, all sites were verified to be installed resulting

in a 100% verification rate.

Specific notes regarding the on-site verification findings for the multifamily segment

include:

1.0 gallons per minute (GPM) Aerator: Eight of 69 were found to have been

removed, which resulted in an 88% verification rate.

1.5 GPM Showerhead: Five of 42 were found to have been removed, which

resulted in an 88% verification rate.

9 watt LED: 36 of 319 bulbs were found to have been removed, which resulted

in an 89% verification rate.

Advanced Power Strips: seven of 31 were found to have been removed, which

resulted in a 77% verification rate. Additionally, 88.9% of smart strips were

found to be installed with entertainment devices plugged into them.

4.3.3 Verified Savings by Measure

4.3.3.1 Residential Solutions

After reviewing the tracking data and inputs for savings calculations, the Evaluators

provided verified ex post savings per TRM protocols. The savings from the measures

below were verified, and matched, to the calculations provided by CLEAResult.


59

Single-family Measures8:

o Energy Star Windows;

o LED Bulbs;

o Advanced Power Strips; and

o Ceiling Insulation.

Multifamily Measures:

o Showerhead;

o Aerators;

o LED Bulbs; and

o Advanced Power Strips.

Factors that impacted savings are listed in individual measure sections below. The

Evaluators verified measure-level savings per the Arkansas TRM guidelines and obtained

results that differed from CLEAResult’s calculations.

4.3.3.1.1 Energy Star Windows

This measure was only installed in single-family homes.

Table 4-14 Energy Star Window Savings Summary



Realization rate (kWh)

Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)

Realization rate (kW)

153,994 165,220 107.3% 118.99 141.07 118.6%

4.3.3.1.2 Ceiling Insulation

This measure was only installed in single-family homes.

Table 4-15 Ceiling Insulation Savings Summary




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


909,540 737,605 81.1% 510.92 438.09 85.7%

4.3.3.1.3 Air Infiltration

Incentives were not offered for this measure in PY2017, however there were some

projects installed in PY2016 that were not paid until PY2017. The savings from these

projects, installed in single-family homes, are accounted for a part of this report.

8 Though incentives were not offered for pool pumps and air infiltration, there were pool pumps and air infiltration

measures installed in PY2016, but rebated in PY2017. The savings from these measures are accounted for in this

report


60

Table 4-16 Air Infiltration Savings Summary




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


1,575 1,571 99.8% 0.68 0.64 94.5%

4.3.3.1.4 Pool Pumps

Incentives were not offered for this measure in PY2017, however there were some

projects installed in PY2016 that were not paid until PY2017. The savings from these

projects, installed in single-family homes, are accounted for a part of this report.

Table 4-17 Pool Pump Savings Summary




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


11,012.00 11,012.00 100% 2.18 2.18 100%

4.3.3.1.5 Showerhead

This measure was only installed in multifamily homes.

Table 4-18 Showerhead Savings Summary




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


3,272,023 2,756,713 84.3% 340.39 286.70 84.2%

4.3.3.1.6 Aerator

This measure was only installed in multifamily homes.

Table 4-19 Aerator Savings Summary




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


1,019,607 905,528 88.8% 105.95 94.17 88.9%

4.3.3.1.7 LED Bulbs

This measure was installed in both single-family and multifamily homes.


61

Table 4-20 Single-family LED Bulbs Savings Summary




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


935,257 866,039 92.6% 116.52 107.73 92.5%

Table 4-21 Multifamily LED Bulbs Savings Summary




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


2,904,296 3,074,693 105.9% 470.37 412.47 87.7%

4.3.3.1.8 Advanced Power Strips

This measure was installed in both single-family and multifamily homes. Room type and

which devices were plugged in were not tracked, and therefore an average value was

applied based on a percentage of room type verified in field visits.

Table 4-22 Single-family Advanced Power Strip Savings Summary




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


766,101 681,279 88.9% 89.89 79.86 88.8%

Table 4-23 Multifamily Advanced Power Strip Savings Summary




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


2,354,035 1,822,479 77.4% 280.02 216.79 77.4%


After reviewing the tracking data and inputs for savings calculations, the Evaluators

provided verified ex post savings per Arkansas TRM protocols. The savings from the

measures below were verified, and matched, to the calculations provided by OG&E.

Faucet Aerators;

Showerhead; and

LED Bulbs.


62

Factors that impacted savings are listed in individual measure sections below. The

Evaluators verified measure-level savings per Arkansas TRM guidelines and obtained

results that differed from RAP’s calculations for the following measures:

4.3.3.2.1 Energy Efficiency Kits

The table below shows the per-measure ex post savings and in-service rates (ISR) for

the schools outreach kit components.

Table 4-24 Kits Ex Post Savings Savings Summary

Measure ISR


Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)

9 W LED Bulb 1 68% 21.73 0.00142

9 W LED Bulb 2 60% 19.10 0.00125

Showerhead 50% 64.28 0.00669

Kitchen Aerator 43% 6.27 0.00065

Bathroom Aerator 41% 9.92 0.00103

4.3.3.3 HVAC Replacement and Tune-up

4.3.3.3.1 HVAC Replacement

The Evaluators verified equipment by looking up units in the AHRI database. The tracking

data only showed one unit capacity per line item. Through the verification process the

Evaluators determined that the capacity in the tracking data was the cooling capacity only.

All of the heat pumps were verified to have slightly lower heating capacities than cooling

capacities resulting in the lower than 100% realization rate for heat pump replacements.

Table 4-25 HVAC Replacement Savings Summary

Measure




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


AC 175,351 174,365 99% 55.56 55.50 175,351

Heat Pump 16,441 15,069 92% 1.86 1.85 16,441

Total 191,792 189,433 99% 57.42 57.34 191,792


63

4.3.3.3.2 Tune-up

Program calculations matched CoolSaver 2017 M&V Plan.

Table 4-26 Tune-up Savings Summary

Measure



Realization Rate

(kWh)

Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)

Realization Rate (kW)

Modeled & M&V Tune-up

4,314,833 4,314,851 100% 2,216.50 2,216.66 100%

Pre-clean & Post Measure Tune-up

674,711 676,639 100% 347.36 348.29 100%

Total 4,989,544 4,991,490 100% 2,564 2,565 100%

4.3.3.3.3 HVAC Replacement and Tune-up: Duct Sealing

The ex ante savings was verified to be accurate.

Table 4-27 Duct Sealing Gross Savings Summary




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


1,800,123 1,814,885 101% 170.44 170.59 100%

4.3.3.4 Consumer Products

The primary reasons for the realization rates are as follows. For the food bank distribution,

the Evaluators verified that 18,680 of the claimed lamps had not been distributed in 2017.

Additionally, as explain in the Energy Savings Calculations chapter, the Evaluators

applied an ISR of 77% to the food bank lamps. For the retail channel, the ex ante

calculations assigned a low baseline wattage to reflector lamps (40W instead of 65W).

Additionally, the Evaluators verified slightly greater cross-sector sales than in past years,

which increases the hours of use of a portion of lamps.

Table 4-28 Gross Summary for Consumer Products

Participation Type




Ex Ante Demand Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand Reductions (kW)


Food Bank 6,205,194 4,098,108 66% 833.00 549.76 66%

Retail 30,930,830 36,670,959 119% 4,152.23 4,141.93 100%

Total 37,136,024 40,769,066 110% 4,985.23 4,691.69 94%


64

4.4 Gross Savings Summary and Findings

4.4.1 Residential Solutions

Table 4-29, Table 4-30, and Table 4-31 present the verified ex post savings results of

the PY2017 Residential Solutions channel, by measure and market segment.

Table 4-29 SF and MF Combined Savings Summary for PY2017

Measure




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


Aerator 1,019,607 905,528 89% 105.95 94.17 89%

Smart Strips 3,120,136 2,503,758 80% 369.91 296.65 80%

Air Sealing 1,575 1,571 100% 0.68 0.64 95%

LED 3,839,553 3,940,732 103% 586.89 520.20 89%

Showerhead 3,272,023 2,756,713 84% 340.39 286.70 84%

EE Window 153,994 165,220 107% 118.99 141.07 119%

Ceiling Insulation 909,540 737,605 81% 510.92 438.09 86%

Pool Pumps 11,012 11,012 100% 2.18 2.18 100%

Total 12,327,440 11,022,140 89% 2,035.90 1,779.71 87%


65

Table 4-30 Single-family Savings Summary by Measure for PY2017

Measure




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


Smart Strips 766,101 681,279 89% 89.89 79.86 89%

Air Sealing 1,575 1,571 100% 0.68 0.64 95%

LED 935,257 866,039 93% 116.52 107.73 92%

EE Window 153,994 165,220 107% 118.99 141.07 119%

Ceiling Insulation 909,540 737,605 81% 510.92 438.09 86%

Pool Pumps 11,012 11,012 100% 2.18 2.18 100%

Total 2,777,479 2,462,727 89% 839.18 769.58 92%

Table 4-31 Multifamily Savings Summary by Measure for PY2017

Measure




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


Aerator 1,019,607 905,528 89% 105.95 94.17 89%

Smart Strips 2,354,035 1,822,479 77% 280.02 216.79 77%

LED 2,904,296 3,074,693 106% 470.37 412.47 88%

Showerhead 3,272,023 2,756,713 84% 340.39 286.70 84%

Total 9,549,961 8,559,413 90% 1,196.72 1,010.13 84%

Table 4-32, Table 4-33 and Table 4-34 outlines the verified ex post lifetime savings by

measure for the Residential Solutions channel by market segment.

Table 4-32 SF and MF Combined Lifetime Savings Summary for PY2017

Measure

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier One

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier two

Ex Post Lifetime Energy

Savings (kWh) Aerator 10 9,055,283

Smart Strips 10 25,037,580

Air Sealing 11 17,285

LED 6 14 41,493,591

Showerhead 10 27,567,128

EE Window 20 3,304,400

Ceiling Insulation 20 14,752,105

Pool Pumps 10 110,120

Total 121,337,493


66

Table 4-33 Single-family Lifetime Savings Summary by Measure for PY2017

Measure

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL)

Tier One

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL)

Tier two

Ex Post Lifetime Energy Savings (kWh)


Air Sealing 11 17,285

LED 6 14 9,118,882

EE Window 20 3,304,400


Pool Pumps 10 110,120

Total 34,115,587

Table 4-34 Multifamily Gross Lifetime Savings Summary by Measure

Measure

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL)

Tier One

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL)

Tier two


Aerator 10 9,055,283


LED 6 14 32,374,709


Total 87,221,905

4.4.2 Schools Outreach

Table 4-35 presents the verified ex post energy savings (kWh) results of the PY2017

Schools Outreach channel.

Table 4-35 Schools Outreach Savings Summary




Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


1,568,456 1,849,984 118% 178.45 168.37 94%

Table 4-36 outlines the verified ex post lifetime energy savings (kWh) by measure for the

Schools Outreach channel.


67

Table 4-36 Lifetime Savings Summary by Measure for PY2017

Measure

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL)

Tier One

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL)

Tier two


LED 6 14 8,962,797


Aerator 10 2,469,513

Total 21,236,507

4.4.3 HVAC Replacement and Tune-up

Table 4-37 outlines the verified ex post energy savings (kWh) and demand reductions

(kW) per measure for the HVAC Replacement and Tune-up channel.

Table 4-37 Gross Savings Summary for HVAC Replacement

Measure



Reali-zation Rate

(kWh)

Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)

Reali-zation

Rate (kW)

Tune-up 4,989,544 4,991,490 100% 2,564 2,565 100%

Replacement 191,792 189,433 99% 57.42 57.34 100%

Duct Sealing 1,800,123 1,814,885 101% 170.44 170.59 100%

Total 6,981,459 6,995,809 100% 2,791.72 2,792.89 100%

Table 4-38 outlines the ex post lifetimes savings (kWh) for the HVAC replacement

participation channel within the HVAC Replacement and Tune-up channel.

Table 4-38 HVAC Replacement Lifetime Savings Summary

Measure Estimate

Useful Life (EUL)

Ex Post Lifetime Energy Savings

(kWh)

Tune-up 10 49,914,900

Replacement 19 3,554,030

Duct Sealing 18 32,667,930

Total 86,136,860


Table 4-40 outlines the verified ex post energy savings (kWh) and demand reductions

(kW) for the Consumer Products channel.


68

Table 4-39 Savings Summary for Consumer Products

Table 4-40 outlines the ex post lifetimes savings (kWh) for the Consumer Products

channel.

Table 4-40 Lifetime Savings Summary for Consumer Products

4.5 Net Savings Summary and Findings

4.5.1 Residential Solutions

The following sections summarize the methodologies and results of the estimation of the

net savings for RSOL. The Evaluators estimated a free ridership probability for the

incentivized energy efficiency equipment. This free ridership probability is then rounded,

yielding a binary score.

The follow sections outline the net impact findings for both the single-family and

multifamily participants in the Residential Solutions program channel in HEEP.

4.5.1.1 Multifamily Direct Install Measures and Single-family Rebated Measures

Free Ridership Methodology

To assess the program’s influence on the installation of multifamily direct install measures

and single-family rebated measures, program participants were asked questions

regarding:

If they could afford to install the equipment if it had not been provided for free

through the program;

If they had plans to complete the project;




Realization Rate (kWh)

Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)


Food Bank 6,205,194 4,098,108 66% 833.00 549.76 66%

Retail 30,930,830 36,670,959 119% 4,152.23 4,141.93 100%

Total 37,136,024 40,769,066 110% 4,985.23 4,691.69 94%

Bulb Type

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL)

Tier One*

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL)

Tier Two*


Specialty 20 175,387,534

General Purpose 6 14 335,261,364

Total 510,648,898


69

The likelihood of installing the equipment if it had not been provided for free;

The timing of the project in the absence of the program.

In this methodology, financial ability is essentially a gateway value, in that if a participant

does not have the financial ability to purchase energy efficient equipment absent a rebate,

the other components of free ridership become moot. If they did have the financial

capability, the Evaluators then examined the other components to assess free ridership

levels. An overall free ridership score was calculated based on a prior plan’s score, a

likelihood of installing the measure in the absence of the program, and a timing score.

For multifamily direct install participants, a prior score plans score was developed based

on responses to a question regarding the presence of plans to install the measure before

learning of the program and previous experience with installing the measure. For single-

family participants, the score was based on a response to a question regarding the

presence of plans. Single-family respondents were not asked about prior experience with

the rebated measures because typically these were measures that would not have been

previously implemented. However, respondents that implemented efficient windows or

pool pumps were asked to confirm that their plans were to purchase efficient equipment

as opposed to standard equipment. The plans score was factored by the programs impact

on timing. Specifically,

If the respondent stated that they would have installed the measure more than

one year after the measure was installed, the prior plan score reduced to zero.

If the respondent stated that they would have installed the measure in 6 months

to one year, then the prior plans score was reduced by one-half.

If the respondent stated that they would have installed the measure at the same

time or within 6 months of when it was installed, the prior plans score was not

adjusted.

A likelihood of installing the measure in the absence of the program was developed based

on respondents stated likelihood of installing a measure. Specifically, responses to this

question were scored as follows:

Very likely: 1

Somewhat likely: .75

Neither particularly likely nor unlikely: .5

Somewhat unlikely: .25

Very unlikely: 0

The overall free ridership score for participants with the financial ability to install the

measures was based on the average of the prior plans and the likelihood scores. The free

ridership scoring is summarized in Figure 4-3.


70

Figure 4-3 Multifamily Direct Install and Single-family Rebated Measure Free

ridership

4.5.1.2 Single-family Direct Install Measures Free Ridership Methodology

The approach to estimating free ridership for the single-family direct install measures was

like the approach described above, but differed in three regards. First, because LED light

bulbs and smart power strips are relatively low cost items, financial ability is less likely to

be a factor for participants. Second, because of their relatively low cost and the ability to

easily self-install the items, it is unlikely that participants would have had plans to install

the equipment for an extended period. As such, the free ridership methodology did not

factor in financial ability or the program’s impact on the projects timing. Third, while the

participant may have had plans to install LED light bulbs, the respondent’s plans may

have been to install fewer than the total number of bulbs received through the program.

Consequently, the plans score was factored by a quantity adjustment that was based on

the number of bulbs the respondent reported would have been installed without the

program to the total number received through the program. The free ridership scoring is

summarized in Figure 4-4.


71

Figure 4-4 Single-family Direct Install Free ridership

4.5.1.3 Participant Spillover Methodology

To estimate participant spillover impacts, participant survey respondents were asked if

they had purchased any additional items because of their experience with the program

without receiving an incentive.

Participants that indicated one or more energy efficiency purchases were asked additional

questions about what was purchased and the number of units purchased to estimate the

savings impact. Additionally, the following two questions were asked to determine

whether the energy savings resulting from measures that were attributable to the

program:

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 represents “not at all important” and 10 represents

“extremely important”, how important was the experience with the program in

your decision to purchase the items you just mentioned?

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 represents “not at all likely” and 10 represents

“extremely likely,” how likely would you have been to purchase those items if

you had not participated in the program?

If the average of the first response and 10 – the second response was greater than 5, the

savings associated with the measures were attributed to the program.

4.5.1.4 Residential Solutions Net Savings Results

The Evaluators administered surveys to multifamily and single-family decision makers

who participated in the RSOL channel. In total, eight multifamily and 99 single-family

decision makers completed the survey.

For the multifamily segment, no survey respondents indicated that they were likely free

riders for any of the measures installed through the program.


72

Table 4-41 summarizes the measure level free ridership results for the single-family

segment.

Table 4-41 Single-family Measure Level Free ridership

Measure Free ridership

(kWh) Air Sealing 0

Windows 0

Ceiling Insulation 7,497

LEDs 11,017

Power Strips 1,509

None of the multifamily participants reported implementing additional spillover measures.

Table 4-42 summarizes spillover savings reported by survey respondents. The spillover

energy (kWh) savings associated with measures reported by survey respondents totaled

3,535 kWh.

Table 4-42 Single-family Spillover Savings for Reported Measures

Measure Energy

Savings per unit (kWh)

Demand Reductions

per unit (kW)

Total Energy Savings (kWh)

Total Demand Reductions

(kW)

LED 31 0.00 2,825 0.38

Showerhead 247 0.03 247 0.03

Faucet Aerator 50 0.01 303 0.03

Clothes Washer 119 0.03 119 0.03

Dishwasher 12 0.00 12 0.00

Refrigerator 28 0.00 28 0.00

Total 3,535 0.47

Table 4-43 and Table 4-44 summarize the results of the net savings analysis. Program

net savings were calculated by weighting each measure free ridership score by the total

savings for the free ridership and adding program spillover savings to the total. The net

energy (kWh) savings of the Residential Solutions channel totaled 10,505,598 kWh,

which is equal to 95% of gross ex post energy (kWh) savings. The net demand (kW)

reductions of the Residential Solutions channel totaled 1,599 kW, which is equal to 90%

of gross ex post demand (kW) reductions.


73

Table 4-43 Net Energy (kWh) Savings for HEEP Residential Solutions

Segment



Free Ridership

Spillover


Net-to-

Gross (NTG)

Multifamily 9,549,961 8,559,413 0 0 8,559,413 100%

Single Family 2,777,479 2,462,727 646,903 130,361 1,946,185 70%

Total 12,327,440 11,022,140 646,903 130,361 10,505,598 95%

Table 4-44 Peak Demand (kW) Reductions for HEEP Residential Solutions

Segment

Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)

Free Ridership

Spillover

Net Demand

(kW) Reductions

Net-to-

Gross (NTG)

Multifamily 1,196.72 1,010.13 0.00 0.00 1,010.13 100%

Single Family 839.18 769.57 180.6 17.45 606.42 79%

Total 2,035.90 1,779.70 180.6 17.45 1,616.56 91%

Table 4-45, Table 4-46, and Table 4-47 show the net lifetime energy (kWh) savings for

the Residential Solutions channel, by measure and market segment.

Table 4-45 SF and MF Combined Net Lifetime Savings Summary

Measure

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

One

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

two


Aerator 10 9,055,283

Air Infiltration 11 18,200


LED Bulbs 6 14 37,914,159

Pool Pump 10 115,949


Smart Strip 10 24,926,833

Windows 20 3,479,314

Total 114,330,311


74

Table 4-46 SF Combined Net Lifetime Savings Summary

Measure

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

One

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

two


Air Infiltration 11 18,200


LED Bulbs 6 14 5,539,450

Pool Pump 10 115,949


Windows 20 3,479,314

Total 27,108,405

Table 4-47 MF Combined Net Lifetime Savings Summary

Measure

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

One

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

two


Aerator 10 9,055,283

LED Bulbs 6 14 32,374,709



Total 87,221,905

4.5.2 Schools Outreach

The net-to-gross ratio was 100% for Schools Outreach. Table 4-48 and Table 4-49 outline

the net energy savings (kWh) and net demand reduction (kW) results for the Schools

Outreach channel.

Table 4-48 Net Energy (kWh) Savings for HEEP Schools Outreach



Free Ridership

Spillover


Net-to-Gross (NTG)

1,568,458 1,849,984 0 0 1,849,984 100%


75

Table 4-49 Peak Demand (kW) Reductions for HEEP Schools Outreach

Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)

Free Ridership

Spillover

Net Demand

(kW) Reductions

Net-to-Gross (NTG)

178.45 168.37 0 0 168.37 100%

Table 4-50 shows the net lifetime energy (kWh) savings for the Schools Outreach

channel, by measure.

Table 4-50 Schools Outreach Net Lifetime Savings Summary

Measure

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

One

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

two


LED 6 14 8,962,797


Aerator 10 2,469,513

Total 21,236,507

4.5.3 HVAC Replacement and Tune-up

The following sections summarize the methodologies and results of the estimation of net

savings for the HVAC Replacement and Tune-Up channel. The Evaluators estimated a

free ridership probability for the incentivized energy efficiency equipment. This free

ridership probability is then rounded, yielding a binary score.

4.5.3.1 Free ridership Methodology

The free ridership methodology incorporated participant decision maker and trade ally

assessments of the program’s influence.

4.5.3.1.1 Participant Decision Maker Free Ridership Score

To assess the program’s influence on the implementation of projects, program

participants were asked questions regarding:

If they could afford to install the equipment if it had not been provided for free

through the program;

If they had plans to complete the project;

The likelihood of installing the equipment if it had not been provided for free;

The timing of the project in the absence of the program.


76

In this methodology, financial ability is essentially a gateway value, in that if a participant

does not have the financial ability to purchase energy efficient equipment absent a rebate,

the other components of free ridership become moot. If they did have the financial

capability, the Evaluators then examined the other components, to assess free ridership

levels. An overall free ridership score was calculated based on prior plans score, a

likelihood of installing the measure in the absence of the program, a timing score, and a

contractor influence score.

A prior score plans score was developed based on a response to a question regarding

the presence of plans prior to learning of the rebate or discount available through the

program. Respondents that implemented efficient tune-ups or HVAC replacement units

were asked to confirm that their plans were to implement efficient measures as opposed

to standard measures. The plans score was factored by the programs impact on timing.

Specifically,

If the respondent stated that they would have installed the measure more than

one year after the measure was installed, the prior plan reduced to zero.

If the respondent stated that they would have installed the measure in 6 months

to one year, then the prior plans score was reduced by one-half.

If the respondent stated that they would have installed the measure at the same

time or within 6 months of when it was installed, the prior plans score was not

adjusted.

A likelihood of installing the measure in the absence of the program was developed based

on responses to the question “How likely is it that you would have purchased or installed

the same measure that you purchased or installed through the program if the discount or

rebate was not available?” Specifically, responses to this question were scored as follows:

Very likely: 1

Somewhat likely: .75

Neither particularly likely nor unlikely: .5

Somewhat unlikely: .25

Very unlikely: 0

The free ridership methodology incorporated trade ally influence into the estimation of

free ridership based on participants rated influence of marketing material or

recommendations provided by the trade ally on the decision to implement the efficiency

project. The influence of the trade ally was considered important to the project if the

respondent rated the influence of this material as 8 or higher. For these respondents, the


77

free ridership score was set equal to the free ridership score for the respondents’ trade

ally.9 The calculation of the trade ally free ridership score is described below.

4.5.3.1.2 Trade Ally Free Ridership Score

These trade allies were asked questions designed to identify the extent to which the

program has:

Influenced the trade ally’s approach to and level of marketing energy efficient

equipment; and

Affected the types of equipment and services offered by the trade ally

The primary questions used to determine the influence of the program on the trade ally’s

approach to and level of marketing energy efficient equipment, were:

FR1: On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is “not at all important” and 10 is “extremely

important,” how important was the Residential Energy Improvement Rebates

Program, including the rebates and information provided through the program,

in

FR2: Thinking about the [XX] projects that you completed as part of the

Residential Energy Improvement Rebates Program in 2017, did the availability

of incentives from the program influence the type, quantity, or efficiency level

of the items that you recommended to customers? In other words, would you

have made different recommendations if the program were not available?

To calculate the trade ally’s free ridership score, the Evaluators converted the answer of

FR1 into a percentage. If the trade ally answered “Yes” to question FR3, the percentage

from FR1 was reduced by 50%. This partial free ridership score was rounded into a binary

score, which was applied to that trade ally.

9 An average trade ally free ridership score was used for respondents that worked with trade allies that were not

interviewed.


78

4.5.3.1.3 Summary of Free Ridership Scoring

Figure 4-5 summarizes the calculation of participant free ridership.

Figure 4-5 HVAC Measure Free ridership

4.5.3.1.4 Participant Spillover Methodology

To estimate participant spillover impacts, participant survey respondents were asked if

they had purchased any additional items because of their experience with the program

without receiving an incentive.

Participants that indicated one or more energy efficiency purchases were asked additional

questions about what was purchased and the number of units purchased to estimate the

savings impact. Additionally, the following two questions were asked to determine

whether the energy savings resulting from measures that were attributable to the

program:

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 represents “not at all important” and 10 represents

“extremely important”, how important was the experience with the program in

your decision to purchase the items you just mentioned?

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 represents “not at all likely” and 10 represents

“extremely likely,” how likely would you have been to purchase those items if

you had not participated in the program?


79

If the average of the first response and 10 – the second response was greater than 5, the

savings associated with the measures were attributed to the program.

4.5.3.2 HVAC Replacement and Tune-up Net Savings Results

The Evaluators administered surveys to single-family decision makers who participated

in the HEEP Residential Solutions program. In total, 72 participants responded to the

survey.

Eight multifamily contacts were identified as having completed projects through the HVAC

program channel, however, no interviews were completed with the multifamily contacts.

Table 4-51 summarize the final interview dispositions. As shown, four contacts said that

the decision to make the efficiency improvements was made by the tenant. For these

cases, the tenant would have been the appropriate contact.

Table 4-51 Final Interview Dispositions for Multifamily Contacts

Disposition Number of

Contacts Building under new management/no knowledge of project 1

Contact said tenant made participation decision 4

Contact was not available at scheduled interview time 3

Total 8

The Evaluators applied the single-family participant results to multifamily projects

because no interviews were completed with the multifamily contacts. Table 4-52

summarizes the measure-level free ridership results for the HVAC Program. Rates of free

ridership were low for all measures.

Table 4-52 HEEP HVAC Measure Level Free ridership

Measure Free ridership

Tune up 0.14

Duct sealing 0.00

HVAC Replacement 0.09

Table 4-53 summarizes spillover savings reported by survey respondents. The spillover

energy (kWh) savings associated with measures reported by survey respondents totaled

1,178 kWh.


80

Table 4-53 HEEP HVAC Spillover Savings for Reported Measures

Measure

Per Unit Energy Savings (kWh)

Per Unit Peak

Demand Reduction

(kW)

Total Energy Savings (kWh)

Total Peak

Demand Reduction

(kW) LED 31 0.00 683 0.09

Showerhead 247 0.03 495 0.05

Total 1,178 0.14

The tables below summarize the results of the net savings analysis for the HVAC

replacement and tune-up channel. The net savings were calculated by weighting each

measure free ridership score by the total savings for the free ridership and adding

program spillover savings to the total. The net energy (kWh) savings of the HEEP HVAC

replacement and tune-up channel totaled 6,328,145 which is equal to 90% of adjusted

gross energy (kWh) savings. Net peak demand (kW) reductions totaled 2,495 kW, which

is 89% of ex post demand (kW) reductions for the HVAC Replacement and Tune-up

channel.

Table 4-54 Net Energy Savings (kWh) Savings for HVAC Channel

Channel



Free Ridership

Spillover


Net-to-

Gross (NTG)

HVAC Tune-up 4,989,544 4,991,490 722,062 158,699 4,428,126 89%

HVAC Replacement 191,792 189,433 17,538 6,023 177,918 94%

HVAC Duct Sealing 1,800,123 1,814,885 0 57,702 1,872,587 103%

Total 6,981,459 6,995,808 739,600 222,423 6,478,631 93%

Table 4-55 Net kW Demand Reductions for HVAC Channel

Channel



Free Ridership

Spillover


Net-to-Gross (NTG)

HVAC Tune-up 2,563.86 2,564.96 371.04 81.55 2,275.46 89%

HVAC Replacement 57.42 57.34 5.31 1.82 53.85 94%

HVAC Duct Sealing 170.44 170.59 0.00 5.42 176.01 103%

Total 2,791.72 2,792.89 376.35 88.80 2,505.33 90%

Table 4-56 outlines the net lifetime energy (kWh) savings for the HVAC Replacement

and Tune-up channel.


81

Table 4-56 Net Lifetime Energy Savings for HVAC Channel

Channel Estimated Useful

Life (EUL)

Net Lifetime Energy Savings

(kWh)

HVAC Tune-up 10 44,281,263

HVAC Duct Sealing 19 3,337,989

HVAC Replacement 18 33,706,572

Total 81,325,824


The following section summarizes the methodology and results of the estimation of the

net savings of the Consumers Products channel of the HEEP in PY2017.

The Evaluators estimated a free ridership probability for the discounted LED light bulbs

purchased by a sample of customers. This free ridership probability was then rounded,

yielding a binary score.

4.5.4.1 Free ridership Methodology

Self-reported responses made by a sample of customers were used to assess free

ridership for the Consumer Products channel. The goal of the survey was to elicit

information from which to estimate the number of LED light bulbs that the customers

would have purchased in the counterfactual scenario where the light bulbs were not

discounted.

Survey responses on LED light bulb purchases made in the past 6 months were obtained

from customers that completed projects in the Residential Solutions or HVAC channels.

Survey respondents were asked a series of questions to elicit feedback regarding

influences on their light bulb purchasing decisions. Each respondent was assigned a free

ridership score based on a scoring algorithm.

Three factors related to the likelihood of purchasing LED light bulbs without a program

sponsored discount were used in the algorithm to determine the free ridership of program

discounted light bulb purchases. The first factor was the respondents’ previous

experience with purchasing LED light bulbs. Respondents that reported that the LED light

bulbs they purchased in the last six months replaced other LED light bulbs, or who had

previously purchased LEDs light bulbs, were assigned higher levels of free ridership than

respondents without previous experience with LED light bulbs.

The second factor was a mitigating factor based on the influence program discounts on

LED purchases. Specifically, the prior experience free ridership score was reduced for


82

participants that reported that they had purchased discounted bulbs and that the discount

was influential to the purchase.

The third factor, the “behavior without discount” factor, was the primary determinate of

respondents’ free ridership scores. The score for this factor was developed from

responses questions on the likelihood of purchasing the LEDs if they had cost the regular

retail price. Specifically, respondents were asked how likely they would have been to

purchase the LED light bulbs if they had cost $2.50 more. The likelihood score developed

from this response was adjusted based on the percent of the total LEDs that the

respondent would have purchased had they cost more. That is, if the respondent reported

that one-half of the LEDs they reported purchasing would have been purchased if they

cost more, the likelihood score was reduced by 50%.

Figure 4-6 summarizes the algorithm used for calculating free ridership for discounted

LED purchases.

Figure 4-6 Lighting Free Ridership Scoring

4.5.4.2 Net Savings Results

A total of 65 participants in the Residential Solutions and HVAC channels reported that

they had purchased LED bulbs. Due to the relatively small survey population and

relatively little changes in program design, these survey responses were combined with

the 68 responses from PY2016 to calculate net savings for PY2017.


83

The tables below summarize the results of the net savings analysis. The channel net

savings were calculated by weighting each measure free ridership score by the total

savings for the free ridership and adding program spillover savings to the total. The net

energy (kWh) savings of the Consumer Products channel totaled 26,755,865 kWh, which

is equal to 66% of gross ex post energy (kWh) savings. Net peak demand (kW) reductions

totaled 3,109 kW, which is % of ex post demand (kW) reductions.

Table 4-57 Net kWh Savings for HEEP Consumer Products

Channel




Net-to-Gross (NTG)

Food Bank 6,205,194 4,098,107 4,098,108 100%

Retail 30,930,830 36,670,959 22,657,757 62%

Total 37,136,024 40,769,066 26,755,865 66%

Table 4-58 Net kW Peak Demand Reductions for HEEP Consumer Products

Channel

Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)

Net Demand Reduction

Savings (kW)

Net-to-Gross

Food Bank 833.00 549.76 549.76 100%

Retail 4,152.23 4,141.93 2,559.16 62%

Total 4,985.23 4,691.69 3,108.92 66%

Table 4-59 outlines the net lifetime energy (kWh) savings for the Consumer Products

channel in the HEEP.

Table 4-59 Net Lifetime Savings Summary for Consumer Products Channel


Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

One

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

two


Food Bank 6 14 43,150,663

Retail 6 14 288,851,503

Total 332,002,166


84

4.6 Process Evaluation Summary and Findings

4.6.1 Residential Solutions Channel

Below, we present the methodology used for the process-related data collection activities

the Evaluators performed as part of the OK HEEP Residential Solutions track evaluation.

These activities included program staff interviews and a survey of participating single

family participants. The participant survey focused on single family participants only, as

multifamily property managers are difficult to reach through traditional telephone survey

methods. Our evaluation also included in-depth interviews with participating contractors

who helped deliver the Residential Solutions track. Because trade ally contacts were

prioritized based on program savings they contributed to the program, trade allies who

worked more frequently in the multifamily portion of the program were the focus of this

evaluation.

4.6.1.1 Program staff interviews

The Evaluators completed an in-depth interview with the OK HEEP program manager

and one additional interview with CLEAResult team members who implement this

program track. The Evaluators used these program staff interviews to identify program

updates or changes experienced in PY2017, and explore energy efficiency staff roles and

responsibilities, program communications and marketing, and the overall program

delivery processes within this evolving PY2017 program.

4.6.1.2 Participating customer surveys

The Evaluators received and reviewed HEEP program tracking data from CLEAResult

and used these program data to implement customer surveys for this evaluation. These

data included participating customer contact information and project information,

including measure descriptions of equipment installed through the program.

Telephone surveys were completed with OK HEEP single family program participants

through Tetra Tech’s in-house survey lab. The survey collected key demographic

information about the single family households. It also collected single family respondent

feedback on program communication and offerings, changes in participant energy

efficiency awareness and behaviors due to program participation, participant satisfaction,

and verified measure installation.

We surveyed 99 Oklahoma HEEP Residential Solutions program track single family

participants, selected from a random sample of 323 PY2017 single family participants.

Our sampling strategy was designed to achieve an overall 90/10 level of precision at the

program level. The final sample distribution and response rate for this survey can be found

in Appendix A.


85

The Evaluators mailed an advance letter to sampled participants on Wednesday, January

24, 2018, and Tetra Tech began survey fielding on Thursday, January 25, 2018.

Participant data collection ended on February 5, 2018.

4.6.1.3 Participating Trade Ally In-Depth Interviews

The Evaluators completed three in-depth interviews with Oklahoma contractors who

helped deliver the Residential Solutions HEEP program track. The interviews targeted

those trade allies currently delivering the multifamily portion of the program, as they

contributed most significantly to program savings in 2017. CLEAResult provided this trade

ally contactor contact information, and the Evaluators considered trade ally project

volume in the year-end program tracking data when prioritizing interviews. Ultimately, the

thee contractors interviewed for this process evaluation ran businesses that represented

more than half of the PY2017 Residential Solutions track savings.

The team worked to complete in-depth interviews with contractors working within the

Residential Solutions program track between Monday, February 26 and Friday, March 2,

2018.

4.6.1.4 Process Evaluation Findings

This section details the findings from the process evaluation pertaining to program

delivery, program communications and marketing, participant energy efficiency

awareness and behaviors, and customer characteristics.

4.6.1.4.1 Program Communication and Marketing

OG&E and CLEAResult shared marketing responsibilities for the HEEP Residential

Solutions track in PY2017. Participants most frequently reported (38 percent) hearing

about this program through a utility bill message, which matched the most frequently

provided answer in the PY2016 process evaluation, as well. The utility’s website (16

percent) and word of mouth (14 percent) were also frequently mentioned sources of

program information. Many respondents also indicated they heard about the program

from “other” sources; “other” popular options were “Home and Garden show” and

“Retailer” – suggesting that participants may be getting information about OG&E energy

efficiency programs from multiple sources. A summary of the participant responses

appears in Table 4-60.


86

Table 4-60 How learned of program

Category Percent

Utility bill message 38%

Utility website 16%

Word of mouth from friends, relatives, or others 14%

Contractor 13%

OG&E program staff 10%

Information that came in the mail 7%

Email 5%

*Home and Garden Show 5%

*Retailer 4%

TV ad 4%

Other website 3%

*Previous OG&E program experience 2%

Newspaper or magazine article/ad 1%

Radio ad 1%

Other 5%

Total N=93

Source: Question a1

Don’t know and refused responses are excluded Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent as respondents could select more than one answer

*Indicates category computed during analysis

We asked OK HEEP Residential Solutions survey respondents why they decided to participate in the program. Thirty-nine percent attributed their participation to wanting to save energy, followed by another 38 percent indicating they were driven by the desire to reduce their monthly utility bill. Among those who answered “other”, “Opportunity to get new equipment and/or have service done” (21 percent) was a popular response.


87

Table 4-61 Reasons for program participation

Category Percent

Save energy 39%

To reduce my monthly utility bill 38%

The HEEP program paid for some or all of the improvements 31%

*Opportunity to get new equipment / have service done. 21%

*Out of interest / to see what I could learn 7%

It is the right thing to do 6%

Contractor recommendation 4%

Help save the environment 3%

Improve comfort of home 2%

*Previous OG&E program experience 2%

Utility recommendation or information 1%

Recommendation from friend, relative, or neighbor 1%

Other 2%

Total N=99

Source: Question a2 Don’t know and refused responses are excluded Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent as respondents could select more than one answer

*Indicates category computed during analysis

When respondents who provided multiple reasons for their program participation were asked to isolate their main reason for program participation, nearly half (43 percent) indicated it was to reduce their monthly utility bill.

We also asked Residential Solutions trade allies how they heard about the program. Two

of the three trade allies mentioned CLEAResult as the source, either directly or indirectly

through their distributor. One mentioned having relatives that worked for OG&E for many

years as their source of program awareness.

All three trade allies have been working with the program only in the past year or year

and a half. When asked why they or their company decided to get involved in the

programs, the reasons cited by the three trade allies were:

Interesting work—always been in the energy field

Encouraged by an associate and to “make money”

To fill in downtime when not doing other electrical and plumbing projects


88

While two trade allies interviewed said they prefer email, and the third trade ally said email

is good, they all prefer one-on-one contact to get program information. Two of the trade

allies were satisfied with the communications they receive about the program. The third

trade ally expressed frustration with the tone of the emails and telephone calls with a

CLEAResult staff person.

4.6.1.5 Program Delivery

The PY2017 process evaluation of the OK HEEP Residential Solutions track captured the

basic program delivery steps within both the single family and multifamily models. This

section highlights our understanding about how the program was delivered to single

family and multifamily buildings within this program year.

4.6.1.5.1 Single Family

The 2017 version of the HEEP Residential Solutions for single family participants differs

from last year’s program structure. Last year, the Residential Solutions program

experience generally began through the home owner taking an online home audit, rating

the energy efficiency of their home, and then getting an in-home audit experience. This

year, the single family program process was re-envisioned, moving away from the online

home audit experience and allowing more flexibility for a potential customer to sign up for

a home audit more directly – either online or through contacting the customer contact

center at OG&E.

CLEAResult was the implementer of this program portion this year. Participants in the

HEEP Residential Solutions program track received the same general program

components as were available last year: an in-home audit, direct install measures such

as LED light bulbs and smart strips, and a home audit report that may include

recommendations for additional energy efficiency improvements. Some program rebates

were available for customers who wanted to install recommended energy efficiency

equipment.

4.6.1.5.2 Multifamily

The process for delivering the multifamily portion of the Residential Solutions program

track involved a more program driven, direct-to-customer approach. CLEAResult and in

some cases, trade allies, reached out directly to property management teams in OG&E

territory in Oklahoma to drive multifamily enrollments. If a multifamily customer contact

agreed to participate in the program with either a CLEAResult program representative or

through a program-affiliated trade ally, CLEAResult would set up a time to visit each of

their properties, order necessary measures, and return with a contractor to complete the

work.


89

4.6.1.6 The Home Energy Assessment Experience

The Evaluators asked single family participants about various aspects of their home

assessment experience. The first was how they requested a home assessment through

this program track. Most respondents (61 percent) reported calling the Customer Service

center to request their assessment, while nearly one-third (30 percent) reported they

requested their assessment through the web site. The remaining respondents confirmed

they used some “other” sign-up avenue. Eighty-three percent of respondents indicated

they had NOT planned on having a home assessment before learning about the program.

Regardless of how they requested an assessment, customers had an easy time

communicating with the program and scheduling their home assessment. Among those

who called the Customer Service center, 98 percent indicated their experience was ‘very

easy’ or ‘easy’, while the remaining customers rated their experience as a “neutral” one.

Similarly, 95 percent of respondents who used the web site for assessment scheduling

rated their experience “very easy” or “easy”.

Next, we wanted to understand what aspects of the home assessment experience that

participants recalled. Nearly all (96 percent) of the survey respondents recalled that the

home assessor provided them with a home energy report which outlined custom energy

efficiency improvement recommendations specific to their home. Among those that

recalled the report, 31 percent felt the report was very helpful, while another 44 percent

rated it helpful. Sixteen percent of the respondents described the helpfulness of the report

as “neutral”. The nine percent of respondents who did not find the energy report helpful

attributed their frustration to the report not giving them any new or additional information.

Nearly all the respondents (96 percent) confirmed that the energy assessor discussed

improvement recommendations with them, and the energy savings they would realize if

the improvements were implemented. When we asked respondents if they had

implemented their home assessment recommendations, most respondents (72 percent)

indicated they had completed some, but not all, of the recommendations, while 14 percent

reported implementing all of them. Among the recommendations respondents had not yet

implemented, the most frequently mentioned items were adding insulation to their home

(n=14), replacing windows or doors (n=10), or replacing an HVAC or furnace unit (n=7).

A majority of respondents (54 percent) who did not implement some or all of the

recommendations indicated cost was their major barrier, while another 23 percent10 of

respondents indicated that time to implement a project was their largest barrier.

10 This pool of respondents includes the 14 percent who chose the survey response “time”, and another 8 percent

who answered “other” but expanded their “other” answer to say that time was a challenge in some way.


90

Table 4-62 When you had your home energy assessment, did the assessor. . .

Category

provide a home energy report with

recommendations?

discuss the potential energy savings that

could be achieved by implementing the

recommendations?

Yes 96% 96%

No 4% 4%

Total 100% 100%

N=71 N=68

Source: Questions HE7a and HE7b

Don’t know and refused responses are excluded

*Note: Assessment questions asked only of participants who were sampled for assessment as a measure.

4.6.1.7 Measure Installation

We asked Residential Solutions participants whether or not they recalled their assessor

installing direct install measures as part of their program experience. Nearly all

respondents (96 percent) recalled an assessor installing direct install measures as part

of their program participation. Most of them (88 percent) confirmed those measures were

still installed in their home. Among respondents reporting they no longer had their

measures installed, four respondents reported removing the smart power strips, and four

respondents indicated they had replaced program-provided LED light bulbs.

Respondents who gave a reason for removing their measures indicated they were either

unsatisfied with the configuration (smart strips) or the light quality (light bulbs).

Further, we asked participants to confirm what other measures they received through

their HEEP Residential Solutions program track participation. Most (86 percent) did not

recall receiving additional program measures past the program-provided direct install

items. Among those who did report additional measures, air sealing was the most

frequently recalled measure received through the program, with 29 percent of respondent

indicating that choice.

4.6.1.8 Contractor Perspective on Program Influence on Marketing, Sales, and

Equipment Recommendations

The trade allies were asked to rate the importance of the program, including the rebates

and information, in influencing their marketing and sales of equipment or measures during


91

2017. The rating was on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is “not at all important” and 10 is

“extremely important.”

Two of the three trade allies rated program importance a 10. One noted they would not

be installing energy efficiency measures at all without the program. The other trade ally

commented that, without the Program, property managers would not care about saving

money when their tenants are paying the energy bill.

The third trade ally rated the importance of the OG&E program a 7 despite saying that

their business does not install any LEDs or showerheads outside of the OG&E program.

All three replied that they would not be installing low-flow showerheads and LEDs without

the program.

4.6.1.9 Trade Allies and the Sales Impacts of the Residential Solutions Program

The trade allies were asked about impacts of the program on project volume. They were

asked specifically whether the number of multifamily projects had increased significantly,

somewhat, a little, hardly at all, or not at all. All three trade allies said the volume of these

types of multifamily projects had increased significantly because of the Residential

Solutions program. One commented that their business had grown steadily over the last

few years.

The trade allies were asked whether they expected the number of multifamily Residential

Solutions projects to increase, decrease, or stay the same in the next 12 months. The

responses were mixed. One trade ally said the number of projects would increase in that

they had three apartment complexes last year and already had six apartment complexes

signed up this year. The second trade ally thought the number of projects would stay the

same. The third trade ally said the number would decrease due to the communication

issues they experienced with the CLEAResult representative in PY2017.

4.6.1.10 Program Satisfaction

The Evaluators asked OK HEEP Residential Solutions program track participants to rate

their satisfaction with various program components using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is

"very dissatisfied" and 5 is "very satisfied" (Table 4). Participants’ mean overall program

satisfaction score was 4.5 with the HEEP Residential Solutions track. Their satisfaction

scores on nearly all program components were consistently rated 4 or higher; the only

exception was the participant mean score on monthly utility bill savings, which averaged

a 3.7 rating.


92

Table 4-63 HEEP Residential Solutions: Satisfaction by Program Component

Interactions you had with OG&E staff Mean 4.7

Respondents (n) 86

The effort required for the application process

Mean 4.7

Respondents (n) 97

Scheduling the home energy assessment

Mean 4.6

Respondents (n) 93

The quality of contractor’s work Mean 4.6

Respondents (n) 97

Interactions you had with the contractor

Mean 4.6

Respondents (n) 98

The performance of the equipment installed or the energy efficiency improvements that were made

Mean 4.5

Respondents (n) 98

Usefulness of the information provided by the home energy assessment

Mean 4.5

Respondents (n) 95

The wait-time to receive the services Mean 4.3

Respondents (n) 98

Improvement in home comfort Mean 4.0

Respondents (n) 97

The savings on your monthly utility bills Mean 3.7

Respondents (n) 86

Overall program experience Mean 4.5

Respondents (n) 99

Source: Questions SAT1A SAT1B SAT1C SAT1D SAT1E SAT1F SAT1G SAT1H SAT1I SAT1J SAT1K

4.6.1.11 Contractor Satisfaction

The trade allies were asked to rate their satisfaction with OG&E Residential Solutions

on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means “very dissatisfied” and 10 means “extremely

satisfied.” The ratings were mixed for the three trade allies. One gave a satisfaction

rating of 10 saying it was an excellent program. The trade ally started their company to

do these types of projects and was 100 percent residential—mostly multifamily work.

Another trade ally gave the program a rating of 7 primarily due to some inconsistencies

in the turnaround time for payments. They are a small one-person plumbing business


93

who said 40 percent of their work is residential and 60 percent is commercial. A third

trade ally rated the program a 3 strictly due to their dissatisfaction with CLEAResult staff

communications.

The Evaluators asked trade allies to rate various aspects of the 2017 Residential

Solutions Program using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is “very dissatisfied” and 10 is “very

satisfied.” Below are the satisfaction scores and supporting information for each of the

topics we explored with the trade allies from the RESOL program:

The Level of Communications with CLEAResult Program Staff: Two of the trade allies were very happy with their level of communications with CLEAResult staff, rating their satisfaction a 9 and a 10. The third trade ally gave a rating of 1 based on their dissatisfaction with CLEAResult communication.

The Amount of Program Paperwork: The amount of program paperwork was not a problem for two of the three trade allies who rated the amount of paperwork a 7 to 8. The third trade ally thought the amount of paperwork for multifamily projects was somewhat burdensome, giving the paperwork a rating of 3 in terms of their satisfaction.

The Actual Program Measures and/or Rebated Equipment Offered through the HEEP Program: Those interviewed were satisfied with the types of measures and equipment offered. Two rated their equipment satisfaction a 10 while the third gave an 8-9 rating.

The Timeliness and Amount of Rebate Payments: The trade allies were asked to rate their satisfaction with the timeliness of the rebate payments. One trade ally gave rebate payment timeliness an 8, saying they had some problems last year but the timeliness had improved. The second trade ally gave a rating of 5 to 6 saying there was inconsistency in the turnaround time and that a few payments took much longer than expected. The third trade ally gave a very low satisfaction rating of 1 with rebate timeliness because it took over 60 days for a $100,000 rebate to be paid on a multifamily project. The three trade allies were all very satisfied with available program incentives, including LEDs and showerheads as direct install measures through the program. One commented that it was “free equipment.”

HEEP Program Training: All three of the trade allies said they either attended the program kickoff or had some type of technical training on the program, and their satisfaction ratings were high with two 10’s and one 8.

Trade Ally Suggestions for Program Improvement: After rating the various aspects of the Residential Solutions program, the trade allies were asked how the program design or operations could be improved. Despite some concerns mentioned about rebate


94

turnaround and communication, none of them had any additional concrete suggestions on how to improve the program.

4.6.1.12 Program Influence on Energy Saving Knowledge and Behavior

To assess the customer education portion of the HEEP Residential Solutions track, our

survey asked single family customers to assess their familiarity with various aspects of

energy efficiency before the program participation. First, we asked customers how familiar

they were with energy efficiency improvement benefits before participating in the

program. A majority of the HEEP RESOL participants indicated they were “very familiar”

(21 percent) or “somewhat familiar” (47 percent) with the benefits of energy efficiency

improvements. Twenty-six percent of respondents categorized their energy efficiency

familiarity levels as “very unfamiliar” or “somewhat unfamiliar”.

Table 4-64 Familiarity with benefits of energy efficiency improvements prior to assessment

Category Percent

Very familiar 21%

Somewhat familiar 47%

Neither familiar nor unfamiliar 5%

Somewhat unfamiliar 13%

Very unfamiliar 13%

Total 100%

N=98

Source: Question e1 Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding

HEEP Residential Solutions participants were more familiar with the benefits of energy

saving activities prior to the assessment, with 69 percent of them indicating they were

“very familiar”. Another nearly one-quarter (24 percent) reported they were “somewhat

familiar” with energy saving activity benefits prior to the assessment.


95

Table 4-65 Familiarity with benefits of energy saving activities prior to assessment

Category Percent

Very familiar 69%




Very unfamiliar 3%

Total 100%

N=98


Most HEEP Residential Solutions participants (85 percent) indicated they had performed

energy saving activities prior to their assessment. Respondents could offer multiple

examples of energy saving activities. Over half mentioned the activity was “turn off lights

when not in the room” (56 percent), while another 46 percent confirmed they adjusted

their heating system settings. Roughly one-third (32 percent) reported they washed

clothes in cold water.

We then asked participants whether program participation had increased their energy

efficiency knowledge or changed their actions. Focusing first on knowledge, Table 4-66

highlights that over one-quarter of survey respondents (28 percent) report they are “much

more” knowledgeable about energy efficiency than they were before program

participation, while another 43 percent indicate they are “somewhat” more knowledgeable

because of their program experience.


96

Table 4-66 As a result of program, how much more knowledgeable about energy efficiency?

Category Percent

Much more knowledgeable than before participating 28%

Somewhat more knowledgeable 43%

Slightly more knowledgeable 21%

Not more knowledgeable 7%

Total 100%

N=99


Nearly two-thirds of our survey respondents (64 percent) reported that the program has

changed their actual energy savings behaviors. In addition, nearly 20 percent of the HEEP

Residential Solutions track respondents indicated that have participated in other energy

efficiency programs. Six respondents mentioned participating in the HVAC track of the

HEEP program, while another eight reported participating in OG&E’s Smart Hours

program.

4.6.1.13 General Respondent Characterization

Table 4-67 summarizes basic home information among our OK HEEP Residential

Solutions respondents. Nearly all (95 percent) HEEP Residential Solution participants we

surveyed were homeowners, and 94 percent of the respondents described their home as

a single family home. Other respondents indicated their home was a town house or

condominium, a duplex, or “other”. Twenty-three percent of this program track’s

respondents are the only people that live in their home, while another 33 percent of

respondents say they have two people in their residence. This program track serves

participants from a range of income categories.


97

Table 4-67 HEEP Residential Solutions Participant Characteristics

Do you rent or own the home we’ve been discussing today?

Rent Column N % 5%

Own Column N % 95%

What is the main fuel used to heat your home?

Electricity Column N % 24%

Natural gas Column N % 73%

Other Column N % 3%

Total Unweighted Count 99

What is the main fuel used to heat your water?



Bottled gas propane Column N % 3%

Other Column N % 2%


Including yourself, how many people lived in your household last year?

1 person Column N % 23%

2 people Column N % 33%





7 or more people Column N % 1%


Including all money earned from wages, salaries, tips, commissions, workers´ compensation, unemployment insurance, child support, or other sources, about how much was your total annual household income before taxes in 2017?

Less than $10,000 Column N % 0%

$10,000 to less than $20,000 Column N % 7%








$200,000 or more Column N % 5%


Source: Question dem1 dem3 dem3h dem4 dem5

Don’t know and refused responses are excluded Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding


98

4.6.2 HVAC Replacement and Tune-up Channel

We present the methodology used for the process-related data collection activities the

Evaluators performed in association with the OK HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement

track evaluation within this section. These activities included program staff interviews, a

survey of participating customers, and in-depth interviews with participating contractors

who helped deliver the program.

4.6.2.1 Program Staff Interviews


and an additional interview with CLEAResult team members who implement the HVAC-

related program track. The Evaluators used these program staff interviews to identify

program updates or changes experienced in PY2017, explore staff roles and

responsibilities, and review overall program delivery processes for this past year.

4.6.2.2 Participating Customer Surveys

The Evaluators completed telephone surveys with OK HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and

Replacement track program participants through their in-house survey lab. The surveys

collected respondent feedback on program communication and offerings – especially, in

this case, their recollection about their air conditioning tune-up experience. The surveys

also measured changes in participant energy efficiency awareness and behaviors due to

program participation, participant satisfaction, and collected key household

characteristics and demographic information. The Evaluators received and reviewed

HEEP program tracking data from CLEAResult. These data included participating

customer contact information and project information.

We surveyed 72 Oklahoma HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement program track

participants, selected from a random sample of 245 participants. Our sampling strategy

was designed to achieve an overall 90/10 level of precision at the program level. The final

sample distribution and response rate for this survey can be found in Appendix A.

The Evaluators mailed an advance letter to sampled participants on Wednesday, January

24, 2018 explaining the upcoming survey and asking for their cooperation. The Evaluators

began survey fielding on Thursday, January 25, 2018. Participant data collection ended

on February 5, 2018.

4.6.2.3 Participating Trade Ally In-Depth Interviews

The Evaluators completed five in-depth interviews with Oklahoma contractors who helped

deliver the HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement program track. Trade ally contactor

contact information, along with their project volume within the program, was available to

the team for review and consideration within the program participant tracking data


99

delivered by CLEAResult at the end of the program year. These data drove trade ally

interview selection. We prioritized trade ally selection for interviews based on their

program participation volume, opting to offer an interview opportunity to those who

worked most with the program.

The interviewer asked businesses about participation in the program and their experience

with the program on what worked well or improvements the trade allies might recommend

to OG&E. The team worked to complete in-depth interviews with HVAC Tune-Up and

Replacement contractors working within this program track between Monday, February

26 and Friday, March 2, 2018. Four of the five trade allies indicated most of their work

was residential. One company did residential single-family and multifamily, and

commercial projects but could not provide a breakdown by customer type. Most of the

program work for these interviewed contractors over the course of PY2017 were HVAC

tune-ups.

4.6.2.4 Process Evaluation findings


delivery, program communications and marketing, participant energy efficiency


4.6.2.5 Program communication and marketing

Program Communication and Marketing: Participant Perspective: CLEAResult is

responsible for HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement track program marketing,

although they market the program in cooperation with OG&E. As was the case last year,

tune-ups, in particular, are often promoted in-home during a Residential Solutions team

home energy audit. The HVAC Replacement portion of the program is offered and/or

mainly promoted through program-participating contractors.

Participants most commonly named a “utility bill message” (34 percent) as the way they

learned about the program. The utility’s website (21 percent) or information that came in

the mail (18 percent) were the next most frequently mentioned sources of program

information. A summary of the participant responses appears in Table 4-60.


100

Table 4-68: How Customer learned of program

Category Percent


Utility website 21%


Word of mouth from friends, relatives, or others

18%

Contractor 9%

Email 6%

TV ad 5%

Home/Garden show 2%

Retailer 2%

Previous experience with an OG&E program 2%

Newspaper or magazine article / ad 2%

Other website 0%

OG&E program staff 0%

Other 5%

Respondents (n) 67

Source: Question A1 Don't know and refused responses are excluded Note: May not total 100 percent as respondents could select more than one answer *Indicates category computed during analysis

We asked OK HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement survey respondents why they

opted to participate in the program; respondents could choose more than one response.

Forty-three percent reported that they participated in the program because “the program

was paying for some or all of the improvements they received”, while another 40 percent

of respondents said they wanted to “lower their monthly utility bill”. Other reasons

mentioned by at least 20 percent or more of the respondents included: “the opportunity

to get new equipment/have service done” or ‘Save energy”.

We asked participants who provided multiple reasons for participating what drove their

main reason for participating. “Reducing their monthly utility bill” was the most frequently

mentioned response.


101


Category Percent

The program paid for some or all of the improvements

43%

To reduce my monthly utility bill 40%

*Opportunity to get new equipment/have service done

28%

Save energy 21%

Help save the environment 6%


*Improve comfort of home 4%

Recommendation from a friend, relative, or neighbor 3%

*Out of interest / see what I could learn 3%

*Previous experiences with an OG&E program 3%


Contractor recommendation 1%

Other 8%

Respondents (n) 67

Source: Question A2 Don't know and refused responses are excluded Note: May not total 100 percent as respondents could select more than one answer *Indicates category computed during analysis

Program Communication and Marketing: Contractor Perspective: When asked how

they heard about the HVAC Tune-up program, two of the five trade allies interviewed

indicated that CLEAResult was the source, either directly or indirectly through their

distributor. Two other trade allies were familiar with the program from working at another

company, while one heard about the OG&E program from a friend.

Two of the trade allies said they had been involved in the OG&E HVAC Tune-up program

for one or two years, while the others noted having been involved in OG&E programs

overall for three to seven years.

When asked why they or their company decided to get involved in the programs, the

reasons cited by the five trade allies were:

This is a new company and a good way to reach customers

They are a fairly new business and thought it would be helpful to their business

Encouraged by an associate and to “make money”

Was already working with OG&E, but under a different company

Because of past familiarity with OG&E programs


102

The trade allies interviewed said they prefer email or one-on-one training or “shadowing”

to get receive program information and training. Several noted that they contact

CLEAResult directly if they have any questions. All were very happy with the

communication they receive from CLEAResult.

One mentioned the annual program kickoff as being very useful and another mentioned

program materials were helpful to them and to their customers. Another trade ally

commented that consumers do not have effective communication from OG&E or

CLEAResult about the program.

None of the trade allies had any suggestions on needed improvements to

communications with the trade allies about the program.


The PY2017 process evaluation of the OK HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement

focused on two main delivery components: a) the customer tune-up visit and b) the

contractor experience in delivering the program.

The AC Tune-Up Visit: Nearly all (Ninety-two percent) of HVAC Tune-Up and

Replacement participants recalled having a tune-up with the program, and we asked

these customers who confirmed they recalled the tune-up specifically about their program

experience. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) did not have regular HVAC tune-ups prior to

participating in this program, while 35 percent indicated they did have HVAC tune-ups on

a regular basis. Among those who reported having tune-ups “regularly”, fifty percent

confirmed they had a tune-up annually, while another one-quarter (25 percent) confirmed

they had a tune-up every other year. Around the data edges, 15 percent of the regular

tune-up group said they serviced their HVAC twice per year, while the final 10 percent

had HVAC tune-ups done every three to five years.

We asked program respondents if their contractor explained their tune-up process to

them, and specifically, if they explained the difference between a standard HVAC tune-

up and the tune-up offered by the OG&E HEEP program. Just over one-third of

participants (36 percent) confirmed they received an explanation of this difference.

Program participants had HVAC units of varying age. Nearly one-third (32 percent) of

respondents indicated they had a unit that was 5 years old or less. The average overall

age of air conditioning units among respondents asked was 12 years old.

Contractor Perspective: Our team asked the five trade allies to comment on what

percentage of customers already know about the HVAC Tune-up program before the

trade ally tells them about it. Only two of the five trade allies thought most of their

customers were not very aware of the program. One trade ally felt that about 30 percent

of the customers knew about the program in advance.


103

Two trade allies said that most of their customers knew about the HVAC Tune-up

program. These trade allies thought customers heard media advertising, got pamphlets

or email blasts, or were repeat customers who had tune-ups in the past.

When asked why customers who qualify may not want to participate in the program, two

of the trade allies said there was no reason for customers not to participate. The other

three trade allies all mentioned that the customer may be skeptical of the program or lack

knowledge of the benefits of program participation.

The trade allies were also asked what they thought are the main benefits customers

receive by participating in the HVAC Tune-up program track. In addition to the energy

cost savings and the incentives, three of the trade allies mentioned the knowledge

customers receive on how and why to maintain their systems from a trained technician.

One trade ally shows customers how to clean their system and where and how to change

out filters.

4.6.2.7 Participant Satisfaction

The Evaluators asked OK HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement program track

participants to rate their satisfaction with various program components using a scale of 1

to 5, where 1 is "very dissatisfied" and 5 is "very satisfied" (Table 3). Participants report

being highly satisfied with the program track overall, through a mean program satisfaction

score of 4.4. Their satisfaction scores on seven of eight program components were

consistently above 4; the exception was the participant mean score on monthly utility bill

savings, which averaged a 3.7 rating.


104

Table 4-70 HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement: Satisfaction by Program

Component

The quality of contractor’s work Mean 4.6

Respondents (n) 72

Interactions you had with the contractor

Mean 4.6

Respondents (n) 72

Interactions you had with OG&E staff

Mean 4.5

Respondents (n) 62

The effort required for the application process

Mean 4.5

Respondents (n) 68

The performance of the equipment installed or the energy efficiency improvements that were made

Mean 4.4

Respondents (n) 71

The wait-time to receive the services

Mean 4.2

Respondents (n) 70

Improvement in home comfort Mean 4.1

Respondents (n) 68

The savings on your monthly utility bills

Mean 3.7

Respondents (n) 66

Overall program experience Mean 4.4

Respondents (n) 72

Source: Questions SAT1A SAT1B SAT1C SAT1D SAT1E SAT1G SAT1H SAT1J SAT1K

4.6.2.8 Contractor Satisfaction

The trade allies were asked to rate their satisfaction with the OG&E HVAC program track

on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means “very dissatisfied” and 10 means “extremely

satisfied.” The ratings were generally high with three trade allies giving the program a

rating of 10, one rated the program a 9, and one rated the program a 7.

Those who rated the program a 9 or a 10 felt the program was very good. One liked that

the program was always changing and looked forward to working on the Duct Sealing

component. One gave high marks to the CLEAResult staff, and there were no complaints

from any of the trade allies about program staff.

The one trade ally said they gave the program a 7 rating primarily instead of a higher

rating because of the current incentive structure for HVAC tune-ups. The trade ally

explained that the $175 is paid the same amount even if you need to be there all day to


105

do the HVAC Tune-up. The trade ally wanted the incentive structured like it was in a

previous program version, where allies got paid by task such as $50 for the coil clean and

$50 to clean the blower.

The trade allies were then asked to rate aspects of the 2017 HEEP Program using a scale

of 0 to 10 where 0 is “very dissatisfied” and 10 is “very satisfied.” Here is a summary of

their responses by program category:

The Level of Communications with CLEAResult Program Staff: The trade allies were

happy with their level of communications with CLEAResult staff. Three of the five trade

allies rated their level of communications with CLEAResult staff a 10. The other two gave

ratings of 7 and 8 but did not seem to have any problems with their communication with

CLEAResult.

The Amount of Program Paperwork: The amount of program paperwork did not seem

to be an issue for most. Four of the trade allies gave the amount of paperwork a 10 for

HVAC tune-up. Only one trade ally gave the paperwork a low rating of 5. The trade ally

felt there was some redundancy and commented they had to put in customer information

every time they go out, even if the customer information is already in the system. The

trade ally also noted that sometimes it is easier to fill out data later, but then it looks like

they did not spend enough time with the customer, if they do the work and then go back

to the truck to fill out the information.

Program Measures and/or Rebated Equipment Offered through the Program: Those

interviewed were happy with the types of measures and equipment offered. Two trade

allies gave the program measures a 10. The others primarily did HVAC tune-ups for

OG&E programs and were not sure how to answer the question.

The Timeliness of Rebate Payments to Customers: The trade allies were happy with

the timeliness of the rebate payments. When asked to rate the timeliness of rebate

payments to customers, four of the five trade allies gave ratings of 9 or 10. One trade ally

was a new business and did not have enough experience to give the timeliness of rebate

payments a rating.

The Rebate Amount: Three of the five trade allies were happy with the incentive amounts

with ratings of one 10 and two 8’s. The other two trade allies gave the rebate amount a

low rating of 4 and a 5. They both felt that the set rebate of $175 was too low in many

cases for the time needed and the work required to do a thorough HVAC tune-up on some

systems. One of the two trade allies felt the previous HVAC Tune-up program incentive

structure of providing rebates by tune-up task was more reasonable.

The OG&E Energy Efficiency Website: Only two of the five trade allies used the website

and they gave ratings of 8 and 10. The other three did not have enough experience, if at

all, in using the website so they did not provide a rating.


106

HEEP Program Training: All five of the trade allies said they had technical training on

the program, and their satisfaction ratings were high with four 10’s and one 8.

Trade Ally Suggestions for Program Improvement: After rating the various aspects of

the HVAC Tune-up program, the trade allies were asked how the program design or

operations could be improved. Four of the five had no suggestions at this point.

One trade ally, who had given the program paperwork a low rating, made one suggestion

to improve tracking of the status of various steps, particularly when they do Pre-cleaning

and then the rest of the tune-up later. The trade ally suggested using a checklist to show

key tasks such as: Scheduled, Not Scheduled, Pre-Cleaned Completed, and use check

the blocks for each step instead of notes fields. The trade ally said they are often working

on two different systems for the incentive amount, and it seemed like a lot of work to track

some information for the program system if they are also tracking the same information

on their side as well.

4.6.2.9 Program Influence - Energy Saving Knowledge and Behavior

Our survey asked OG&E customers to assess their familiarity with: a) energy efficiency

improvements, and b) energy efficiency activities before and since participating in the

program. First, we asked customers how familiar they were with energy efficiency

improvement benefits before participating in the program. More than half of all

respondents – or 57 percent of these HEEP participants – indicated they were “somewhat

familiar” or “very familiar” with these benefits. Conversely, fourteen percent confirmed

they were “very unfamiliar” while another 13 percent reported they were “somewhat

unfamiliar” about the energy efficiency improvement benefits the OG&E energy efficiency

programs provide.

Table 4-71 Familiarity with benefits of energy efficiency improvements prior to program

participation

Category Percent

Very familiar 15%




Very unfamiliar 14%

Total 100%

N=72

Source: Question e1 Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding Don’t know and refused responses excluded


107

More than four out of every five HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement participants

were more familiar with the benefits of energy saving activities prior to their program

experience, with 72 percent of them indicating they were “very familiar”. Another 24

percent identified themselves as “somewhat familiar” with energy saving activity benefits

prior to their program participation.

Table 4-72 Familiarity with benefits of energy saving activities prior to program

participation

Category Percent

Very familiar 72%




Very unfamiliar 0%

Total 100%

N=72

Most (85 percent) of HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement participants indicated they

had performed energy saving activities prior to their experience with the program.

Respondents could offer multiple examples of energy saving activities. The most

frequently mentioned activity was “turn off lights when not in the room” (41 percent), which

was followed closely by “adjust heating system settings” (37 percent).

We then asked participants whether program participation had increased their energy

efficiency knowledge or changed their actions. Focusing first on knowledge, Table 4-73

shows a majority of respondents felt they picked up some additional energy efficiency

knowledge as a result of their program participation. Eighteen percent of survey

respondents indicate they are “much more” knowledgeable about energy efficiency than

they were before participating, while another 43 percent report being “somewhat” more

knowledgeable as a result of their program experience.


108

Table 4-73 As a result of program, how much more knowledgeable about energy

efficiency?

Category Percent

Much more knowledgeable than before participating 18%

Somewhat more knowledgeable 43%

Slightly more knowledgeable 18%

Not more knowledgeable 21%

Total 100%

N=72

Source: Question e5 Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding Don’t know and refused responses excluded

More than half of our HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement survey respondents (56

percent) reported that the program has changed their actual energy savings behaviors.

Only ten percent of the HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement track respondents

indicated that have participated in other energy efficiency programs. Six respondents

mentioned the OG&E’s Smart Hours program by name or described it. Other responses

varied widely, with respondents often measures or other prescriptive measures they may

have received from a program, without recall of a describing direct install program name.

4.6.2.10 Program Influence - Trade Ally Marketing, Sales, and Recommendations

The trade allies were asked to rate the importance of the program, including the rebates

and information, in influencing the marketing and sales of equipment or measures during



Two of the five trade allies rated program importance high as a 9 and a 10 without further

comment. Two of the five trade allies gave a rating of 7 although both said that they would

not do the OG&E program type of tune-ups if the program were not available.

One trade ally rated the importance of the program as a 3 in influencing their marketing

and sales of tune-ups. The trade ally explained that HVAC tune-ups for OG&E is about

30 percent of their business and is not the "low hanging fruit." They rely on their own

customer leads to get projects. The program gets them introduced to new people but said

it is hard for them to quantify the impact. The same trade ally said they always market

HVAC tune-ups and have always been a proponent of tune-ups, so the program does not

influence them a lot.

The trade allies were also asked if the availability of the program incentives influence the

type, quantity, or efficiency level of items they recommended to customers. Three of the


109

five said yes and two said no. One would not market the HVAC tune-ups at all and the

other said they would only do “regular” tune-ups if the program were not available.

The trade ally who gave program importance a 7 said the program does not influence

what they recommend, because they always recommend the full-blown HVAC tune-ups

similar to OG&Es. The same trade ally said they sometimes did not want to mention the

OG&E program because if additional work such as coil cleaning is involved, it digs into

their profits if they do the work using the OG&E HVAC Tune-up program. The same trade

ally went on to say they like to do what is good for their customer though. Their company

offers 3 types of services: (1) Full-blown tune-up similar to OG&E; (2) another tune-up

that is less extensive than OG&E but competes with what most Local and National

companies do; and (3) a $39 Cleaning.

4.6.2.11 Sales Impacts of the HVAC Tune-up Program

The trade allies were asked about impacts of the program on project volume. They were

asked specifically whether the number of projects had increased significantly, somewhat,

a little, hardly at all, or not at all.

Only one trade ally said the volume of projects had increased significantly because of the

HVAC Tune-up program while commenting that their business had grown steadily over

the last few years. Two trade allies said the number of projects had increased “somewhat”

or “a little” while two trade allies said their projects had increased “hardly at all” because

of the HVAC Tune-up program. One trade ally said their business was just getting started

so the program had only had a little impact.

The trade allies said all projects that qualify do apply for the incentive. They were then

asked whether they expected the number of HVAC tune-up projects to increase,

decrease, or stay the same in the next 12 months. Four of the five trade allies said the

number of HVAC tune-up projects would increase. One said they thought the number of

projects would stay the same but thought their business may do more Duct Sealing work.

4.6.2.12 General respondent characterization

Table 4-74 summarizes basic home information among our OK HEEP HVAC Tune-Up

and Replacement respondents. Nearly all (97 percent) HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and

Replacement participants we surveyed were homeowners, and one-hundred percent of

these respondents indicated they lived in single-family homes. Twenty-three percent of

this program track’s respondents are the only people that live in their home, while 38

percent of respondents say they have two people in their residence. Income among

respondents within this program track is well-distributed.


110

Table 4-74 HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement Participant Characteristics

Do you rent or own the home we’ve been discussing today?

Rent Column N % 3%

Own Column N % 97%

What is the main fuel used to heat your home?



Other Column N % 2%


What is the main fuel used to heat your water?



Bottled gas propane Column N % 1%


Including yourself, how many people lived in your household last year?

1 person Column N % 23%




5-6 people Column N % 10%

7 or more people Column N % 0


Including all money earned from wages, salaries, tips, commissions, workers´ compensation, unemployment insurance, child support, or other sources, about how much was your total annual household income before taxes in 2017?

Less than $10,000 Column N % 3%









$200,000 or more Column N % 0%


Source: Question dem1 dem3 dem3h dem4 dem5 Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding

4.6.3 Consumer Products Channel

This section presents the methodology used for the process-related data collection

activities the Evaluators performed within the OK HEEP Consumer Products track. These

activities included program staff interviews, and the collection of data through a short

panel of lighting-related questions within the participant HEEP survey. This survey was

administered to OG&E customers who participated in the Residential Solutions or HVAC

Tune-Up and Replacement tracks, respectively.


111

4.6.3.1 Program Staff Interviews


and an additional interview with CLEAResult team members who worked to implement

the Consumer Products program track in PY2017. The Evaluators used these program

staff interviews to identify program updates or changes experienced in PY2017, while

also exploring staff roles and responsibilities, program communications and marketing,

and the overall program delivery processes in place during PY2017.

4.6.3.2 Participating Customer Surveys

Telephone surveys were completed with participants within the OK HEEP HVAC Tune-

Up and Replacement track and the Residential Solutions track, respectively. The surveys

were primarily designed to collect respondent feedback on program communication and

offerings, measure changes in participant energy efficiency awareness and behaviors due

to program participation, participant satisfaction, and collected key household

characteristics and demographic information. The team also used this data collection

opportunity to ask a series of lighting-specific questions to OG&E customers. These

questions collected information on their awareness of both CFL and LED light bulbs, and

further surveyed them on their lighting purchase history and decision making processes,

and measured their product pricing sensitivity.

We ultimately surveyed 72 Oklahoma HEEP HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement program

track participants and 99 HEEP Residential Solutions track participants. The lighting

question panel was asked of all survey respondents in the survey. The survey began

fielding on Thursday, January 25, 2018 and ran through February 5, 2018.

4.6.3.3 Program Delivery, Communication, and Marketing

Communication was the key program delivery component of the Upstream Consumer

Products track within HEEP. Internally, both OG&E and CLEAResult reported being

satisfied with the level of communications and reporting that has been established and

continues between their offices. Externally, CLEAResult works to market the program to

retailers and manufacturers to bring them on-board to the program, and they worked this

year to widen the program reach to additional retailers. Further, CLEAResult then

partners with enrolled retailers, distributors, and / or manufacturers to a) educate them on

key program offerings, and b) give them tools to help promote the program. CLEAResult

works to provide information to enrollees of the program through annual training which

highlights key benefits and features of energy efficient lighting products. CLEAResult also

brings in industry experts to these training, to connect retailers with resources with a deep

range of knowledge about energy efficiency lighting. They also engage in monthly field

training to regularly engage and educate retailers, answer questions, and provide

refreshed promotion materials throughout the program year.


112

Promotion materials that CLEAResult provides to retailers are a key tool in program

promotion. They provide a wide range of Point-of-Purchase (POP) materials, such as

posters, stickers, and pallet and other special displays. Field representatives working

with the program also hold in-store promotional events to further engage customers and

garner program and product attention.

4.6.3.4 OG&E Customer Lighting Product Awareness

HEEP Participant Awareness of Energy Efficiency Lighting: We opted to ask

customers about their awareness of different type of light bulbs available in the

marketplace. Consumer awareness of energy efficiency lighting was high overall. Just

over three-fourths of OG&E customers surveyed (76 percent) confirmed that they had

heard of CFL’s before our survey. We also asked respondents who had not received

LEDs through the program if they had heard of LEDs. All (100 percent) of Residential

Solutions and HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement respondents confirmed they had heard

of LEDs before our survey. We went further by asking respondents if they felt they could

confidently identify CFL and LED light bulbs if they were placed in front of them. Table

4-75 highlights that nearly every nine out of ten program participants felt they could, and

details answers by program participant type.

Table 4-75 Could you correctly identify a typical incandescent light bulb, a CFL, and a LED light bulb if placed in front of you, outside of their packaging?

Category Residential

Solutions Track HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement Track

Yes 91% 87%

No 9% 13%

Total 100% 100%

N=92 N=68

Source: Question L3

Don’t know and refused responses are excluded Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding

HEEP Participant Energy Efficiency Lighting Purchase Information: Most of our

remaining lighting analysis included only respondents who felt they could identify energy

efficiency lighting without its packaging, or in other words, had a good base of knowledge

about energy efficiency lighting products. Among that customer subset, sixty-nine percent

of Residential Solutions track participants had purchased LEDs, while HVAC Tune-Up

and Replacement participants were slightly less likely (61 percent) to have purchased

energy efficient LEDs.


113

Table 4-76 OG&E program participants who have purchased LEDs in the past six months


Solutions Track

HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement

Track Yes 69% 61%

No 31% 39%

Total 100% 100%

N=83 N=57

Source: Question L4 Don’t know and refused responses are excluded Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding

We asked HEEP participants who had purchased LEDs in the past 6 months for some

context about what the new LEDs were replacing in their home. Table 4-77 summarizes

their responses and highlights that roughly one in four OG&E customers are still replacing

traditional incandescent light bulbs. Nearly half of the participants we surveyed indicate

they are replacing a mixture of bulb types with LEDs.

Table 4-77 Type of bulbs LEDs replaced



Traditional incandescent light bulbs 30% 23%

CFLs 19% 19%

Existing LED light bulbs 2% 7%

A mixture of these bulbs 48% 45%

Some other type of existing bulb 0% 6%*

Total 100% 100%

N=54 N=31

Source: Question L8 Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding *One respondent indicated their LEDs replaced Halogen bulbs; another responded “all of the above”, while a final respondent indicated that their bulbs didn’t replace anything, but rather, were for new lamps.

While getting a handle on what the HEEP program participants had purchased, we also

asked them to name the retailer where they had purchased their LEDs. Table 4-78 lists

how HEEP program participants most frequently answered this question. This year,

Lowe’s surpassed The Home Depot was most frequently mentioned by Residential

Solutions and HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement tracks customers, respectively. Big box

discount retailers, such as Sam’s Club and Wal-Mart, also were popular answers among

participants in each track.


114

Table 4-78 Name of retailer where LED bulbs were purchased in past six months



Lowe’s 54% 62%

The Home Depot 53% 44%

Walmart Supercenter 44% 29%

Sam's Club 18% 24%

Ace Hardware 25% 12%

Target 5% 12%

True Value 2% 3%

None of these retailers 2% 3%

Batteries Plus 5% 8%

Totals N=57 N=34

Source: Question L5

Don’t know and refused responses are excluded Note: Totals may sum to more than 100 percent, as participants can choose more than one answer

When making a new energy efficiency lighting purchase, roughly half of the HVAC

respondents reported that bulb life was the leading deciding factor when selecting a bulb

for purchase, while 39 percent of Residential Solutions track participants also identified

this as their leading decision factor. “Energy efficiency” was a verbatim survey provided

second-most often among respondents overall, which suggests that participation in

OG&E energy efficiency programs is likely influencing its consumer buying decisions.

Price remains still near the top of mind for most respondents, as 25 percent of the

Residential Solutions track participants mentioned it, while 19 percent of HVAC Tune-Up

and Replacement track participants reported it was a deciding factor.


115

Table 4-79 Deciding factors when selecting bulbs for purchase



Bulb life 39% 50%

*Energy efficiency 34% 28%

Price 25% 19%

Lumens or brightness 16% 19%

Lighting facts/Energy Facts Label 18% 13%

*Cool burning 11% 13%

Wattage 11% 6%

ENERGY STAR label 5% 16%

Color appearance 5% 6%

*Availability of bulbs 2% 6%

Watt equivalency 4% 0%

Shape 2% 3%

Dimming 2% 0%

Something else (specify) 20% 3%

Totals N=56 N=32

Source: Question L7 Don’t know and refused responses are excluded Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent as respondents could select more than one answer *Indicates category computed during analysis

Price Impact on the Participant Energy Efficiency Lighting Purchase Decision: Our

remaining questions about energy efficiency lighting offered through the HEEP Consumer

Products track focused on the impact of price on participants’ energy efficient lighting

decisions. We asked participants how likely they would have been to make the same LED

purchases if each bulb had cost an additional $2.50. More than two-thirds (67 percent) of

Residential Solutions customers indicated they "definitely" or "probably" would have still

purchased LEDs even if the LEDs cost more than $2.50 per bulb. HVAC Replacement

and Tune-Up respondents indicated they were just slightly less likely (60 percent

“definitely” or “probably” would) to buy the same LEDs if they cost more.


116

Table 4-80 Likelihood of purchasing LEDs if they cost more than $2.50 per bulb



Definitely would have still purchased LEDs 40% 33%

Probably would have still purchased LEDs 27% 27%

Not sure if you would have purchased LEDs 15% 21%

Probably would not have still purchased LEDs 16% 6%

Definitely would not have still purchased LEDs 2% 12%

Total 100% 100%

N=55 N=33


Despite their documented acceptance of LED bulbs through data in this section, less than

half of the OG&E HEEP respondents we surveyed were aware that OG&E discounted

LED bulbs in 2017. While nearly 40 percent of the Residential Solutions track participants

are aware that OG&E discounted LED bulb prices in 2017 through participating retailers,

while far fewer (15 percent) of HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement track participants are

aware of these same discounts.

Table 4-81 Aware OG&E discounted certain LED bulbs in 2017



Yes 39% 15%

No 61% 85%

Total 100% 100%

N=54 N=33


OG&E HEEP Residential Solutions customers have had more experience with buying

CFLs (71 percent) than LEDs (61 percent). The opposite is true among HVAC Tune Up

and Replacement participants, who more frequently answered “yes” to buying LEDs (66

percent) prior to their program participation in 2017, compared to roughly half of them (54

percent) buying CFLs.

Table 4-82 Bulb Types Purchased Prior to 2017

Category Residential Solutions

Track

HVAC Tune Up and Replacement

Track

Residential Solutions

Track

HVAC Tune-Up and Replacement

Track


117

CFLs prior to

2017 CFLs prior to

2017 LEDs prior

to 2017 LEDs prior to

2017

Yes 71% 54% 61% 66%

No 29% 46% 39% 34%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

N=90 N=68 N=98 N=70

Source: Question L15, L16 Don’t know and refused responses are excluded Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding

4.7 Planned Program Changes

The HEEP will remain in OG&E’s Demand Program portfolio in PY2017, with no

significant changes.

4.8 Conclusions & Program Recommendations

4.8.1 Conclusions

The key conclusions from the PY2017 evaluation of the HEEP are as follows:


indicate that customers highly value the services offered by HEEP, and recall





trade ally staff. Satisfaction scores on nearly all program components were

consistently rated 4 out of 5 or higher, for both trade allies and participants

Demonstrated Education Effects: Feedback from the participant survey

suggests that the program is increasing customer knowledge of energy

efficiency equipment and energy efficiency behaviors that can be employed to

conserve energy and lower utility bills. Some customers have learned about

other utility offerings through the HEEP, potentially leading to additional energy

savings.

Smooth Enrollment Process: Regardless of how they requested an

assessment to begin participating in the HEEP, customers had an easy time

communicating with the program and scheduling their home assessment.

Among those who called the Customer Service center, 93 percent indicated

their experience was ‘very easy’, while the remaining customers rated their

experience as “easy”.


118

Adequate Database Quality: Except for the ex ante savings issues described

below, the Evaluators found the ex ante savings values within the database to

be accurate for most measures. Additionally, CLEAResult was very consistent

in responding to data requests and correcting errors when necessary.

Effective Trade Ally Portal: An elevated level of satisfaction was reported by

trade allies in relation to the portal that CLEAResult utilizes to share information

with trade allies.

4.8.2 Recommendations

The HEEP was very successful in PY2017. The Evaluators identified few specific,

systematic or persistent issues with program operation and design. As the utilities plan to

continue offering similar services and maintaining their current operational structure under

the HEEP; consideration of the following recommendations may be useful moving

forward:

Resolve possible program database issues (Schools Outreach): For

PY2017, RAP developed deemed savings estimates for the measures that are

implemented through the Schools Outreach channel, including LEDs, aerators,

and a showerhead. These deemed savings were based on algorithms and

inputs contained in the Arkansas TRM, updated for Oklahoma weather. After

reviewing and providing input on these documents, the Evaluators determined

them to be appropriate sources for calculating savings for PY2017, with one

exception. The ex ante gross savings for LEDs, in tracking data, were dividing

the lifetime savings by the EUL of the measure. RAP should consider modifying

their database so that ex ante and ex post gross savings are more closely

aligned.

Resolve possible program database issues (Consumer Products): An

issue was discovered with the baselines being assigned to some reflector bulbs

where a 40W baseline was being assigned in cases that should have a 65W

baseline. CLEAResult has indicated that this will be corrected for PY2018.

Continue to assess and potentially add additional energy efficient

measures to program offerings to increase customer satisfaction and

assist customers in realizing additional energy savings. Residential

Solutions customers continue to indicate that they often do not implement all

recommendations made by the program. Program staff should consider

offering incentives for measures and projects often recommended through the

program, and follow up with customers with marketing efforts to encourage

them to make additional program-recommended energy efficiency upgrades.


119

Continue to focus on building positive contractor relationships within the

program’s delivery mechanisms through strong training opportunities

and clear, ongoing communications. Last year, none of the Residential

Solutions contractors interviewed within this evaluation could recall any

program training however, this year, all three Residential Solutions contractors

interviewed for this evaluation recalled the training and were satisfied with it.

This year, two of three contractors we interviewed were satisfied with

CLEAResult communications, while one thought communications could be

improved. Training sessions and contractor communications create the

opportunity for OG&E and CLEAResult to build a solid relationship foundation

with the trade allies, and educate and better inform them of their program

offerings and expectations. Not only does this inspire confidence among the

trade allies, but it increases the possibility that the program participants have a

positive program experience within their current program, and increases the

possibility that trade allies will continue to support, market, and work within the

program.

Offer residential customers more information about other available OG&E

program programs and tracks. While OG&E participants within this program

are largely satisfied with it, only 10% of respondents within this track confirmed

they had participated in another OG&E program. Consider offering more

educational materials about OG&E program opportunities while onsite within

the HVAC Tune-up or Replacement appointment, and follow-up after the

appointment to cross-market additional energy efficiency programming.

Consider additional promotion of the program track’s HVAC replacement

options to Residential OG&E customers to increase participant

awareness of the program option. HVAC tune-ups are still a substantial part

of this program track’s savings, while contractors indicate they are doing few

actual replacements. The program stands to harvest more savings from the

replacement part of the program with increased awareness of it among its

customer population.

Continue to communicate regularly with Contractors about program

changes and expectations to maintain high levels of program

satisfaction. As was the case in our PY16 evaluation, HVAC contractors

working to support this program in PY17 are highly satisfied with program

communications, and they found the contractor training offered by CLEAResult

this year to be very helpful. CLEAResult should continue to maintain their

currently levels of communication frequency and detail to sustain their high

levels of contractor program satisfaction.


120

5. Positive Energy – New Home Construction (PE-NHC)


The table below presents the ex ante and ex post energy (kWh) and demand (kW) savings

for the PE-NHC program. This program is divided into four strata.

The evaluator’s User Defined Reference Home (UDRH) evaluation approach uses

REMrate building simulation models to verify ex post savings. The ex post savings are

calculated for 49 homes. Using the ex post savings per house, realization rates for the

four strata are established. The program summary of energy and demand savings is

shown below.

Table 5-1 Energy Savings Summary for PE-NHC in PY2017

Stratum kWh

Threshold



Realization Rate

Net-to-

Gross



1 6,600 1,103,699 1,011,220 91.6% 84.3% 852,675 12,790,130

2 3,400 1,122,773 1,329,577 118.4% 84.3% 1,121,119 16,816,778

3 2,570 1,112,473 1,314,389 118.2% 84.3% 1,108,312 16,624,676

4 0 1,077,129 1,387,033 128.8% 84.3% 1,169,566 17,543,493

Total 4,416,075 5,042,218 114.2% 84.3% 4,251,672 63,775,078

Table 5-2 Demand Reduction Summary for PE-NHC in PY2017

Stratum kWh

Threshold

Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)

Realization Rate

Net-to-

Gross

Net Demand

Reductions (kW)

1 6,600 101 83 81.80% 94.60% 78.51

2 3,400 315 339 107.50% 94.60% 320.81

3 2,570 422 430 102.00% 94.60% 406.95

4 0 451 475 105.10% 94.60% 448.95

Total 1,290 1,327 102.90% 94.60% 1,255.22


The objective of the PE-NHC program is to incentivize homebuilders to include energy

efficient measures in the construction of new homes built within OG&E’s Oklahoma


121

service territory. The program also educates participants about the benefits of energy

efficient homes.

The program utilizes home builders as the main marketing and outreach channel.

OG&E provides home builders a significant amount of support in the marketing and

outreach process. The program works with the builders throughout the design and

construction process to ensure that participating homes meet or exceed the PE-NHC

program’s minimum requirements.

To determine ex ante savings, the implementer has third party HERS raters model

each participating home using the software package, REMrate. CLEAResult and the

HERS raters perform inspections during a home’s construction process to support the

REMrate models.

The PY2017 PE-NHC program includes 1,243 measures or homes and 1,243

participants or accounts. The number participants is defined as the number unique

account numbers in the program. Account numbers are given to the home owners.

Builders or individuals can own a participating home. The number of measures in the

program are defined as the number of homes in the program. The number a

participants and measures can be different because a unique building owner could

own more than one home. The table below summarizes the participation and savings

per program strata.

Table 5-3 Participants and Savings per Program Strata

Stratum kWh

Threshold Participants Measures


Ex Ante Demand Savings

(kW)

1 6,600 76 76 1,103,699 101

2 3,400 273 273 1,122,773 315

3 2,570 376 376 1,112,473 422

4 0 518 518 1,077,129 451

Total 1,243 1,243 4,416,075 1,290

The program includes 45 builders. The table below shows the participation and savings

per builder; this table represents 75% of the program savings.


122

Table 5-4 Participating and Savings per Builder

Builder Number of

Homes




(kW)

Ex Post Demand Savings

(kW)

Unique Builder 1 352 939,858 1,193,820 432 465

Unique Builder 2 221 688,456 846,234 222 234

Unique Builder 3 145 417,360 518,623 150 159

Unique Builder 4 114 447,888 525,239 60 62

Unique Builder 5 62 126,579 171,046 63 72

Unique Builder 6 59 127,493 170,444 57 64

Unique Builder 7 48 104,651 139,439 42 47

Unique Builder 8 43 167,166 200,449 28 30

Unique Builder 9 34 389,473 351,495 33 28

Unique Builder 10 21 313,600 285,119 34 29

Unique Builder 11 19 69,165 78,791 18 18

Unique Builder 12 15 32,567 45,037 12 13

Unique Builder 13 12 19,413 26,847 10 11

Unique Builder 14 12 25,560 33,468 15 17

Unique Builder 15 10 19,563 26,640 9 10

Unique Builder 16 10 15,456 20,961 5 6

Unique Builder 17 9 28,157 35,351 11 12

Table Total 1,186 3,932,405 4,669,003 1,201 1,265

Program Total 1,243 4,416,075 5,042,218 1,290 1,327

The four participating HERS raters create REMrate models for the participating homes.

The table below summarizes the number of models created by each HERS rater as well

as the savings associated with each rater.


123

Table 5-5 Participation and Savings per HERS Rater

HERS Rater Number

of Homes




(kW)


(kW)

Unique HERS Rater 1 538 2,346,732 2,547,611 558 564

Unique HERS Rater 2 370 1,013,027 1,237,457 459 479

Unique HERS Rater 3 173 419,905 516,949 180 187

Unique HERS Rater 4 162 636,410 740,202 93 96

Total 1,243 4,416,075 5,042,218 1,290 1,327

The figure below summarizes the completed homes and energy savings per month.

Figure 5-1 Participation per Month

5.3 Impact Evaluation Approach

The impact evaluation effort of the PE-NHC program includes the following:

Creation of program database. The evaluator received program databases from

OG&E and the implementer.

Site Visits. The evaluator reviewed supporting documentation and or performed

site visits to verify REMrate models of 49 homes.

Free ridership Estimation. The Evaluator calculated uses interviews with builders

and program managers to calculated free ridership rates.

5.3.1 Energy Savings Calculations

The ex ante savings is found by subtracting the as-built home energy use from its UDRH

energy use. A similar process is used to find the peak demand reduction. The evaluator

136

55

194

6394 91

65

135

39

128

243

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12

Ener

gy S

avin

gs P

er M

on

th

(kW

h)

Co

mp

lete

d H

om

es p

er M

on

th

Month of the Year

Number of Meaures Energy Savings (kWh)


124

uses site specific REMrate models with UDRH baseline homes to verify ex post savings

for 49 sites.

5.3.2 UDRH baseline homes

There is one UDRH house used in the program. The UDRH represents a home built to

meet Oklahoma’s minimum code requirements. The assumptions used in the UDRH

home are shown in Table 5-6.

Table 5-6 UDRH Key Assumptions

Input UDRH

Assumption Source

Attic Insulation R-30 2009 IRC Table N1102.1 values.

Wall Insulation R-13 2009 IRC Table N1102.1 values.

Door R R-2 2009 IRC Table N1102.1 fenestration

requirements.

Window U 0.5 2009 IRC Table N1102.1 values.

Window SHGC 0.35 2009 IRC Table N1102.1 values.

Infiltration 0.00036 F-L-A 2009 IECC Reference home, Table

405.5.2(1).

Slab Edge Insulation None 2009 IRC Table N1102.1 values.

HVAC Equipment Type As proposed 2009 IECC Reference home, Table

405.5.2(1).

Cooling Efficiency (SEER) 14 NAECA minimum values.

Heating Efficiency (AFUE) 80 NAECA minimum values.

Heat pump efficiency heating

(HSPF) 8.2

NAECA minimum values, for both

GSPH and ASHP

Gas Instant Water Heater (%) 82 2009 IRC Table N1102.1 values.

Conventional Gas Water

Heater (%) 58 2009 IRC Table N1102.1 values.

Electric Water Heater (EF) 0.91 2009 IRC Table N1102.1 values.

5.3.3 On-site Verification Procedure

The primary goal of the on-site verification effort is to collect as much data as possible

during the two-hour site visit to verify the inputs to the home’s REMrate model. If the

evaluator’s field technician visited an occupied home, the homeowner is given a $50 gift

card. During the on-site visits, the Evaluator’s field technicians perform the following:

Document HVAC equipment, water heaters, appliances, lights, and building

characteristics;


125

Measure the area of windows, walls, doors, floors, ceilings, infiltration, and duct

leakage to outside

The Evaluator’s site visit information is corroborated with a list of site specific REMrate

inputs from the implementer, builder, and HERS rater.

5.4 Gross Savings Summary and Findings

To calculate the ex post savings for a given home, first, the as-built home is modeled

using the building characteristics verified during the site visit and information given by the

implementer. Once the home is modeled, REMrate calculates the ex post savings by

subtracting the energy use of the as-built home from the energy use of its UDRH baseline

home. A similar process is completed to find peak demand savings.

The Evaluators modeled 49 homes in REMrate, Realization rates, energy savings, and

demand savings are calculated for each of strata. Results for the homes included in the

M&V sample are shown in Table 5-7.

Table 5-7 Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings per Strata

Stratum kWh

Threshold

Number of

Sampled Homes




(kW)


(kW)

1 6,600 18 243,132 222,760 24 20

2 3,400 13 60,712 71,894 11 11

3 2,570 5 14,343 16,946 6 6

4 0 13 28,999 37,342 9 9

Total 49 347,185 348,942 49 46

5.4.1 Sampling Plan

The Evaluators were able to verify REMrate model inputs at 49 sites. The evaluator’s

sampling approach achieved a 7.0% relative precision at a 90% confidence interval. See

below the PE-NHC evaluation sampling strategy.


126

Table 5-8 Sampling Plan

Stratum kWh

Threshold


CV Measures

Number of

Sampled Homes

Relative Precision

Absolute Precision

1 6,600 1,103,699 0.68 76 18 23.0% 253,742

2 3,400 1,122,773 0.16 273 13 7.2% 80,557

3 2,570 1,112,473 0.09 376 5 6.3% 70,078

4 0 1,077,129 0.28 518 13 12.6% 135,931

Total 4,416,075 1,243 49 7.0% 307,022

5.4.2 Verified Savings

The strata savings totals are found by multiplying the established stratum realization rates

by the ex ante stratum totals. The program savings and savings per strata are outlined in

Table 5-9 and Table 5-10 below. The program savings totals were found by summing up

the strata savings totals.

Table 5-9 Gross Program Energy Savings

Stratum kWh

Threshold



Realization Rate

1 6,600 1,103,699 1,011,220 91.6%

2 3,400 1,122,773 1,329,577 118.4%

3 2,570 1,112,473 1,314,389 118.2%

4 0 1,077,129 1,387,033 128.8%

Total 4,416,075 5,042,218 114.2%

Table 5-10 Gross Program Demand Reduction

Stratum kWh

Threshold

Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)

Realization Rate

1 6,600 101 83 81.8%

2 3,400 315 339 107.5%

3 2,570 422 430 102.0%

4 0 451 475 105.1%

Total 1,290 1,327 102.9%


127

5.4.3 Realization Rates

Using the calculated ex post savings for the 49 verified homes, realization rates are

created for each sampled home. The realization rate per strata was calculated by dividing

the sample’s total ex post savings per strata by the sample’s total ex ante savings per

strata. Then the evaluator found the program realization rate by using a weighted average

calculation. The program is found to have an energy savings realization rate of 114.2%

and a peak demand reduction realization rate of 102.9%.

5.5 Net Savings Summary and Findings

The following sections summarize the methodologies used to estimate free ridership and

spillover impacts for the PE-NHC program. The Evaluator completed interviews with three

of the most active builders in 2017. Additionally, the evaluator applied net-to-gross ratios

developed for five builders interviewed for the 2016 evaluation to the savings they

achieved in 2017. Thus, the program level net-to-gross ratio was based on interview

responses provided in 2016 and 2017. In total, these builders accounted for 79% of

verified gross kWh savings.

For each builder, the evaluator estimated a free ridership probability based on the

average of the three scores described below. This free ridership probability was then

rounded, yielding a binary score for each builder.

5.5.1 Program Components Score

A program components score was calculated based on how influential various program

factors were to builders’ decisions to construct efficient homes. Specifically, interview

responses were asked to rate the influence of the following factors on their decisions to

build efficient homes on a scale ranging from 0 to 10 where 0 means “not at all influential”

and 10 means “very influential.”

Component 1: Technical assistance or information from program staff;

Component 2: Technical assistance or information from HERS raters;

Component 3: The incentive provided by the program; and

Component 4: Program informational documents.

The program components score was equal to the maximum rating provided by the

respondent to these factors. This score was then adjusted for home builders that

emphasized other factors that influenced their decisions to build efficient homes. Program

component scores were reduced by 50% for builders that provided information regarding

their firm’s focus on green building practices, the importance of the federal tax credit, or

the importance of donated equipment/reduced cost equipment. This adjustment was

made for three of the five interviewed builders.

The program components score was calculated as:


128

(MAX(Component1-4)*Adjustment Factor(.5 or 1)) / 10

5.5.2 Program Influence Score

The program influence score was based on respondents rating of how likely they would

have been to build the same number of efficient homes if the rebate and information were

not provided by the program. Builders rated this question on a scale where 0 means “not

at all likely” and 10 means “very likely.”

The Program Influence Score was calculated as:

(10 – Respondent Rating)/10

5.5.3 PE-NHC No Program Score

Builders were asked two questions about the number of homes that their firm would have

likely built without the program:

No Program Score 1: If the financial incentives and design assistance provided

through OG&E’s PE-NHC program had not been available in 2017, what

percentage of the homes that you completed in 2017 with program incentives

would have been built to the same level of efficiency?

No Program Score 2: Now thinking about your history in working with the OG&E

program, if the financial incentives and technical assistance provided through the

program had never been offered, what percentage of the homes that you

completed through the program in 2017 would have been built to the same level

of efficiency?

These questions are intended to capture the influence that the program has had on

builders efficient construction practices. The intent of the second question is to capture

the effect that prior program educational efforts had on builders current construction

practice because a key component of the program is increasing builders knowledge of,

and skill in, efficient construction practices that may lead to long term changes in building

practices.

The no program score was calculated as:

1 – Average (No Program Score 1, No Program Score2)

5.5.4 Participant Spillover Methodology

To estimate participant spillover impacts, builders were asked if they completed any

efficient homes inside of OG&E’s service territory that did not receive a program incentive.

None of the builders reported building any qualifying homes without an incentive.


129

5.5.5 Net Savings Results

Table 5-11 summarizes the net-to-gross results for the interviewed builders. Based on

the scores, two of the builders were considered free riders.

Table 5-11 Summary of Builder Net Savings Results

Year of Interview

Builder Program

Components Score

Program Influence

Score

No Program

Score Spillover

Binary Net-to-

Gross Ratio

2016 Builder 1 0.50 0.00 0.00 None 0.0%

2016 Builder 2 0.45 0.70 0.45 None 100.0%

2016 Builder 3 1.00 0.80 0.93 None 100.0%

2016 Builder 4 0.50 0.80 0.93 None 100.0%

2016 Builder 5 1.00 0.80 1.00 None 100.0%

2017 Builder 6 0.20 0.00 0.00 None 0.0%

2017 Builder 7 1.00 1.00 0.38 None 100.0%

2017 Builder 8 1.00 0.80 0.93 None 100.0%

Table 5-12 and Table 5-13 summarize the net kWh savings and peak kW demand

reductions of the PE-NHC Program. The net kWh savings totaled 4,251,672 and were

equal to 84.3% of the program gross savings. The net peak kW demand reductions

totaled 1,255.22 kW.

Table 5-12 Summary of Net kWh Savings for PE-NHC

Stratum kWh

Threshold



Realization Rate

Net-to-

Gross



1 6,600 1,103,699 1,011,220 91.6% 84.3% 852,675 12,790,130

2 3,400 1,122,773 1,329,577 118.4% 84.3% 1,121,119 16,816,778

3 2,570 1,112,473 1,314,389 118.2% 84.3% 1,108,312 16,624,676

4 0 1,077,129 1,387,033 128.8% 84.3% 1,169,566 17,543,493

Total 4,416,075 5,042,218 114.2% 84.3% 4,251,672 63,775,077


130

Table 5-13 Summary of Net kW Peak Demand Reductions for PE-NHC

Stratum kWh

Threshold

Ex Ante Demand

Reductions (kW)

Ex Post Demand

Reductions (kW)

Realization Rate

Net-to-

Gross

Net Demand

Reductions (kW)

1 6,600 101.38 82.98 81.8% 94.6% 78.51

2 3,400 315.48 339.09 107.5% 94.6% 320.81

3 2,570 421.52 430.14 102.0% 94.6% 406.95

4 0 451.44 474.53 105.1% 94.6% 448.95

Total 1,289.83 1,326.75 102.9% 94.6% 1,255.22

5.6 Process Evaluation

The evaluator completed a limited process evaluation of the PEH Program in 2017. The

evaluation focused on program changes and developments that occurred in 2017.

5.6.1 Data Collection Activities

The following summarizes the data collection activities completed as part of the PY2017

evaluation of the PE-NHC Program.

Interviews with Program Staff: The evaluator completed an interview with OG&E

staff and CLEAResult staff. The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight into

the program staffing and communications, clarify aspects of the program design,

aspects of the implementation of the program including marketing and outreach

efforts, and to understand changes made to the program in PY2017. Additionally,

the evaluator completed an interview with members of the CLEAResult

implementation team to discuss a data tracking issue.

Interviews with Participating Builders: the evaluator completed interviews with

three participating builders. While the primary purpose of the interviews was to

collect information to support the estimation of program net savings, builders were

also asked to provide feedback on the program including the participation process,

program marketing and outreach efforts, barriers to participating in the program,

and their level of satisfaction with the program. Builders were also asked to provide

feedback on changes to the program that they would like to see implemented.

5.6.2 Process Evaluation Results and Findings

One of the primary changes discussed by staff were their efforts to improve program

marketing and support of builders. Staff stated that they initiated a large marketing effort

in 2016, but that this was too complex of an effort. In 2017, they simplified the marketing

approach to make it easier to understand. An effort was made to communicate the

benefits of efficient homes such as reduction of dust and allergens. Additionally, all

builders were provided brochures and yard signs to promote the program to their


131

customers. Some builders also received counter signs for use at home shows. Staff

posted some of the materials on the website so that builders and others can have access

to the materials in an electronic format. In 2018, the program plans to update the

promotional video posted to the program website to bring it up-to-date.

Staff also noted that the program was promoted at the OK Building Summit. Staff attended

both days of the summit and promoted other OGE residential programs as well.

Due to a mishap in the processing of builder payments in 2017, eleven projects received

duplicate payments. Staff discussed how the duplication occurred and the procedural

changes made to prevent it in the future.

In mid-2017, CLEAResult implemented a procedure to prevent duplication of payments

and savings claims in the PEH Program. The process, summarized in Figure 5-2, checks

for duplicates based on previously paid projects.

Figure 5-2 Procedure for Checking Duplicate Record

As shown in Figure 5-2, savings for the new homes are calculated in an Excel

spreadsheet. Each record of completed projects is checked for duplicates based on an

external ID that functions as a unique premise identification number and is assigned by

OG&E. The check for duplicate records is completed by downloading an export from the

Catalyst customer relationship management (CRM) system (CLEAResult’s program

activity tracking database) of previously paid projects. Once the savings estimation is

completed and any duplicate records are removed from the file, a spreadsheet of project


132

savings is sent to the CLEAResult processing center, where it is uploaded into the

Catalyst system. Once uploaded, the CLEAResult program manager approves the

projects for payment in the Catalyst system. In approximately two to three days, the

submitted projects are paid and the list of projects are marked as complete and can be

downloaded and used in the duplicate check process for the next batch of payments.

The duplication issue occurred when a HERS rater submitted two large batches of 70 -

100 projects at the end of the program year. CLEAResult program staff processed the

first batch and submitted the data for upload into Catalyst and subsequent payment. The

second batch, which contained the duplicate records, was submitted during the period

after the first batch had been approved for payment, but before payment had been made.

As such, the first batch was not included in the download of completed projects when the

second submission was prepared.

To maintain goodwill with the builders, OG&E decided to not take back the duplicated

payments but to instead pay double the incentive amount on all projects.

To prevent duplication of payments in the future, staff will only process payments one to

two times a month. The additional time between payment submissions is intended to allow

for payments to be made and the process to complete.

5.6.3 Builder Feedback

The evaluator interviewed three builders that participated in OG&E’s Positive Energy

Homes Program during 2017. The interviews addressed builders’ historical experience

with the program and the influence the program may have had on their building practices

to-date. The evaluator explored topics such as program awareness, including the

approach used and degree to which builders integrate the program standards into their

building practices, as well as staff communication and general program outreach. Below

is a summary of the key findings.

Two of the three builders interviewed identified themselves as the owner or principle of

the company; the other builder identified as senior purchasing agent. All three had enough

experience with their respective companies to provide feedback about current and

retrospective factors that influence their companies’ building practices.

Feedback suggests that there were other factors, beside the rebates offered through

OG&E’s Positive Energy Homes Program, which influenced builders to build homes that

met program standards. Most often mentioned were the, now expired, state and federal

rebates for building energy efficient homes that exceeded the IECC 2006 building code.

The ONG rebate was also mentioned as a factor that influenced builders to construct

energy efficient homes. Two builders indicated that their homes also received the ONG

rebates; one builder indicated that 100% of the homes that received a rebate through the


133

Positive Energy Homes Program also received an ONG rebate as well, the other

estimated 25%.

Interviewees also acknowledged that building energy efficient homes equates to greater

overall quality, which has become integrated into their building practices and business

models. One builder went on to explain that it’s rare to see a builder regress its building

practices and construct lower efficiency and quality homes than they once did. Two of the

builders noted that they are meeting program standards, but now they want to go further

and perhaps additional tiered incentives are a way to encourage builders who are ready

to exceed program standards.

One interviewee emphasized the impact of geothermal heat-pump rebates that have

since expired. This builder had little experience with this technology when the program

began rebating it, but has since evolved into using geothermal heat pumps regularly in

their new home developments. The builder indicated that they would likely use

geothermal more frequently if a rebate was provided. Other specific building practices

that were changed by builders’ participation in the program were 2x6 exterior frames,

spray foam insulation, and the type and quality of windows, HVAC, water heater and AC

units.

There was a general consensus among the interviewees that emphasizing the program’s

role or brand offered little to no value to the buyer. Builders noted that buyers are unaware

of the program; do not ask about it and that builders do not generally provide details about

the program’s role in the construction process.

Interviewees provided additional feedback regarding their approach to selling energy

efficient homes. Builders characterized buyers as varying widely in terms of their

knowledge and interest in the construction of the home, including the efficient construction

practices used in program qualifying homes. Some buyers approach builders with a

detailed idea of what they want for their new home, while others are very excited at the

prospect of getting the program provided financing, even if they are less interested in the

homes efficiency.

Builders spoke enthusiastically about their utility representative but noted that

communication about the program under CLEAResult’s implementation has decreased.

Despite the decline in communication, every builder interviewed said the program was

running smoothly because their HERS raters handle most of the paperwork and program

communication. Nevertheless, builders suggested that they have less of a personal

relationship with program staff then they used to. Additionally, two of the three

interviewees said they wouldn’t know the appropriate program representative to contact

if they had a question.


134

5.7 Planned Program Changes

OG&E plans to keep this program in their portfolio in PY2018. There will be an increase

in the incentive for geothermal heat pumps in PY2018.

5.8 Conclusions & Program Recommendations

5.8.1 Conclusions

The key conclusions from the PY2017 evaluation of the OG&E/PE-NHC are as follows:

Simplified Marketing Approach: Staff simplified the program marketing

approach. The new approach focuses on key benefits of efficient new

construction. All builders were provided brochures and yard signs to promote

the program to their customers. Some builders also received counter signs for

use at home shows.

Duplication of Records Resulted in Overpayment: The evaluator found

duplicate records in the program tracking records. CLEAResult staff identified

the underlying cause and implemented a procedural change to prevent the

issue from re-occurring in the future. Rather than require builders to repay the

additional incentive payment, staff decided to double the incentive payment for

all builders to maintain goodwill. The evaluator concurs that this was the best

approach to resolving the issue.

Builders Interested in Additional Communication: There was a general

consensus that overall communication had decreased, and while builders

agreed that the program was running smoothly and they were receiving their

checks, they would appreciate more in-person communication from staff.

Builders offered suggestions such as personal outreach when the program

launches to ensure builders are aware of the appropriate point of contact for

the implementation contractor, host a short format lunch meeting, or visit in

person to present checks.

5.9 Recommendations

The following are the recommendations for program improvements.

Prevent duplicate payments: Although grouping the processing of records into

one or two monthly batches should allow for at least two weeks to transpire

between payments and prevent the issue of unpaid projects not being included

in the duplication check, external factors such as volume of submissions may

require more compressed processing schedules. The evaluator recommends

that CLEAResult explore, either: (1) downloading a list of all submitted projects

regardless of payment status, and/or (2) incorporating a duplicate check within


135

the Catalyst system to prevent payment on any duplicated external ID in the

system until staff make an explicit override to allow for payment.

Continue with the program offerings and consider strategies for

incremental rebates that encourage builders to continually increase the

efficiency of their homes. Builders noted that the program standards are

achievable, but they would like to see more tiered rebates for measures that go

beyond the minimum standards.

Increase builder outreach and communication. HERS raters are the primary

channels through which program information is disseminated and while they

are doing a sufficient job, builders expressed an interest in more personal

relationships with program staff. Consider the benefits of kick off meetings,

lunch n learns, or personal delivery of rebate checks as means of investing in

the builder-program relationship.


136

6. Weatherization Residential Assistance Program (WRAP)


Table 6-1 outlines the ex ante and verified ex post energy (kWh) savings by measure

for the PY2017 Weatherization Residential Assistance Program (WRAP).

Table 6-1 Gross Electric Savings Summary, by Measure, for PY2017

Measure

Ex Ante Annual Energy Savings (kWh)

Ex Post Gross

Annual Savings (kWh)

Realization Rate (kWh)

Ex Ante Peak

Demand Reduction

(kW)

Ex Post Gross Peak

Demand Savings

(kW)


Air Infiltration 3,270,625 2,743,786 83.9% 1,160.41 595.50 51.3%

Ceiling Insulation 1,611,272 1,111,530 69.0% 530.18 368.30 69.5%

Duct Sealing 5,615,122 5,743,973 102.3% 1,997.04 2,080.22 104.2%

LED 2,056,173 2,070,170 100.7% 137.07 246.40 179.8%

Water Heater Jackets 14,949 26,758 179.0% 0.98 1.84 187.6%

Water Heater Pipe Wraps

32,295 32,426 100.4% 2.08 2.09 100.3%

ES Ceiling Fans 1,340 1,340 100.0% 0.21 0.21 100.0%

ES Windows 4,626 3,086 66.7% 2.19 1.71 78.0%

Total 12,606,403 11,733,069 93.1% 3,830.16 3,296.27 86.1%

Table 6-2 outlines the ex post lifetime energy (kWh) savings, by measure, for the

PY2017 Weatherization Residential Assistance Program (WRAP).

Table 6-2 Gross Lifetime Savings Summary by Measure for PY2017

Measure

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

One

Estimated Useful

Lifetime (EUL) Tier

Two

Ex Post Gross

Lifetime Energy Savings (kWh)

Air Infiltration 11 NA 30,181,650

Ceiling Insulation 25 NA 27,788,242

Duct Sealing 18 NA 103,391,513

LED 6 14 21,797,677

Water Heater Jackets 13 NA 347,852

Water Heater Pipe Wraps 13 NA 421,540

ES Ceiling Fans 10 NA 13,402

ES Windows 20 NA 61,713

Total 184,003,588


137

Additional details, including approaches, are found in the following sections.


The Weatherization Residential Assistance Program (WRAP) seeks to generate energy

and demand savings for limited income residential customers through the installation of

a wide range of cost effective weatherization and other measures in eligible dwellings.

The purpose of the program is to provide OG&E’s limited income residential customers

the assistance they need to make their homes more energy efficient, increase comfort

levels, and reduce their utility bills.

The objective of the program is to focus on residential customers who own or rent a single-

family, duplex, or mobile home and have an income of less than $50,000 a year or are

enrolled in OG&E’s Low-Income Assistance Program (LIAP).

The program is designed to facilitate the installation of a wide range of cost-effective

weatherization measures, including:

Ceiling Insulation;

Air Infiltration;

Duct Sealing;

Lighting LEDs;

Water Heater Pipe Wrap; and

Water Heater Jacket.

The following measures may be installed by participating non-profit organizations:

Floor Insulation;

Wall Insulation;

Energy Star Windows; and

Energy Star Ceiling Fan with Light Kit.

Measures are selected for individual homes through a contractor assessment which

identifies a list of cost-effective improvements. OG&E is working with Skyline Energy

Solutions and non-profit organizations such as the Central Oklahoma Habitat for

Humanity to implement the program.

The program is available to single-family homes, duplexes, mobile homes, and multifamily

buildings in which at least two-thirds of residents meet program income requirements.

Table 6-3 presents the number of participating customers per residence type for PY2017.

More than 90% of participating residences were single-family homes.


138

Table 6-3 Participation by Residence Type

Residence Type Number of

Participating Residences

Percentage of Participating Residences

Single Family 3,141 91.0%

Duplex 145 4.2%

Mobile Home 60 1.7%

Multifamily 107 3.1%

Total 3,453 100.0%

Figure 6-1 displays the month of weatherization for homes serviced during PY2017,

based on the weatherization date listed in program tracking data. Program participation

was limited during December. March and August had the highest participation rates

during the year.

Figure 6-1 Homes Participating by Month, PY2017

191

293

378

337

365 367

267

382

317 309

229

18

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Nu

mb

er o

f h

om

es s

ervi

ced


139

Table 6-4 displays the number of residences receiving each of the measure types offered

in PY2017, arranged by the most commonly installed measure types.11 Air infiltration

reduction was the most common measure type, followed by LED and duct sealing.

Table 6-4 Number of Residences Receiving Measure Types

Measure Number of Residences

Receiving Measure

Air Infiltration 3,374

LED 3,325

Duct Sealing 3,116

Ceiling Insulation 1,529

Water Heater Pipe Wraps 463

Water Heater Jackets 79

ES Windows 8

ES Ceiling Fans 5

Total 11,899

6.3 Gross Impact Evaluation Approach

This section presents the methodologies for, and key findings from, the gross impact

evaluation of the PY2017 WRAP. The ex post gross savings are summarized in Section

6.2.

For measures implemented through the PY2017 program, savings verification was

performed per methodology described in the 2017 Update to the Oklahoma Deemed

Savings (OKDS).

The calculation methodologies for program measures are detailed in the following

sections. In these examples, energy units are expressed in kWh.

6.3.1 Air Infiltration Reduction Savings Calculations

The deemed savings algorithms in the OKDS for air infiltration reduction were developed

through simulation modeling in EnergyGauge, a building load simulation software that

calculates hourly load data. Multiple equipment configurations were simulated in each of

the five Oklahoma weather zones in developing savings values denominated in deemed

savings per CFM50 of air leakage rate reduction. The following table summarizes the

deemed savings values for all Oklahoma weather zones.

11 The values represent the number of homes receiving the measure, rather than the total number of measures

installed at all homes. Thus, the values for CFLs and LEDs do not present the total number of bulbs installed, but

the total number of participants receiving at least one of that measure type.


140

Table 6-5 Deemed Savings Values for Air Infiltration Reduction

Zone

AC/Gas

Heat

kWh

Gas

Heat (no

AC)

kWh

AC/Electric

Resistance

kWh

Heat

Pump

kWh

Summer

Peak kW

Savings

9 0.15 0.06 1.99 0.72 0.000091

8A 0.22 0.07 2.39 0.96 0.000128

8B 0.25 0.07 2.34 0.97 0.000146

7 0.22 0.05 1.79 0.75 0.000152

6 0.18 0.03 1.18 0.51 0.000119

The following example considers a residence in Weather Zone 7 with electric AC and

electric resistance heat. If the residence had a leakage rate of 2,793 CFM50 before air

infiltration reduction and a leakage rate of 2,099 CFM50 after, then the residence would

have an annual gross savings of 1,242 kWh.

𝐴𝑖𝑟 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 1.79𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠

𝐶𝐹𝑀50∙ (2,793 𝐶𝐹𝑀50 𝑝𝑟𝑒 − 2,099 𝐶𝐹𝑀50 𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡)

𝐴𝑖𝑟 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 1,242 𝑘𝑊ℎ

The OKDS also specifies Minimum Final Ventilation Rates (MVR) and Maximum Pre-

installation Infiltration Rates in CFM50 to ensure that air infiltration work is performed in

accordance with health and safety guidelines and that infiltration reduction is not

attempted on homes with prohibitively severe leakage levels.

The MVR specifies the minimum post-installation air infiltration value that can be applied

to the deemed savings calculation. If a home’s final CFM50 value is below the MVR, the

deemed savings calculation for air infiltration reduction on the home is calculated using

the MVR rather than the actual post-installation leakage value.

With regard to Maximum Pre-installation Infiltration Rate, the OKDS specifies that the

baseline pre-installation infiltration air change per hour (ACH) should not exceed a

maximum of 1.25. With this baseline in effect, the pre-installation ACH value is calculated

as follows:

𝐴𝐶𝐻𝑁,𝑝𝑟𝑒 =𝐶𝐹𝑀50,𝑝𝑟𝑒 × 60

𝑉𝑜𝑙 × 𝑁

Where:

CFM50,pre = Pre-installation infiltration rate (CFM50)



141

Vol = Square footage of treated space x weighted average ceiling height of

treated space

N = N factor (deemed value based on type of wind shielding and number of

stories in home)

If a home’s pre-installation infiltration rate exceeds the rate calculated above, the

Maximum Pre-Installation Infiltration Rate is used for deemed savings calculations.

Additionally, the OKDS specifies that if the pre-installation air change per hour cannot be

directly determined, a maximum CFM50 per-square-foot value of 4 should be used. For

deemed savings calculations, pre-installation leakage rates cannot exceed these values.

The Evaluators capped maximum pre CFM50 rates at 4 times the residence square

footage for PY2017.

6.3.2 Ceiling Insulation Savings Calculations

The deemed savings algorithms in the OKDS for ceiling insulation were developed



the five Oklahoma weather zones using R-38 insulation in developing savings values

denominated in deemed savings per square footage of ceiling area. Table 6-6

summarizes the deemed savings values for R-38 Weather Zone 8A.

Table 6-6 Deemed Savings Values for R-38 Ceiling Insulation, Zone 8A

R Value of

Preexisting

Ceiling

Insulation

AC/Gas

Heat

kWh

Gas Heat

(no AC)

kWh

AC/Electric

Resistance

kWh

Heat

Pump

kWh

Summer

Peak kW

Savings

per sq. ft. per sq. ft. per sq. ft. per sq.

ft. per sq. ft.

R-0 1.21 0.19 7.13 3.42 0.000834

R-1 to R-4 1.04 0.16 6.2 2.92 0.000766

R-5 to R-8 0.57 0.09 3.59 1.54 0.000435

R-9 to R-14 0.39 0.06 2.54 0.96 0.000284

R-15 to R-22 0.27 0.04 1.84 0.58 0.000201

The following example considers a residence in Weather Zone 8A with a heat pump, and

a pre-retrofit R-value of ceiling insulation in the range of 9 to 14. If the residence has a

ceiling area of 1,000 sq. ft., then the residence would have an annual gross savings of

960 kWh.

𝐶𝑒𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = .96𝑘𝑊ℎ

𝑓𝑡2∙ (1,000 𝑓𝑡2) = 960 𝑘𝑊ℎ


142

The OKDS specifies an efficiency standard of R-38, meaning that to qualify for deemed

savings the combined R-value of existing and added insulation should be at least R-38.

Additionally, pre-insulation R-value must not exceed R-22. If this eligibility criterion is not

met, deemed savings are defaulted to 0 kWh.

6.3.3 Ceiling Fan Savings Calculations

The deemed savings for the installation of an Energy Star Ceiling Fan can be calculated

by using the following equations:

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = (𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 − 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝐸𝑆)𝐹𝑎𝑛 + (𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 − 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝐸𝑆)𝐿𝑔𝑡 × 𝐼𝐸𝐹𝐸

(2)

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒,𝐹𝑎𝑛 =𝑊𝐹𝑎𝑛,𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 × 𝐴𝑂𝐻𝐹𝑎𝑛

1,000

(3)

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝐸𝑆,𝐹𝑎𝑛 =𝑊𝐹𝑎𝑛,𝐸𝑆 × 𝐴𝑂𝐻𝐹𝑎𝑛

1,000

(4)

𝑊𝐹𝑎𝑛 = (𝑊𝐿𝑆 × 𝑂𝑃𝐿𝑆) + (𝑊𝑀𝑆 × 𝑂𝑃𝑀𝑆) + (𝑊𝐻𝑆 × 𝑂𝑃𝐻𝑆)

(5)

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒,𝐿𝑔𝑡 =𝑊𝐿𝑔𝑡,𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 × 𝐴𝑂𝐻𝐿𝑔𝑡

1,000

(6)

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝐸𝑆,𝐿𝑔𝑡 =𝑊𝐿𝑔𝑡,𝐸𝑆 × 𝐴𝑂𝐻𝐿𝑔𝑡

1,000

(7)

Where:

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 = Non-ENERGY STAR® baseline energy usage

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝐸𝑆 = ENERGY STAR® average energy usage

𝐼𝐸𝐹𝐸 = Energy Interactive Effects Factor12

The inputs come from the Energy Star Ceiling Fan deemed savings document provided

by Frontier. Since most of the inputs in the savings algorithm are defaults, the leading

12 The assumed energy interactive effects factors are taken from the residential lighting measures.


143

determinants of energy savings for the installation of an Energy Star Ceiling Fan are a

home’s heating and cooling type, on which the interactive effect depends.

OKDS includes specifications for demand (kW) savings from Energy Star Ceiling Fans,

calculated as follows:

𝑘𝑊𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 𝑘𝑊𝐹𝑎𝑛 + 𝑘𝑊𝐿𝑔𝑡

(8)

𝑘𝑊𝐹𝑎𝑛 =𝑊𝐹𝑎𝑛,𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 − 𝑊𝐹𝑎𝑛,𝐸𝑆

1,000× 𝐶𝐹𝐹𝑎𝑛

(9)

𝑘𝑊𝐿𝑔𝑡 =𝑊𝐿𝑔𝑡,𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 − 𝑊𝐿𝑔𝑡,𝐸𝑆

1,000× 𝐶𝐹𝐿𝑔𝑡 × 𝐼𝐸𝐹𝐷

Where:

𝑘𝑊𝐹𝑎𝑛= Fan demand savings

𝐶𝐹𝐹𝑎𝑛 = Fan motor coincidence factor = 0.44613

𝑘𝑊𝐿𝑔𝑡= Lighting demand savings

𝐶𝐹𝐿𝑔𝑡 = Lighting summer peak coincidence factor = 0.1014

𝐼𝐸𝐹𝐷 = Demand Interactive Effects Factor

6.3.4 Duct Sealing Savings Calculations

The annual savings for the installation of duct sealing in a residence, which primarily

depend on the home’s cooling and heating type, can be calculated by using the following

equations:

Cooling Savings (Electric):

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐶 = (𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑟𝑒 − 𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡) 𝑥 𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝐶 (ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡𝜌𝑜𝑢𝑡 − ℎ𝑖𝑛𝜌𝑖𝑛) 𝑥 60

1,000 𝑥 𝑆𝐸𝐸𝑅

Where:



13 Derived from the EnergyGauge software ceiling fan profiles. 14 Residential light logging study by Cadmus - Entergy Arkansas, Inc. 2013 EM&V Evaluation Report.


144

𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝐶 = Equivalent full load cooling hours

Heating Savings (Heat Pump):

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐻 = (𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑟𝑒 − 𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡) 𝑥 60 𝑥 𝐻𝐷𝐷 𝑥 24 𝑥 0.018

1,000 𝑥 𝐻𝑆𝑃𝐹

Where:





Heating Savings (Electric Resistance):

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐻 = (𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑟𝑒 − 𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡) 𝑥 60 𝑥 0.77 𝐻𝐷𝐷 𝑥 24 𝑥 0.018

3,412

Where:




0.77 = Factor to correlate design load hours to EFLH under actual working

conditions (to account for the fact that people do not always operate their heating

system when the outside temperature is less than 65°F)15




3,412 = Constant to convert from Btu to kWh

Heating Savings (Gas Furnace):

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐻 = (𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑟𝑒 − 𝐷𝐿𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡) 𝑥 60 𝑥 𝐻𝐷𝐷 𝑥 24 𝑥 0.018

100,000 𝑥 𝐴𝐹𝑈𝐸

Where:

15 Manual J, Volume 7: Appendix A-4


145







100,000 = Constant to convert from Btu to therms

𝐴𝐹𝑈𝐸 = Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of existing system = 0.78 (default) 16

The required site-specific inputs as stated in OKDS for duct sealing are as follows:

The pre-and post-improvement duct leakage;

The weather zone of the residence; and

The cooling and heating type of the residence.

For example, if an air-conditioned home in weather zone 7 had a pre-improvement

leakage of 450 CFM and post-improvement leakage of 240 CFM, the annual gross

cooling savings from the installation of duct sealing would be approximately 1,256 kWh,

using the assumed SEER of 11.5.

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐶 = (450 − 240) 𝑥 1,681 (39∗0.074 − 29∗0.076) 𝑥 60

1,000 𝑥 11.5 = 1,256 kWh per year

OKDS for duct sealing also includes specifications for demand (kW cooling) savings,

calculated as follows:

𝑘𝑊𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 =𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠

𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝐶𝑥 1.163 𝑥 𝐶𝐹

Where:

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠,𝐶 = Calculated kWh savings for cooling

𝐸𝐹𝐿𝐻𝐶 = Equivalent full load cooling hours

1.163 = Constant to convert efficiency from SEER to EER

𝐶𝐹 = Coincidence factor = 0.87

16 Department of Energy minimum allowed AFUE for new furnaces manufactured before May 1, 2013: 0.78 AFUE


146

The ex ante pre-and post-duct leakage rates are based on average values determined

by a study conducted for OG&E on a sample of 1,341 low-income and fixed-income

Oklahoma households.17 Upon review of this study, the Evaluators found the average

pre-and post-leakage rates to be within reasonable expected values for income-qualified

program participants. Additionally, the Evaluators conducted post-implementation

verifications on a sample of homes to verify the accuracy of these stipulated leakage

rates.

6.3.5 Light-emitting Diodes (LEDs) Savings Calculations

The deemed savings for LEDs can be calculated by using the following equation.

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = ((𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 − 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡)/1,000) 𝑥 𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑥 𝐼𝑆𝑅 𝑥 𝐼𝐸𝐹𝐸

Where:

𝑊𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 = Based on wattage equivalent of the lumen output of the purchased LED

omni-directional lamp and the program year purchased/installed; for omni-

directional LEDs, use the following base and post case wattages

𝑊𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = Wattage of LED purchased/installed. Use above table for post-wattages

𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 = Average hours of use per year = 961 hours/year (assuming 2.63

hours/day and 365.25 days/year operation)18

𝐼𝑆𝑅 = In Service Rate, or percentage of rebate units that get installed, to account

for units purchased but not immediately installed

𝐼𝐸𝐹𝐸 = Interactive Effects Factor to account for cooling energy savings and heating

energy penalties.

The required site-specific inputs as stated in the OKDS are as follows:

The quantity and lumen output of post fixtures;

Whether or not the retrofits were time of sale or direct install (this defines the in-

service rate);

Whether or not the bulbs were installed indoors or outdoors; and

The heating type of the residence.

17 “Memorandum: Average Pre-sealing and Post-sealing Duct Leakage Rates”. EnerNOC, 2012 18 ADM Associates, Inc., “Residential Lighting Hours of Use (HOU) for the Oklahoma Demand Programs in 2016”.

Prepared for Oklahoma Gas & Electric. September 2016.


147

For example, if 24 LEDs each with light output of 1,049 lumens were directly installed to

replace 24 incandescent lamps in a residence with gas heating, the residence would have

an annual gross savings of approximately 873.8 kWh.

𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = ((24 ∙ 43 − 24 ∙ 9)/1,000 ∙ 960 ∙ 0.97 ∙ 1.15 = 873.8 𝑘𝑊ℎ

The OKDS also accounts for future changes in lighting baselines as per EISA 2007

guidelines. Specifically, it specifies that the 1st Tier EISA 2007 baselines come into effect

in July 2014, and that the 2nd Tier EISA 2007 baselines come into effect in July 2020. To

allow for market turnover resulting from the EISA baseline change in 2020, the Evaluators

used January 1, 2022 as the threshold date for the next tier of EISA baseline changes to

come into effect.

6.3.6 Water Heater Pipe Insulation Savings Calculations

The deemed savings for the installation of water heater pipe insulation can be calculated

by using the following equation:

𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠

= (𝑈𝑝𝑟𝑒 − 𝑈𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡) 𝑥 𝐴 𝑥 (𝑇𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒 − 𝑇𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡)𝑥 (1

𝑅𝐸) 𝑥

𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

Where:

𝑈𝑝𝑟𝑒 = 1 ÷ 5 = 0.2 BTU/h °F ft2

𝑈𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡 = 1 ÷ (5 + 𝑅𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)

𝑅𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = R-Value of installed insulation; if unknown, assume a default R-value

of 6.7

𝐴 = Insulated tank surface area in square feet (πDL) with L (length) and D (tank

diameter) in feet; if unknown, use the default assumptions from OKDS

The required site-specific inputs as stated in the OKDS for Water Heater Pipe Insulation

are as follows:

The length and nominal diameter of water heater pipe;

The R-value of installed insulation;

The water heater space type (condition or unconditioned);

The weather zone of the residence; and

The water heating type of the residence.

For example, if a home located in weather zone 8A had water heater pipe insulation with

an R-value of 3 installed on an electric resistance water heater with a ½” diameter water


148

heater pipe and a length of 1 foot, the residence would have deemed annual gross

savings of approximately 6 kWh.

𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑊ℎ𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = (0.49 − 1/(2.03 + 3)) 𝑥 0.1309 𝑥 (120 − 60)𝑥 (1

0.98) 𝑥

8760

3412=

6 𝑘𝑊ℎ

OKDS for Water Heater Pipe Insulation includes specifications for demand (kW) savings

from water heater pipe insulation, calculated as follows:

𝑘𝑊𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = (𝑈𝑝𝑟𝑒 − 𝑈𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡) 𝑥 𝐴 𝑥 (𝑇𝑃𝑖𝑝𝑒 − 𝑇𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑀𝐴𝑋)𝑥 (1

𝑅𝐸) 𝑥

1

3,412 𝐵𝑡𝑢/𝑘𝑊ℎ

Where:

𝑇𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑀𝐴𝑋 = Average maximum ambient temperature (°F); the average ambient

temperature of 78°F was used for water heaters inside the thermal envelope; the

weather zone-dependent annual ambient temperature from OKDS was used for

unconditioned spaces.

6.3.7 Windows Savings Calculations

The deemed savings algorithms in the OKDS for Energy Star Windows were developed



the five Oklahoma weather zones using the Energy Star Requirement that windows must

have a maximum U-factor 0.35 or less in developing savings values denominated in

deemed savings per square footage of installed window area. Table 6-7 summarizes the

deemed savings values for Weather Zone 8A.Table 6-6 summarizes the deemed savings

values for R-38 Weather Zone 8A.

Table 6-7 Deemed Savings Values for Energy Star Windows, Zone 8A

Existing Window

Pane Type

AC/Gas Heat kWh

Gas Heat

(no AC) kWh

AC/Electric Resistance

kWh Heat Pump kWh

Summer Peak kW Savings

per sq. ft.

per sq. ft.

per sq. ft. per sq. ft. per sq. ft.

Single Pane

5.13 5.13 9.88 7.78 0.00323

Double Pane

3.75 3.76 6.09 5.33 0.00234

The following example considers a residence in Weather Zone 8A with gas heating and

central air conditioning. If the residence replaced existing standard double pane


149

windows with 158 sq. ft. of Energy Star Windows, then the home would have an annual

gross savings of 810.5 kWh.

𝐸𝑆 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑆𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = 5.13𝑘𝑊ℎ

𝑓𝑡2∙ (158 𝑓𝑡2) = 810.5 𝑘𝑊ℎ

The OKDS specifies that Energy Star Windows must meet a maximum U-factor of 0.35

and a maximum solar heat gain coefficient of 0.30 to be eligible for deemed savings.

Additionally, homes in which Energy Star Windows are installed must have electric Air

conditioning. If this eligibility criterion is not met, deemed savings are defaulted to 0 kWh.

6.4 On-site Procedures and Findings

6.4.1 Sampling Plan for the Impact Evaluation

The Evaluators conducted two separate sampling activities for the evaluation of the

program; one for the telephone survey effort and one for the on-site verification effort. In

both cases, the Evaluators’ sample approach was designed to achieve a minimum 10%

precision and 90% confidence level (90/10).

The sample size to meet 90/10 requirements is calculated based on the coefficient of

variation of savings for program participants. Coefficient of Variation (CV) is defined as:

𝐶𝑉(𝑥) = 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (𝑥)

𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛(𝑥)

Where x is the average savings per participant. Without data to use as a basis for a higher

value, it is typical to apply a CV of .5 in residential program evaluations. The resulting

sample size is estimated at:

𝑛0 = (1.645 ∗ 𝐶𝑉

𝑅𝑃)

2

Where,

1.645 = Z Score for 90% confidence interval in a normal distribution

CV = Coefficient of Variation

RP = Required Precision, 10% in this evaluation

With 10% required precision (RP), this calls for a sample of 68 for programs with a

sufficiently large population.

6.4.1.1 Sampling for Telephone Surveys

The Evaluators conducted the sampling for the telephone survey effort, drawing a random

sample of 280 participants with an assumed response rate of 25% to reach a target


150

sample of 68 completed telephone surveys. The actual response rate for the telephone

survey was approximately 25%, resulting in 71 completions.

6.4.1.2 Sampling for On-site Verifications

The Evaluators conducted the sampling for the on-site verification effort. First, the

Evaluators removed HEEP participants from the sample in order to avoid customer

confusion. Remaining customers were selected at random to schedule site visits. The

Evaluators scheduled a total of 80 visits, and completed a total of 73. There were seven

appointments that were either cancelled at the customer’s request, or in which the

customer was not home and unable to reschedule.

6.4.2 Verification Procedure

This section describes the verification procedure that the Evaluators conducted during

both the telephone survey effort and on-site effort.

6.4.2.1 Telephone Verification Procedure

While the participant telephone survey also served to inform the process evaluation and

net impact analysis of the evaluation effort, the survey informed the gross impact analysis

by verifying the presence of reported tracking data measures.

First, the survey prompted respondents with a list of measures that the tracking data listed

as having been installed in that respondent’s home, and asked the respondent to indicate

whether they recalled these measures being installed. Respondents were able to indicate

any specific differences between the reported list of measures and the measures they

recalled receiving. Next, respondents were asked to indicate whether they had received

any measures other than what had been reported in program tracking data. None of the

71 respondents indicated that there was an error in the claimed measures.

6.4.2.2 On-site Verification Procedure

The primary goal of the on-site verification effort was to ensure that the reported measures

were installed and operating correctly in participant homes. Participants were given

Walmart or Target gift cards for their time; these were in the amount of $25. During the

on-site visits, the Evaluators’ field technicians accomplished the following:

Verified the implementation status of the measures; verified that the measures

were indeed installed, that they were installed correctly, and were functioning

properly. Photographs were taken of most of the installed measures.

Data collected at each site focused on obtaining more specific information

regarding the characteristics of the home where the measures were implemented.


151

A field visit form was completed for each visited site to document measure quantities,

home characteristics, and any needed additional commentary regarding the visit.

Specifically, the field form included the following fields:

Home Characteristics: The field technician documented the heating type and water

heating type for each visited home.

Measure Quantity Verification: The technician documented reported vs. actual

quantities of each measure type (i.e. CFLs/LEDs, water heater measures) and any

applicable notes regarding burnt out bulbs or non-operational equipment.

Insulation Assessment: The field technician recorded the presence of attic

insulation as well as the R-value or inches of added insulation.

Leakage Assessment: For subset of homes that received air infiltration or duct

sealing measures, the field technician conducted a blower door and/or duct blaster

test and recorded ex post leakage for comparison with reported leakage values.

6.4.2.3 On-site Verification Findings

The Evaluators conducted on-site verification visits to 73 participant homes. The visits

were distributed throughout the greater Oklahoma City Area. The following figure

presents the geographic distribution of visited homes for PY2017.

Figure 6-2 Geographical Distribution of WRAP EM&V Site Visits

The onsite field verification showed that the weatherization measures had for the most

part been installed in the quantities reported within program tracking data. Specific notes

illustrating the accuracy of program tracking data include:


152

Contact information: All residences were located at the addresses provided within

the tracking data. The majority of telephone numbers were found to be accurate

during the appointment scheduling and field visit activities, but the Evaluators found

that less than 5% of dialed numbers had been disconnected or did not reach the

intended customer. Given the large participant population and resulting sample

frame, however, contact information was sufficient for EM&V purposes.

Air infiltration: 66 homes received verification site visits for air infiltration. For the 26

of these homes that had blower door testing conducted, the average difference

between the reported CFM leakage value and the measured value was 1.7%.

Based on this, no verification rate adjustments were made to this measure.

Attic insulation: There was only one home of the 33 visited homes where attic

insulation could not be verified due to access issues. Otherwise, there were no

verification issues associated with other 32 visited homes that reported attic

insulation. The average thickness of the verified insulation was approximately 13

inches, and insulation thickness was at least 12 inches in all cases. Any identified

discrepancies between reported insulation levels and measured insulation levels

were very minor and infrequent. Based on this, no verification rate adjustments

were made to this measure.

Water Heater Pipe Wrap: All five instances of water heater pipe insulation verified.

Based on this, no verification rate adjustments were made to this measure.

Water Heater Jacket: One of the two water heater jacket installs for which a field site

visit was conducted was not verified. Despite the one project, no verification rate

adjustments were made to this measure due to the small sample size.

LEDs: The average difference between reported LED installs and measured LED

installs was less than 1. Based on this, no verification rate adjustments were made

to this measure.

Duct sealing: 53 homes received verification site visits for duct sealing work. For the

18 of these homes which received duct blaster testing for duct sealing

improvements during verification site visits, the average difference between

measured and reported values was 11%. Given the amount of factors influencing

duct testing, including weather conditions, timing from having the work performed,

etc., no verification rate adjustments were made to this measure.

Based on these results, the measure implementation data reported by the installation

contractors were found to be very accurate and few discrepancies were identified.


153

6.4.2.4 Free ridership Determination

WRAP is an income-qualified program, and has a stipulated net-to-gross ratio of 1.0. The

Evaluators did not conduct a free ridership analysis or spillover savings analysis for

WRAP, and net savings are equal to gross savings.

6.5 Impact Evaluation Summary and Findings

This section presents the ex post gross savings resulting from the impact evaluation

activities described above.

The EnerTrek database export received by the Evaluators contained ex ante savings

values for each installed measure, along with a summary field displaying the total ex ante

savings for each participant home (designated as "Total kWh Savings"). Upon review, the

Evaluators found that the sum of the home summary savings fields was less than the

value of the measure-level savings field; in other words, for some homes the ex ante

savings as displayed in the home summary field were different than the savings

associated with all measures installed in that home. Through discussion with OG&E and

implementation staff it was determined that the measure-level savings for Energy Star

Windows was not being included in the home summary savings. As the measure-level ex

ante savings were traceable to individual energy savings algorithms, the Evaluators

referenced these measure level values when comparing ex ante and ex post savings

totals.

Table 6-8 presents the overall ex ante savings for WRAP by measure.

Table 6-8 Ex Ante Savings by Measure, OG&E

Measure Ex Ante Peak Demand

Savings (kW)

Ex Ante Annual Energy

Savings (kWh)

Air Infiltration 1,160.41 3,270,625

Ceiling Insulation 530.18 1,611,272

Duct Sealing 1,997.04 5,615,122

LED 137.07 2,056,173

Water Heater Jackets 0.98 14,949

Water Heater Pipe Wraps 2.08 32,295

ES Ceiling Fans 0.21 1,340

ES Windows 2.19 4,626

Total 3,830.16 12,606,403

Table 6-9 summarizes the ex post gross energy (kWh), demand (kW) savings, and

lifetime gross savings (kWh) for WRAP, by measure, for PY2017.


154

Table 6-9 Ex Post Gross Savings by Measure

Measure

Ex Post

Gross Peak

Demand

Savings

(kW)

Ex Post Gross

Annual

Savings (kWh)

Ex Post Gross

Lifetime

Savings

(kWh)

Air Infiltration 595.50 2,743,786 30,181,650

Ceiling

Insulation

368.30 1,111,530 27,788,242

Duct Sealing 2,080.22 5,743,973 103,391,513

LED 246.40 2,070,170 21,797,677

Water Heater

Jackets

1.84 26,758 347,852

Water Heater

Pipe Wraps

2.09 32,426 421,540

ES Ceiling

Fans

0.21 1,340 13,402

ES Windows 1.71 3,086 61,713

Total 3,296.27 11,733,069 181,003,588

In terms of total kWh, the largest contributors to program-level differences between ex

ante and ex post savings are Air Infiltration, Ceiling Insulation, Water Heater Jackets and

ES Windows. Specific findings related to the realization rates for these measures are as

follows:

Air Infiltration: It appears that the ex ante calculation did not use the values stated in

the OKDS. The Evaluators were able to back into the deemed savings factors used

in the ex ante calculation, and they do not match the OKDS. The Evaluators then

checked to see if there were errors related to heating/cooling types, or climate

zones leading to the variance and determined that that was not the case. Upon

discussing this issue with the implementation team, it was determined that the

updates to the OKDS that were approved in 2017 were not programed into the

EnerTrek system retroactively, so some measures are not consistent with the final

OKDS. It is anticipated that this issue will be resolved for PY2018

Ceiling Insulation: The reason for the variance for ceiling insulation is the same as

air infiltration. It appears that the ex ante calculation does not use the deemed

savings values as stated in the OKDS. Again, the Evaluators determined that there

is no discrepancy relating to heating/cooling types, or climate zones.

Water Heater Jackets: A key input in the savings calculation for this measure is the

R-Value of the Jacket. In the data set, jacket thickness is the only data point that

indicates the R-value of the jackets installed, but it is not a 1-to-1 comparison. Due

to this, the Evaluators used the default R-value of 6.7 for all lines, giving the

realization rate of 179%.

ES Windows: Much like the air infiltration and ceiling insulation, it appears that the ex

ante calculation does not follow the OKDS.


155

Table 6-10 presents overall energy savings (kWh) and demand (kW) ex post gross

realization rates by measure. These ex post gross realization rates are representative of

all program savings, including all gas and electric savings presented above.

Table 6-10 Overall Gross Realization Rates by Measure

Measure

Ex Post Gross

Realization

Rate (kWh)

Ex Post Gross

Realization

Rate (kW)

Air Infiltration 83.9% 51.3%

Ceiling Insulation 69.0% 69.5%

Duct Sealing 102.3% 104.2%

LED 100.7% 179.8%

Water Heater Jackets 179.0% 187.6%

Water Heater Pipe Wraps 100.4% 100.3%

ES Ceiling Fans 100.0% 100.0%

ES Windows 66.7% 78.0%

Total 93.1% 86.1%

The net-to-gross ratio for WRAP is 1.00, and the gross savings by measure displayed

above are equal to net savings.

Table 6-11 Ex Post Net Electricity Savings, OG&E

Number of

Homes

Ex Post

Net Peak

Demand

Savings

(kW)

Ex Post Net

Annual Savings

(kWh)

Ex Post Net

Lifetime

Savings (kWh)

Net-to-

Gross

Ratio

3,453 3,296.27 11,733,069.25 181,003,588 100.0%


This section presents the methodology for, and results from, the process evaluation

activities conducted for WRAP for PY2017.The process evaluation activities conducted

for the current program year were focused on identifying changes in program delivery,

assessing overall program strengths and effectiveness in meeting its objectives,

considering any emerging program challenges, and identifying future program

opportunities or planned improvements.

To address these questions, the Evaluators conducted interviews with program staff and

telephone surveys with program participants.


156

6.6.1 Data Collection Activities

As part of the PY2017 evaluation of the Weatherization Residential Assistance Program

(WRAP), the Evaluators completed in-depth interviews with program staff working on the

program: the program managers from OG&E, and the program implementer from Skyline

Energy Solutions. The Evaluators used the information gleaned in these interviews

identify program updates or changes experienced in PY2017. Further, these interviews

explored energy efficiency staff roles and responsibilities, program communications and

marketing, and the overall program delivery processes in place during PY2017.

Telephone surveys were completed with Weatherization Residential Assistance Program

(WRAP) participants through the Evaluators in-house survey lab. Surveys collected

process evaluation information, including gathering respondent feedback on program

communication and offerings, evaluating changes in participant energy efficiency

awareness and behaviors due to program participation, and verifying measure

installation. The survey also collected household characteristics and limited demographic

information. The Evaluators received and reviewed program population data queried from

tracking data received through Frontier Associates. The program tracking data provides

contact information on participating customers and measure descriptions of equipment

installed through the program.

The Evaluators selected a random sample of 280 OK WRAP participants, and a total of

71 participants completed the telephone survey. The sampling strategy was designed to

achieve an overall 90/10 level of precision at the program level. The final sample

distribution and response rate for this survey can be found in Appendix A.

Table 6-12 below summarizes the survey and interview data collection for the PY2017

program evaluation, including data collection type and number of respondents.


157

Table 6-12 Interview and Survey Data Collection Summary

Target Component Activity N Details

Program

Staff

OG&E

Program Staff Interview 1

The program manager and

implementation contractor

staff are responsible for

coordinating program data,

managing program

resources, and

communicating with OG&E

staff as needed during the

program process.

Skyline Energy

Solutions Staff Interview 1

Program

Participants

Telephone

Survey Survey 71

This consisted of a

satisfaction questionnaire

and a series of questions

related to program and

energy efficiency awareness

and engagement.

6.6.2 Process Evaluation Results and Findings

This section presents the results and key findings from the process evaluation activities.

These findings are based upon interviews with utility staff, implementation staff, and

surveys with participating customers. The findings presented pertain to program

communications and marketing, program delivery, participant energy efficiency


6.6.2.1 Program Communication and Marketing

OG&E is responsible for OG&E WRAP program marketing. OG&E program staff indicated

that the marketing approach in 2017 remained unchanged from 2016. The tactics used

to promote the program include social media, emails, newsletters, public events, and

community presentations to educate customers about WRAP. In general, the program

aims to focus on specific regions of the territory to in their direct outreach efforts to

geographically consolidate where the projects occur.

OG&E’s targeted marketing efforts for this program are reflected in the participant survey

responses. Participants most frequently reported (35%) hearing about this program

through word of mouth. Participants were able to identify all of the ways in which they

heard about the program, and many indicated hearing about the program from more than

one source. Information that came in the mail and utility bill messages were also a


158

frequently mentioned source of program information. A summary of the participant

responses appears in Table 6-13.

Table 6-13 How Participants Learned of the Program

Program Information Source Percent


Word of mouth from friends, relatives, or others 35%


Utility website 7%

Other 9%

Email 3%

OG&E or weatherization program staff 1%

Total Respondents (n) 71

Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent as respondents could select more than one answer

Survey respondents were also asked about their motivations for participating in the

program. Respondents were allowed to name multiple reasons for program participation,

and the responses were fairly widely distributed across possible options. The majority

(75%) of the respondents attributed their participation to wanting to save money on their

electricity bill, while another 18% indicated it was because the program paid for some or

all of the improvements. Another 20% reported wanting to save energy in their home.


Participation reasons Percent

To reduce my monthly electric bill 75%

The program paid for some or all of the improvements 18%

Save energy 20%


Recommendation from a friend, relative, or neighbor 13%


Other 9%

Total Respondents (n) 71 Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent as respondents could select more than one answer

The 22 respondents who selected multiple responses were asked to identify their main

reason for participating in the program, and these respondents most commonly indicated

that they primarily wanted to save money on their energy bills.


One aspect of the PY2017 process evaluation is assessing program delivery steps and

procedures. In particular, the Evaluation Team focused on: 1) identifying program delivery

aspects that may have changed within the past year, 2) asking participants about the

process of scheduling a home energy assessment through the program, and 3) verifying


159

that the actual program measures and equipment offered through the program were

installed. This section highlights the findings from the program delivery assessment.

6.6.2.3 Program Delivery Process and Changes

The program delivery process remained unchanged from 2016.

The program implementer, Skyline Energy Solutions, was responsible for the day to day

interaction with customers who have applied for and opted to take action with OK WRAP.

Skyline uses a tracking database called EnerTrek (created by Frontier Associates), to

enter customer information, verify customer leads, and confirm customer contact

information is correct. Skyline is also responsible for scheduling home assessments and

performing the home visits. Home visits within this program involve a pre-blower door

test, an assessment of the home’s overall condition and energy efficient measure

inventory, direct install of no-cost energy saving measures, and a post-blower door test.

According to the interviews with the OG&E program staff and the program implementer,

both parties reported there is frequent and adequate communications between them to

successfully deliver the program, and neither party reported any specific concerns or

opportunities for improvement.

The OG&E WRAP manager also works with non-profits in OK (Rebuilding Together OKC

and Central Oklahoma Habitat for Humanity) who implement their own Weatherization

program; however, these non-profits occasionally sign up OG&E customers through

EnerTrek to participate and collect offerings available through the OG&E WRAP program.

6.6.2.4 Assessment Scheduling

Interested customers can sign-up for the program by calling OG&E or by enrolling online.

As part of the process of scheduling an assessment, staff check that the home has not

previously participated and address customer questions about the program.

Renters are allowed to participate in the program. If a renter signs-up for the program,

Skyline Energy Solutions staff contact the landlord to get approval to complete the work.

Staff indicated that the majority of landlords agree to participate, but sometimes they are

difficult to reach. Nevertheless, landlords are generally aware of the program and eager

to participate – they often encourage their renters to sign up.

To gauge the efficiency of program delivery, the Evaluators asked participants to describe

their program service wait time between scheduling their assessment and their

assessment actually taking place. Forty percent of respondents who could recall the

length of time indicated it was “one week to two weeks”. Thirty-one percent of the program

participants indicated their wait time was “better than expected”.


160

Table 6-15 Length of wait between scheduling and appointment

Wait Length Percent

Less than one week 13%

One week to two weeks 40%

Three to four weeks 9%

More than four weeks 16%

Two to three weeks 24%

Respondents (n) 63 Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding

Respondents were then asked to estimate the time period between their initial

assessment and the measure installation work day, and Table 6-16 shows that these

waiting periods were fairly similar to lead times for the initial appointment. The most

commonly mentioned wait time length by respondents (24%) was again “one week to two

weeks”. Thirty one percent indicated their wait time was better than they expected. This

suggests that the program is communicating reasonably with its customers about

appointment wait times and that customers are generally satisfied with that aspect of the

program experience.

Table 6-16 Length of wait between assessment and work day

Wait Length Percent

Less than one week 17%

One week to two weeks 24%

Three to four weeks 13%

More than four weeks 10%

Respondents (n) 45

Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding

6.6.2.5 Overall Customer Feedback

Survey respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with various OK WRAP

components using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is "very dissatisfied" and 5 is "very satisfied".

Participants’ mean overall program satisfaction score was 4.4. Their satisfaction scores

on all program components were consistently rated 4 or higher, confirming that

participants are generally satisfied with the entirety of their program experience.

Participants rated “Interactions you had with the contractor” and “Interactions you had

with OG&E staff” the highest, providing a mean satisfaction score of 4.9 for each of those

program components. Participants awarded the lowest mean satisfaction score (4.2) to

“the savings on your monthly utility bills”.


161

6.6.2.6 General respondent characterization

Table 6-17 summarizes basic home information among the OK WRAP respondents. The

majority of respondents live in homes that were built between 1970 and 1989. Eighty two

percent of respondents own their home. The most common living arrangement,

representing 38% of respondents, is a home where two people reside.

Table 6-17 WRAP Participant Characteristics

Question Response Percentage of

Respondents (N = 71)

When was your home built?

Before 1950 14%

1950-1959 9%

1960-1969 3%

1970-1979 29%

1980-1989 24%

1990-1999 9%

2000-2009 14%

2010-2017 0%

Do you own or rent your home? Own / Buying 82%

Rent 17%

How people live in your home?

1 28%

2 38%

3 13%

4 10%

5+ 10%

6.7 Tracking Database Review

The EnerTrek database system managed by Frontier Associates includes a full list of all

WRAP participants, the measures that were installed in their homes, and the kWh savings

and kW demand reductions associated with each measure. During PY2017, the

Evaluators received periodic tracking data updates as well as final tracking exports.

During PY2017, Frontier completed the update to the 2013 Oklahoma Deemed Savings

Document that had begun in 2016. These deemed savings were based on algorithms and

inputs contained in the Arkansas TRM, updated for Oklahoma weather. After reviewing

and providing input on these documents, the Evaluators determined them to be

appropriate sources for calculating savings for PY2017. As discussed in the Impact

Evaluation Summary and Findings section, while these methodologies were vetted and

agreed upon for PY2017, the Enertrek database had not been updated retrospectively,

resulting is some savings discrepancies between ex ante and ex post. Other than these

updates, there were no major updates to the structure or content of program tracking data

since the prior program year.


162

The Evaluators conducted a review of program data to assess the extent to which the

program database provides sufficient information for program tracking and evaluation.

Overall, the Evaluators conclude the following regarding tracking data completeness:

Participating customer information was complete for nearly all participants. This

included Job IDs, telephone numbers, addresses, full names, and utility account

numbers for OG&E.

Tracking data included the project costs for each home and the measure costs

associated with air infiltration, duct sealing, pipe insulation, and LEDs.

Premise characteristics such as home heating type, cooling type, and square

footage were present for all participants where appropriate and needed. The only

exception to this was water heater location, which is a required input for the water

heater pipe insulation savings calculation.

The tracking data was found to include sufficient information for all measures in

PY2017. Past year’s recommendations of adding certain data points, such as pipe

insulation R-value, nominal pipe diameter, and the length of the pipe to which

insulation was added, and lumen output of LEDs, have been taken into account.

The evaluators have no additional requests for new fields to be added to the

program tracking data.

6.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

6.8.1 Conclusions

The key conclusions from the PY2017 evaluation of the Weatherization Residential

Assistance Program (WRAP) are as follows:

Program Functioning Well: WRAP was first offered as a full program in 2010. Over

the years staff has continually made improvements and at this time believe that it

is running very well. No changes were made to the delivery and participation

process in 2017.

High Participant Satisfaction: Results from the participant survey effort indicate that

customers highly value the services offered by WRAP, and recall very positive

experiences with the assessment and measure installation process. Very few

participants expressed dissatisfaction with any program elements, and several

participants provided open-ended commentary that praised the program for the

services it provides and the professionalism of its contractor staff.

Adequate Database Quality: With the exception of the ex ante savings issue

described below, the Evaluators found the ex ante savings values within the

EnerTrek database to be accurate for nearly all measures. Additionally, Frontier

Associates was very consistent in responding to data requests and correcting


163

errors when necessary. There were a few inconsistencies regarding home level

savings and measure-level claimed savings but these were very infrequent.

6.8.2 Recommendations

The Weatherization Residential Assistance Program (WRAP) was very successful in

PY2017. The Evaluators identified few specific, systematic or persistent issues with

program operation and design. As the utilities plan to continue offering similar services

and maintaining their current operational structure under the Weatherization Residential

Assistance Program (WRAP), consideration of the following recommendations may be

useful moving forward:

Continue aligning program database with updated savings algorithms: During

PY2016, Frontier developed Oklahoma-specific deemed savings sections for a

variety of measures that are implemented through WRAP, including duct sealing,

ENERGY STAR® ceiling fans, water heater jackets, and water heater pipe wrap.

These deemed savings were based on algorithms and inputs contained in the

Arkansas TRM, updated for Oklahoma weather. After reviewing and providing input

on these documents, the Evaluators determined them to be appropriate sources for

calculating savings for PY2017. In addition to these measures, Frontier also

developed similar documents for air infiltration and attic insulation, but these were

not completed until after the end of PY2016. For PY2017, the Evaluators and

implementation reached agreement on all updated methodologies in October of

2017. The EnerTrek database was not updated retrospectively, creating some

variances between the Evaluator’s ex post savings and the ex ante savings. In

order to maintain consistency across savings sources and to improve the precision

associated with ex ante savings estimates, the Evaluators recommend updating

EnerTrek for PY2018 to align with the updated OKDS.

Resolve possible program database issues: The EnerTrek database export

received by the Evaluators contained ex ante savings values for each installed

measure, along with a summary field displaying the total ex ante savings for each

participant home (designated as "Total kWh Savings"). Upon review, the Evaluators

found that the sum of the home summary savings fields was less than the value of

the measure-level savings field; in other words, for some homes the ex ante savings

as displayed in the home summary field were different than the savings associated

with all measures installed in that home. Through discussion with OG&E and

implementation staff it was determined that the measure-level savings for Energy

Star Windows was not being included in the home summary savings. While this

does not affect ex post savings results, the Evaluators recommend that Frontier

investigate this issue in order to avoid potential confusion regarding program ex

ante savings moving forward.


164

7. Commercial Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP)


The verified ex post kWh and kW savings for the PY2017 CEEP are summarized by

sampling stratum in Table 7-1. Overall, the gross ex post kWh savings of

100,021,926 kWh are equal to 108% of the ex ante savings for the program. The

gross ex post kW impacts of 15,848.10 kW are equal to 104% of the ex ante

savings.

Table 7-1 Ex Ante and Ex Post Gross kWh Savings by Sampling Stratum

Stratum Name

Ex Ante kWh

Savings

Ex Post kWh

Savings

Gross kWh Realization

Rate

Ex Ante kW

Savings

Ex Post Gross

kW Savings

Gross kW Realization

Rate

Lg_CI 1 10,902,725 12,709,279 117% 1,764.59 1,912.65 108%

Lg_CI 2 15,179,966 15,752,884 104% 1,801.83 1,958.81 109%

Lg_CI 3 4,947,796 4,385,575 89% 701.37 647.90 92%

Lg_CI 4 9,339,673 9,747,056 104% 1,348.43 1,387.38 103%

SAGE 1 3,721,169 3,545,953 95% 661.63 679.65 103%

SAGE 2 4,675,672 5,125,048 110% 796.25 908.78 114%

SAGE 3 3,173,891 3,169,669 100% 785.54 330.37 42%

SBDI 1 3,557,560 3,645,730 102% 544.82 558.56 103%

SBDI 2 3,275,141 3,311,856 101% 472.81 571.97 121%

SBDI 3 1,796,967 1,528,970 85% 291.29 274.56 94%

Midstream Lighting

20,317,247 23,345,591 115% 3,674.71 4,180.23 114%

HVAC Tune-up

3,665,469 3,665,469 100% 2,073.22 2,073.22 100%

CEI 8,239,906 10,088,846 122% 0.00 0.00 N/A

Total 92,793,182 100,021,926 108% 14,916.49 15,484.10 104%

Table 7-2 and Table 7-3 present the net kWh and kW savings summary, by program

channel, for the PY2017 CEEP, respectively.


165

Table 7-2 CEEP Net kWh Savings Summary

Program Pathway

Gross Annual Energy Savings (kWh) Gross

Realization Rate

Net Impacts

Ex Ante Ex Post NTG Ratio

Net Annual Energy Savings

(kWh)

Large C&I 40,370,160 42,594,793 106% 83.2% 35,419,432

SAGE 11,570,732 11,840,671 102% 92.1% 10,909,180

SBDI 8,629,668 8,486,556 98% 100.0% 8,486,556

Midstream 20,317,247 23,345,591 115% 65.2% 15,232,754

HVAC Tune-up 3,665,469 3,665,469 100% 100.0% 3,665,469

CEI 8,239,906 10,088,846 122% 100.0% 10,088,846

Totals 92,793,182 100,021,926 108% 83.8% 83,802,238

Table 7-3 CEEP Net kW Savings Summary

Program Pathway

Gross Peak Demand Reduction (kW) Gross

Realization Rate

Net Impacts


Net Peak Demand

Reduction (kW)

Large C&I 5,616.23 5,906.74 105% 83.2% 4,911.71

SAGE 2,243.41 1,918.81 86% 92.1% 1,767.86

SBDI 1,308.92 1,405.09 107% 100.0% 1,405.09

Midstream 3,674.71 4,180.23 114% 65.2% 2,727.56

HVAC Tune-up 2,073.22 2,073.22 100% 100.0% 2,073.22

CEI 0.00 0.00 N/A 100.0% 0.00

Totals 14,916.49 15,484.10 104% 83.2% 12,885.44

Table 7-4 outlines the verified ex post lifetime energy (kWh) savings by stratum for the

PY2017 CEEP.


166

Table 7-4 CEEP Gross Lifetime Savings by Stratum

Stratum Ex Post Savings (kWh)

Effective Useful

Life (years)

Ex post Lifetime Energy Savings (kWh)

Ex Post Net

Lifetime Savings (kWh)

Lg_CI 1 12,709,279 12.05 153,161,398 127,360,398

Lg_CI 2 15,752,884 12.46 196,216,587 163,162,669

Lg_CI 3 4,385,575 10.83 47,481,922 39,483,294

Lg_CI 4 9,747,056 14.13 137,748,179 114,543,633

SAGE 1 3,545,953 14.03 49,761,305 45,846,647

SAGE 2 5,125,048 13.64 69,913,820 64,413,789

SAGE 3 3,169,669 10.49 33,247,335 30,631,810

SBDI 1 3,645,730 12.44 45,370,423 45,370,423

SBDI 2 3,311,856 12.34 40,858,437 40,858,437

SBDI 3 1,528,970 12.31 18,824,539 18,824,539

Midstream Lighting

23,345,591 12.66 295,617,731 192,887,478

HVAC Tune-up 3,665,469 5.00 18,327,345 18,327,345

CEI 10,088,846 1.00 10,088,846 10,088,846

Total 100,021,926 11.16 1,116,617,866 911,799,308

Additional details on the evaluation of the CEEP are provided in the following sections.


In July of 2008, OG&E implemented a portfolio of Demand Side Management (DSM)

Quick Start programs. Those programs were the starting point for many of the programs

that were implemented in OG&E’s first Comprehensive Demand Portfolio in program

years 2010-2012. The first demand portfolio included a Standard Offer Program that

provided financial incentives to commercial and industrial customers who installed

equipment that reduced peak demand. Beginning in 2013, OG&E separated the Standard

Offer Program into Commercial Lighting, Commercial Energy Efficiency, and Industrial

Energy Efficiency programs. In 2016, these programs were combined and implemented

as a single program, the Commercial Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP). The CEEP

provides financial incentives to all commercial and industrial (C&I) customers and

includes six channels to participation. The channels are designed to maximize

participation among the C&I customer base.

OG&E’s CEEP seeks to generate energy and demand savings for large and small

commercial and industrial customers through promotion of high efficiency electric end use


167

products including (but not limited to): lighting, retrofit of existing equipment, HVAC

replacement, and retrocommissioning. The program provides OG&E’s C&I customers

with flexibility in choosing how to participate, either self-sponsoring or by working through

a third-party service provider to leverage technical expertise. The program offers financial

inducements and technical assistance to all eligible C&I customers who are seeking to

improve the efficiency of existing facilities, as well as the efficiency of new equipment

purchases, facility modernization, new construction projects, and industrial improvement

projects. Both prescriptive and custom inducement structures are available to maximize

customer participation across a variety of energy efficiency measures.

In 2017, the CEEP was implemented with six program channels. These include:

Midstream Lighting: The Midstream Lighting channel of CEEP encourages

customers to participate by providing point of sale (POS) discounts on selected

products through local lighting distributors. Through this channel, the financial

incentives are paid to the lighting distributor to allow reduced costs for the end

customer.

Schools and Government Efficiency (SAGE): The SAGE channel of CEEP is

marketed towards public school districts, private schools, universities and colleges,

and all government agencies. This channel includes financial incentives for both

lighting and non-lighting measures and both prescriptive and custom projects.

Large C&I: The Large C&I channel of CEEP offers incentives to customers with

peak demand of greater than 150 kW at a single site, or greater than 250 kW at

multiple sites with the same tax ID. Incentives are paid directly to customers who

install energy efficient equipment. This channel focuses on four key areas; lighting,

retrofit of existing equipment, HVAC replacement, and retro-commissioning.

Small Business Direct Install (SBDI): The SBDI channel offers incentives to

customers with a peak demand of less than 150 kW at a single site, or less than

250 kW at multiple sites with the same tax ID. The SBDI channel provides lighting

audits and equipment installation through approved trade allies.

HVAC Tune-up: The HVAC Tune-up channel offers incentives to customers who

have qualified HVAC equipment tuned up by approved trade allies. Tune-up

services include cleaning, duct sealing, and refrigerant charge adjustments.

Continuous Energy Improvement (CEI): PY2017 was the first year the CEI

component was offered to large commercial and industrial customers and includes

energy benchmarking, walk through energy assessments, and energy efficiency

training for participating customers. This behavioral component focuses mainly on

low-cost/no cost improvements to facilities.

CLEAResult (CR) was contracted to implement all aspects of CEEP during 2017. CR was

responsible for program planning, development of marketing material, quantifying ex ante


168

energy savings estimates and paying appropriate incentives to customers. CR also

identified and approved Trade Allies and distributors for participation in the SBDI, HVAC

Tune-Up, and Midstream Lighting channels of the program. CR was also responsible for

recruiting customers to participate in the first cohort of the CEI program channel.

For 2017, service providers (Trade Allies and distributors) were recruited to participate by

submitting rebate applications on behalf of customers implementing qualifying energy

efficiency measures. OG&E’s website contains lists of registered service providers and

the associated products/services they provide. As of March 2018, the list of service

providers for CEEP includes 33 companies approved for the SBDI channel, 22 distributors

(66 separate locations) for midstream lighting, 16 distributors and 71 contractors with

various specialties including lighting, HVAC, variable frequency drives (VFDs), and

refrigeration approved for participation in the Large C&I and SAGE channels.

The program seeks to combine the provision of financial inducements with access to

technical expertise to maximize program penetration across the range of potential C&I

customers. The program has the following additional goals:

Increase customer awareness of applicable energy saving measures;

Achieve customer cost savings;

Increase the market share of commercial grade high efficiency technologies sold

through market channels; and

Increase the installation rate of high efficiency technologies in C&I facilities by

businesses that would not have done so absent the program.

The program offers prescriptive incentives for electric energy efficiency equipment

upgrades and improvements including lighting, HVAC, commercial refrigeration and

miscellaneous measures. Incentives are provided for qualified equipment installed as a

retrofit or equipment replacement, and as new construction or major refurbishment. The

program also offers incentives for custom measures, including most measures that

reduce electric energy use that are not included in the program as prescriptive measures.

The results of the M&V efforts for the program are intended to provide 10% precision at

the 90% confidence interval for the overall program based upon site-by-site verification

activities.

In PY2017, the CEEP resulted in 5,065 projects being implemented through the program.

The reported performance of the program is summarized in Table 7-5 The 5,605 projects

completed during PY2017 resulted in a gross ex ante savings of 92,793,182 kWh and a

peak demand reduction of 14,916.49 kW. The 2017 program had an incentive budget of

$7,845,825 and spent a total of $8,200,203.


169

Table 7-5 OG&E’s PY2017 CEEP Program Summary

Program Pathway

Number of

Projects

Total Gross Ex

Ante kWh Savings

Total Gross Ex Ante peak kW Savings

Percent of Program

kWh Savings

Total Incentive

($)

Large C&I 311 40,370,160 5,616.23 44% $3,514,069

SAGE 55 11,570,732 2,243 12% $1,531,590

SBDI 363 8,629,668 1,309 9% $1,264,834

Midstream Lighting

179 20,317,247 3,674.71 22% $1,259,972

HVAC Tune-up

4,150 3,665,469 2,073.22 4% $463,940

CEI 7 8,239,906 0.00 9% $165,799

Total 5,065 92,793,182 14,916.49 100% $8,200,203

Figure 7-1 below shows the gross ex ante savings and completed projects by month for

the PY2017 CEEP. The Large C&I channel accounted for the largest portion of the

reported ex ante savings, with the 311 projects totaling 40,370,160 kWh, 44% of the

overall program savings. The highest savings during PY2017 occurred during the month

of November with 278 projects being paid, resulting in 11,666,108 kWh.

Figure 7-1 CEEP Savings and Project by Month

Due to the comprehensive design of the CEEP, energy savings occur in a wide range of

measure categories, depending on the program channel. The Large C&I channel had

savings in eight measure categories, shown in Figure 7-2. The Lighting Retrofit measure


170

was the single highest contributor to ex ante savings, accounting for 63.8% of channel

savings. Lighting projects were included in three measure categories, Lighting Retrofit,

Lighting – New Construction, and Lighting Controls. These three categories accounted

for a combined 79.9% of the Large C&I channel savings. The single largest non-lighting

measure category were for Custom projects, accounting for 14.8% of channel savings.

The SAGE program channel included measure categories similar to those in the Large

C&I. The measure categories for the SAGE are shown in Figure 7-3 below. Like the Large

C&I, lighting was the most significant contributor to SAGE ex ante savings, with the

Lighting Retrofit category accounting for 97.1% of channel savings and the three lighting

measures (Lighting Retrofit, Lighting Controls, Lighting – New Construction) accounting

for 97.6% of savings. The Custom category was the only non-lighting measure in the

SAGE channel, accounting for 2.4% of reported savings.

Figure 7-2 Contributions to Savings by Measure – Large C&I


171

Figure 7-3 Contributions to Savings by Measure – SAGE

The SBDI program channel consisted of fewer measure categories than the Large C&I

and the same number of categories as the SAGE. The categories that were included

within this channel are shown in Figure 7-4. Lighting accounted for the clear majority of

reported savings within SBDI, accounting for 99.5% of channel reported savings. No other

measure accounted for more than 0.4% of savings.

Figure 7-4 Contributions to Savings by Measure – SBDI


172

The Midstream lighting channel is specifically designed to offer incentives for high

efficiency lighting, thus all savings associated with this channel will be due to lighting

measures. The reported energy savings for the Midstream channel are categorized by

lamp or fixture type, as shown in Figure 7-5. The final PY2017 program data for the

Midstream included eleven different lighting categories. The most significant contribution

to savings were due to LED A-line lamps, which accounted for 44.9% of channel ex ante

savings.

The HVAC Tune-up channel, included three measure categories, HVAC Tune-ups, duct

sealing, and pre-cleaning. The HVAC Tune-up measure accounted for 68.4% of the

channel savings, with the pre-clean measure accounting for 31.5% and duct sealing

accounting for the remaining.

The final program channel, CEI, included a mix of behavioral and low or no cost

measures. However, this channel used an IPMVP Option C, whole building meter data

approach to calculate savings. This approach does not allow for a disaggregation of

savings by measure type.

Figure 7-5 Contributions to Savings by Measure – Midstream

7.3 Gross Impact Evaluation

The evaluation of gross energy savings and peak demand reduction from projects rebated

through the CEEP can be broken down into the following steps:


173

First, the Implementation Contractor’s program tracking database was reviewed to

determine the scope of the program and to ensure there were no duplicate project

entries. The tracking database was used to define a discrete set of rebated projects

that made up the PY2017 program population. A random sample of projects was

then drawn from the population established in the tracking system review. For

PY2017, a total of 92 projects from the Large C&I, SAGE, and SBDI program

channels were selected for the M&V sample. For both the Midstream Lighting and

HVAC Tune-up channels a database review resulted in a census of projects being

reviewed. Similarly, for the CEI channel, a review of the ex ante regression models

was performed on a census of projects.

Next, a detailed desk review was conducted for each project sampled for

measurement and verification. The desk review process includes a thorough

examination of all project materials including: invoices, equipment cut sheets, pre-

and post-inspection reports, and estimated savings calculators. This review

process informed ADM’s fieldwork by identifying potential uncertainties, missing

data, and sites where monitoring equipment was needed to verify key inputs to the

reported savings calculations. Additionally, the review process involved assessing

the reasonableness of deemed savings values given in the AR TRM19 and

calculation input assumptions.

After reviewing the project materials, on-site verification and data collection visits

were scheduled for selected sampled projects in the Large C&I, SBDI, and SAGE

channels. The visits were used to collect data for savings calculations, to verify

measure installation, and to determine measure operating parameters. A total of

69 site visits were conducted as part of the 2017 evaluation.

Next, the data collected during the on-site verification visits was used to revise

savings calculations as necessary. For example, if the reported savings

calculations relied on certain measure operating hours that were determined

inaccurate based on the facility type or the facilities’ actual schedule, changes were

made to more accurately reflect actual operating conditions.

For the Midstream Lighting and HVAC Tune-up channels, no on-site inspections

were conducted. Instead, ADM reviewed the implementation contractor’s

databases to determine methodologies and assumptions used to determine ex

ante savings. For these channels, ex post savings are determined through the

database review process. More detailed descriptions of the methodology used to

determine ex post savings for the Midstream Lighting and HVAC Tune-up channels

are included in the following sections.

19 Many of the deemed or prescriptive ex ante savings calculations are based on algorithms provided in the Arkansas

Technical Reference Manual, Version 6.0.


174

Finally, after determining the ex post savings impacts for each sampled project,

results were extrapolated to the program population using project specific sampling

weights. This allows for the estimation of program level gross ex post energy (kWh)

savings with a given amount of sampling precision and confidence. For the CEEP,

the sample was designed to ensure ±10% or better relative precision at the 90%

confidence level for kWh reductions.

7.3.1 Midstream Lighting Impact Evaluation Activities

Ex post savings from the Midstream Lighting program channel were determined through

a review of the database used by CR for tracking lamps and fixtures sold through the

program. The Evaluators employed an engineering analysis to determine the ex post

verified energy savings for each lamp type sold through the program. The verified energy

savings per fixture or lamp was calculated with methods consistent with chapter 6 of The

Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific

Measures. The calculations used the following equations and baseline:

𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑘𝑊ℎ 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = ((𝑊𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 − 𝑊𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒) ∗ 𝐻𝑂𝑈𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 ∗ 𝐻𝐶𝐼𝐹

1000)

𝑃𝑒𝑎𝑘 𝑘𝑊 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 = ((𝑊𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 − 𝑊𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒) ∗ 𝐻𝑂𝑈𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 ∗ 𝐻𝐶𝐼𝐹 ∗ 𝐶𝐹

1000)

Where:

Wbaseline = baseline wattage per category determined from sales data supplied

by OGE and verified by ADM.

Wmeasure = measure wattage as determined by the average for that measure

category in 2017

1000 = conversion factor for Watts per kW

HOUannual = annual hours of use,

HCIF = “Heating & Cooling Interactive-effects Factor”, determined to be

1.09 for kWh, and 1.2 for kW, except for LED wall packs, which was

set at 1.0

CF = Coincidence factor, a ratio between 0.0 and 1.0 that adjusts the

change in connected electric load from lighting efficiency projects for

electric peak demand savings. CF for the Small Business Mid-

Stream Lighting program varies between 0.26 and 0.83, dependent

on measure type.


175

The baseline lamp wattages used in both the ex ante and ex post analyses were based

on 5 years of sales data obtained by CLEAResult from vendors in both Texas and

Oklahoma. These data were used to determine an average baseline lamp wattage for

each fixture type sold through the program.

Verified savings associated with occupancy sensors were based on each sensor

controlling a set number of two foot by four foot fixtures, assumed to be three for wall

sensors and five for ceiling sensors, with the fixtures assumed to be 75% LED and 25%

fluorescent. The new wattage is 70% of that baseline. Fixtures with integrated sensors

were assigned a wattage of 60% of the standard, non-sensor fixture.

All fixtures used the same HCIFs, 1.2 for kW savings and 1.09 for kWh, except for exterior

wall packs, for which both were assumed to be 1.0. Table 7-6 contains watts, hours and

coincidence factors (CF) for each fixture type. The ex ante watts are derived from five

years of Texas and Oklahoma lighting sales data. The ex post watts are derived from

PY2017 program sales data, with the differences mostly deriving from differences in

fixture mix between each data set, as well as changes in LED lighting over time.


176

Table 7-6 Baseline, Ex-Ante and Ex Post Watts by Fixture Type

Lamp Type Wbaseline Ex Ante Efficient

W

Ex Post Efficient

W Hours CF

2x2 LED Linear Fixture 62.4 35.29 38.14 3911 0.71

2x4 LED Linear Fixture 110.43 46.16 42.96 3911 0.71

A15 49.02 9.09 5.50 3807 0.65

A19 49.02 9.09 8.85 3807 0.65

A21 62.68 15.84 15.21 3807 0.65

MID_BR20 41.62 8.11 6.50 3807 0.65

BR30 63.78 10.02 10.00 3807 0.65

BR40 63.65 12.33 10.99 3807 0.65

Candle 40.79 4.74 4.42 3807 0.65

Ceiling Sensor 312.88 0 0.00 3911 0.26

Decorative 40.79 4.74 5.91 3807 0.65

Globe 53.41 7.03 8.63 3807 0.65

LED Downlight/Trimkit 66.89 12.4 12.20 3807 0.65

LED Lowbay/Highbay 126-250W 452.74 175.48 178.62 4367 0.81

LED Lowbay/Highbay 35-84W 200.76 46.92 54.47 4367 0.81

LED Lowbay/Highbay 85-125W 288 97.74 105.21 4367 0.81

LED CFL Pin-Base Direct Replacement

32.4 9 12.16 3646 0.62

MID_LED T5 Replacement Lamp 58.5 19 26.93 4367 0.81

LED T8 Replacement Lamp 27.16 17.34 14.94 3911 0.71

LED Wall Pack/Flood 10-50W 97 32.04 24.49 3996 0

LED Wall Pack/Flood 51-89W 235.71 68.59 65.92 3996 0

LED Wall Pack/Flood 90+W 456 139.37 157.06 3996 0

MR16 42.94 6.95 7.10 3807 0.65

PAR16 56.49 5.38 6.84 3807 0.65

PAR20 39.04 7.51 6.53 3807 0.65

PAR30 50.25 11.81 11.99 3807 0.65

PAR38 68.45 14.67 16.13 3807 0.65

R20 41.62 8.11 6.83 3807 0.65

MID_R40 63.65 12.33 12.00 3807 0.65

Reduced Wattage T5HO <=49W 58.5 44 37.28 4367 0.81

Reduced Wattage T8 25W 27.16 21.5 21.50 3911 0.71

Reduced Wattage T8 28W 27.16 24.75 24.75 3911 0.71

Wall Sensor 187.73 0 0.00 3911 0.26

In addition to determining the average wattage of the efficient lamps sold, the Evaluators

also reviewed the point of sale (POS) data provided by the implementation contractor to

determine the mix of business types participating in the program. The customer name

was included in the POS data and was used to determine which business types, as listed


177

in the AR TRM, are participating in the program. A summary of ex post20 savings by

business type is shown in Figure 7-6. The most common business type was Lodging.

Because it was unknown where in these facilities the lamps were being installed, the two

Lodging subcategories provided in the TRM (rooms, common areas) were aggregated

into a single business type. To calculate AOHs associated with these projects a 60%/40%

split was assumed for Rooms and Common Areas, respectively.

Figure 7-6 Midstream Contribution to Savings (ex post) by Building Type

Using the customer name listed, the Evaluators were able to classify each line item in the

POS data. Using deemed hours and coincidence factors from the AR TRM V6.0, the

Evaluators were able to compare the deemed hours originally developed for the

Midstream Lighting program to a weighted average hours of operation and CF based on

actual sales data from a full program year. The HOUs and CFs determined through this

review of program data were not used to calculate ex post savings during PY2017, but

instead the review was done to investigate the accuracy of the original HOU and CF

estimates. A comparison of hours and CFs used to calculate both ex ante and ex post

savings during PY2017 and those determined through a review of PY2017 POS data is

shown in Table 7-7.

20 The ex post savings by business type are shown because the POS data did not include ex ante savings for each

line item and insufficient data was provided to allow for a calculation of ex ante savings for each POS line item.


178

Table 7-7 Deemed vs. POS HOU and CFs

Lamp Type Deemed

HOU PY2017

POS HOU Deemed

CF PY2017 POS CF

2x2 LED Linear Fixture 3,911 3,410 0.71 0.63

2x4 LED Linear Fixture 3,911 3,401 0.71 0.63

A15 3,807 3,514 0.65 0.57

A19 3,807 3,997 0.65 0.51

A21 3,807 4,310 0.65 0.31

MID_BR20 3,807 3,412 0.65 0.90

BR30 3,807 3,458 0.65 0.62

BR40 3,807 3,370 0.65 0.67

Candle 3,807 3,818 0.65 0.71

Ceiling Sensor 3,911 3,421 0.26 0.78

Decorative 3,807 4,050 0.65 0.78

Globe 3,807 4,001 0.65 0.75

LED Downlight/Trimkit 3,807 2,090 0.65 0.56

LED Lowbay/Highbay 126-250W 4,367 3,592 0.81 0.72



LED CFL Pin-Base Direct Replacement 3,646 3,960 0.62 0.68

MID_LED T5 Replacement Lamp 4,367 3,615 0.81 0.62

LED T8 Replacement Lamp 3,911 3,167 0.71 0.62

LED Wall Pack/Flood 10-50W 3,996 3,996 0 0.00

LED Wall Pack/Flood 51-89W 3,996 3,996 0 0.00

LED Wall Pack/Flood 90+W 3,996 3,996 0 0.00

MR16 3,807 3,587 0.65 0.82

PAR16 3,807 3,647 0.65 0.50

PAR20 3,807 3,683 0.65 0.66

PAR30 3,807 3,647 0.65 0.70

PAR38 3,807 3,507 0.65 0.62

R20 3,807 4,220 0.65 0.48

MID_R40 3,807 3,952 0.65 0.75

Reduced Wattage T5HO <=49W 4,367 3,668 0.81 0.69

Reduced Wattage T8 25W 3,911 3,012 0.71 0.51

Reduced Wattage T8 28W 3,911 2,777 0.71 0.47

Wall Sensor 3,911 3,508 0.26 0.72

Average 3,926 3,603 0.60 0.59

The HOUs used to calculate channel level savings are generally higher than the weighted

average HOUs calculated using the PY2017 POS data. Of the thirty three lamp or fixture

types included in the program, the deemed HOUs are higher in 22. On average, the

deemed hours are over 8% higher than the PY2017 POS data hours.


179

7.3.2 HVAC Tune-up Impact Evaluation Activities

HVAC Tune-up ex ante savings are claimed using the CLEAResult CoolSaver program.

The CoolSaver Program provides financial incentives to encourage commercial

customers to improve the efficiency of their HVAC systems.

The HVAC equipment tune-ups are provided by a qualified technician and involve testing

the performance of the unit before and after measures are implemented. Typical

measures implemented as part of the tune-up procedure include air flow correction;

cleaning of the indoor blower, evaporator coils, condenser coils; and correction of

refrigerant charge.

Evaluation of the program is based on the CoolSaver 2017 M&V plan provided by

CLEAResult. The evaluators examined the Excel workbook containing a census of

program participants to assess savings by measure. The workbook provided contains

data exported from the program tracking tool. The Evaluators examined the data and

recreated the overall savings calculations. Savings from AC and heat pump tune-ups

were based on AR TRM version 5.0 stipulated equivalent full-load hours along with unit-

specific capacity and deemed efficiency loss recovered due to work performed in

accordance with the program.

7.3.3 CEI Impact Evaluation Activities

PY2017 was the first year that CEI was offered as a program channel. The ex ante

savings associated with this channel are determined through an IPMVP Option C, whole

building meter data analysis. This analysis approach uses available whole building meter

data (monthly, daily, or 15-minute interval depending on availability), weather data, and

any other applicable variables (most often manufacturing production data) to inform linear

regression models. The regression models are used to estimate baseline energy usage

at a facility after the CEI curriculum has been initiated. Savings for the program are

calculated monthly as the difference between actual billed energy usage and the baseline

energy usage estimated using the regression models.

To determine ex post savings, the Evaluators recreated the ex ante regression models

using data provided by the implementation contractor. The ex post models utilize the

same input data for each site and were developed to ensure no input or model errors

were included in the ex ante analysis. The ex post savings were calculated following the

same approach as the ex ante savings, calculated monthly by comparing model

estimated baseline usage to actual billed usage through the end of November 2017. The

ex post regression models used the same weather and production data as the ex ante

models.


180

The most significant difference between the ex ante and ex post analysis approaches for

the CEI projects was the need for the ex ante estimates to forecast or predict model

savings for the month of November. To allow final incentive payments to be made to

customers prior to the end of the program year, the implementation contractor had to

finalize estimated program year savings prior to the end of November. However, because

the Evaluators analysis was not completed until after the end of the program year, actual

weather, production and energy usage data was available to allow calculation of energy

savings through November, 2017, thus, no predictions need to be made in the ex post

analysis.

7.4 Impact Data Collection Activities

Data for the evaluation were collected through review of program materials, on-site

inspections, end-use metering, and interviews with participating customers and service

providers. Based on program tracking data provided by OG&E’s implementation

contractor, CLEAResult (CR), a sample design was developed for M&V data collection.

The central program database, where program activities are tracked, and project

documentation is stored, was developed and managed by CR. The verification and data

collection samples were drawn to provide gross impact estimates with 10% precision or

better at the 90% confidence level for the overall program. Within this, precision by

program channel was addressed as well. Overall, the sample was designed to meet the

10% precision for the overall program population as well as for the large commercial

channel. The SAGE and SBDI program channels were sampled for a targeted 15%

precision, while the Midstream, HVAC Tune-up, and CEI channels included a census of

projects. This difference in precision level by channel reflects that large C&I was both the

largest contributor, as well as the most uncertain program channel, and thus was the

focus of evaluation resources.

On-site visits and desk reviews of project documentation were used to collect data for

gross impact calculations, to verify measure installation, and to determine measure

operating parameters. When deemed values were used to determine ex post energy

savings, including equivalent full load hours for heating and cooling projects, or annual

operating hours for lighting projects, ADM referred to the Arkansas Technical Reference

Manual, Version 6.0.

During site visits, facility staff members were interviewed to determine the operating hours

of the installed systems and provide any additional operational characteristics relevant to

calculating energy savings. Table 7-8 below shows the sample design that was used. The

92 projects that were sampled for measurement and verification in the Large C&I, SAGE

and SBDI channels account for approximately 44% of reported ex ante kWh savings

within these channels. With the inclusion of the census of Midstream Lighting, HVAC


181

Tune-up, and CEI projects that received M&V, the total program sample accounts for 64%

of program ex ante savings.

Table 7-8 Sample Design

Stratum Name

Ex Ante kWh

Savings

Strata Minimum

(kWh)

Strata Maximum

(kWh)

Population of Projects

Design Sample

Size

On Site Data

Collection

Lg_CI 1 10,902,725 72 170,283 248 29 21

Lg_CI 2 15,179,966 176,730 517,700 51 13 10

Lg_CI 3 4,947,796 577,205 1,085,258 7 6 6

Lg_CI 4 9,339,673 1,771,072 2,488,849 5 5 5

SAGE 1 3,721,169 6,158 229,580 39 8 8

SAGE 2 4,675,672 251,061 983,257 14 7 5

SAGE 3 3,173,891 2,190,634 2,190,634 2 2 1

SBDI 1 3,557,560 631 29,584 277 12 5

SBDI 2 3,275,141 30,448 83,136 71 6 4

SBDI 3 1,796,967 88,297 208,016 15 4 4

Midstream Lighting

20,317,247 N/A N/A 179 179 N/A

HVAC Tune-up

3,665,469 N/A N/A 4,150 4,150 N/A

CEI 8,239,906 N/A N/A 7 7 N/A

Total 92,793,182 5,065 4,428 69

In addition to the on-site data collection and desk review activities, in-depth interviews

with OG&E and implementation staff members, as well as customer surveys were

conducted to provide additional perspectives for the process evaluation. Table 7-9 shows

the achieved sample sizes for the different types of data collection employed for this

study.

Table 7-9 Sample Sizes for Data Collection Efforts

Data Collection Activity Achieved Sample

Size

On-Site M&V visits 69

Desk Review of Project Documentation 23

In-depth Interviews with Implementation Staff 4

In-depth Interviews with Program Staff 2

7.5 Gross Impact Findings

PY2017, the second year of the new program design, and the second year of a new

implementation contractor, resulted in a reported ex ante savings of 92,793,182 kWh. The


182

program exceeded savings goals during PY2017. The CEEP verified net savings of

83,802,238 kWh was 158% of the program net savings goals of 53,222,962 kWh.

The PY2017 achieved sample design resulted in gross ex post kWh estimates with ±

4.09% relative precision at the 90% confidence interval. Gross ex post energy savings

were relatively close to the original reported values at the program level (108% realization

rate).

The achieved sample design also resulted in gross ex post kW estimates with ±5.77%

relative precision at the 90% confidence interval. The higher level of uncertainty

associated with peak kW reductions is due to the significant amount of variance from

project to project. Much of the difference between ex ante and ex post demand reduction,

is explained by either, 1) use of stipulated coincidence factors (CF) that did not align well

with actual equipment schedules or 2) calculating peak demand reduction without

considering the OG&E defined peak period of 2 – 7 PM, weekday non-holidays, June

through September.

7.5.1 Large C&I Gross Impact Findings

The Large C&I channel accounted for the largest portion of ex ante and ex post energy

savings. The Large C&I channel ex ante savings was 40,370,160 kWh, 44% of overall

program level savings. The channel level ex post savings was 42,594,793 kWh and

5,906.74 kW, resulting in gross realization rates of 106% and 105%, respectively.

The M&V sampling frame for the Large C&I channel included four sampling strata. Three

of the strata had kWh realization rates at or above 100%. Strata Lg_CI 1, LG_CI 2, and

LG_CI 4 (GRRs = 117%, 104%, and 104%, respectively) included 304 projects, with 53

projects being included in the M&V sample. Of the sampled sites within these strata, only

nine had gross realization rates of less than 100%, with only a single project having a

GRR less than 90%. Two sample sites in these strata had realization rates above 235%.

The high GRRs associated with these projects were due to differences in annual

operating hours used in the calculations. For these projects, the ex ante estimate used

deemed hours from the AR TRM, while ADM verified the facilities to operate 24/7,

significantly increasing energy savings. This discrepancy between deemed and custom

hours was common among many of the sampled projects and generally resulted in higher

ex post savings.

One Large C&I strata had a realization rates below 100%, with stratum Lg_CI 3 having

the lowest of 89%. This stratum included seven projects with six being included in the

M&V sample. Of the sampled projects, four had GRRs below 100%, with one project

having a kWh GRR of 49%. This project, PRJ-1410761, was a new construction lighting

project. The low GRR for this project was due to the ex ante calculations using the

incorrect facility type when determining allowable lighting power density (LPD). The ex


183

ante calculations used an allowable LPD for a manufacturing facility (1.3 W/ft2), while the

Evaluators verified the site to be a warehouse with an allowable LPD of 0.8 W/ft2.

The variability in peak demand gross realization rates was much lower than in previous

program years, with strata level realization rates ranging from 92% to 109%. One Large

C&I strata, Lg_CI 3 (92%) had a gross kW realization rate below 100%. The remaining

strata had realization rates of 100% or better, with strata Lg_CI 1, Lg_CI 2, and LG_CI 4

having gross kW realization rates of 108%, 109%, and 103%, respectively.

Of the 53 projects sampled in the Large C&I channel, 12 were non-lighting sites. These

sites had an average gross kWh realization rate of 101% and an average peak demand

kW realization rate of 101%. Both the kWh and kW GRRs being close to 100% indicates

that both the implementation and M&V contractor are using similar methodologies to

calculate savings for these sites and that no significant, or systematic discrepancies are

being found during the M&V process. The remaining 41 sites included lighting measures

and had average kWh and kW realization rates of 104%, and 103%, respectively.

7.5.2 SAGE Gross Impact Findings

The SAGE program channel had a total reported ex ante savings of 11,570,732 kWh,

accounting for 12% of the program level savings. The ex post verified savings of

11,840,671 kWh resulted in a channel kWh realization rate of 102%. The ex ante peak

demand savings for the SAGE channel was 2,243.41 kW, accounting for 15% of the

program level peak demand savings. The evaluation resulted in an ex post peak demand

reduction of 1,918.81 kW, resulting in a channel kW realization rate of 86%.

SAGE included three M&V sampling strata, two of which had gross kWh realization rates

at or above 100%. Strata SAGE 2, and SAGE 3, had realization rates of 110%, 100%,

respectively. These two strata included nine of the seventeen sampled sites within the

SAGE channel. All nine projects within these two strata included lighting measures, with

an average gross realization rate of 106%. One sample site included both lighting and

non-lighting measures and had a realization rate of 149%.

The one stratum that had a lower than 100% kWh gross realization rate, SAGE 1, included

39 projects, eight of which were randomly selected for the M&V sample. Overall, this

stratum had a kWh realization rate of 95%. The low stratum realization rate is due to a

single project, PRJ-1281649, having a realization rate of 26%. The low realization rate for

this project is due to a discrepancy between the project documentation and the total

claimed savings. The project documentation provided by the implementation contractor

for this site included lighting fixtures with savings totaling 18,696 kWh. The Evaluators

were able to verify savings associated with these fixtures and calculated an ex post

savings for this project of 18,699 kWh. However, the final program database included a


184

claimed savings of 71,437 kWh. No documentation was provided to support this higher

savings, resulting in a low GRR.

The stratum level peak kW reductions for the SAGE channel varied from 42% in stratum

SAGE 3, to a high of 114% in stratum SAGE 2. The low kW realization rate seen in stratum

SAGE 3 was due to a discrepancy between the project documentation and the claimed

savings for project PRJ-1385240. For this project, the savings claimed in the final program

data did not match the calculators provided in the project documentation. The Evaluators

determined the kW savings calculated in the ex ante calculators to be correct.

7.5.3 SBDI Gross Impact Findings

The SBDI channel included an ex ante savings of 8,629,668 kWh and 1,308.92 kW,

accounting for 9.3% and 8.8% of program level savings, respectively. The ex post savings

for the SBDI channel were 8,486,556 kWh, resulting in a 98% gross kWh realization rate.

The ex post peak demand savings for this channel were 1,405.09 kW, resulting in a 107%

gross realization rate.

The SBDI channel included three M&V strata with 22 sites being randomly sampled. Two

of the strata had realization rates at or above 100%, with strata SBDI 1 and SBDI 2 having

gross realization rates of 102% and 101%, respectively. Stratum SBDI 3 had a realization

rate of 85%. This stratum included four M&V samples with two of those having project

level realization rates below 100%. Both projects with below 100% realization rates were

lighting projects. No ex ante calculators are provided in the project documentation, so the

Evaluators are unable to determine exact causes of differences between ex ante and ex

post savings for most SBDI projects. In many of the sampled SBDI projects, the

Evaluators were able to verify the claimed quantities and wattages of fixtures to be

accurate so the most likely cause of varying kWh realization rates is a difference in annual

hours of operation.

The peak demand realization rates also varied among the three SBDI strata. Stratum

SBDI 3, which included the highest ex ante kWh savings projects had a peak demand

realization rate of 94%. The smallest projects, in stratum SBDI 1 had a peak kW

realization rate of 103%, and the last stratum, SBDI 2 had a realization rate of 121%. No

SBDI projects included an ex ante calculator in the project documentation, so determining

exact causes of differences between ex ante and ex post savings is difficult. For many

projects, the Evaluators verified the fixture counts and wattages to be accurate so the

most likely cause of the different peak kW realization rates is the use of an incorrect

coincidence factor for the facility type.


185

7.5.4 Midstream Lighting Gross Impact Findings

The Midstream Lighting program channel accounted for 22% of the overall program

claimed energy savings and included 127,706 items sold with ex ante energy savings of

20,317,247 kWh and ex post savings of 23,345,591 kWh, resulting in a gross realization

rate of 115%. The program channel also claimed a peak summer demand savings of

3,674.71 kW, while the Evaluators calculated an ex post summer peak demand savings

of 4,180.23, a realization rate of 114%. The higher ex post savings for this program

channel are due to the Evaluators using actual program year sales data to determine the

weighted average post efficient lamp wattages while the ex ante estimates used deemed

values determined on previous sales data.

The Evaluators determined ex post savings for this channel through a review of two

tracking databases provided by the implementation contractor. ADM reviewed the

databases to ensure there were no input errors or repeat entries. ADM reviewed the

Program Summary database to determine ex ante savings and distributor name. The

Point of Sale (POS) database was reviewed to determine quantity of lamps sold, end

customer name, lamp type, incentive amount, and sold lamp wattage. All ex post savings

were calculated using lamp types, wattages, and quantities provided in the POS

database. Insufficient data was provided to allow for a complete reconciliation between

the two databases, thus a direct comparison of ex ante and ex post savings by lamp type,

or project ID (“PRJ” number) could not be completed. Additionally, sold lamp or fixture

quantities differed between the two databases, further reducing the level of verification

that could be done on this program channel. A comparison of sold quantities reported in

the POS and Program Summary databases are shown in Table 7-13.

While the two data sets provided for the Midstream lighting channel included similar

information, there were no common data fields between the two that would allow for a

complete reconciliation. Thus, the Evaluators were unable to determine whether deemed

values (baseline wattages, efficient wattages, HOUs, CFs) were applied correctly when

ex ante savings were calculated. The higher ex post savings for this program channel are

most likely due to differences between deemed efficient lamp wattages used in ex ante

calculations and efficient lamp wattages determined using PY2017 POS data used in ex

post savings calculations, but the Evaluators cannot identify exact differences in

calculations due to inconsistencies in the two data sets provided.


186

Table 7-10 Quantity Sold Comparison

Lamp Type POS Count

(Total Units)

Prog. Data Count

(Packages Sold) 2x2 LED Linear Fixture 1,808 1,837

2x4 LED Linear Fixture 8,393 8,479

A15 31 31

A19 45,502 38,194

A21 14,270 14,296

BR30 4,199 4,199

BR40 1,079 1,209

Candle 1,369 1,369

Ceiling Sensor 403 403

Decorative 273 273

Globe 279 279

LED CFL Pin-Base Direct Replacement 256 256

LED Downlight/Trimkit 4,500 4,500

LED Lowbay/Highbay 126-250W 969 969



LED T8 Replacement Lamp 39,054 38,992

LED Wall Pack/Flood 10-50W 1,121 1,093

LED Wall Pack/Flood 51-89W 610 610

LED Wall Pack/Flood 90+W 449 449

MID_BR20 279 279

MID_LED T5 Replacement Lamp 1,478 1,478

MID_R40 202 72

MR16 605 605

PAR16 261 261

PAR20 452 452

PAR30 1,005 1,005

PAR38 3,863 3,863

R20 125 125

Reduced Wattage T5HO <=49W 20 20

Reduced Wattage T8 25W 390 390

Reduced Wattage T8 28W 230 230

Wall Sensor 50 50

Grand Total 134,952 127,706

7.5.5 HVAC Tune-up Gross Impact Findings

The HVAC Tune-up program channel accounted for 4% of the overall program claimed

savings and included 4,150 projects with ex ante and ex post kWh savings of 3,665,469

kWh. ADM determined ex post savings for this channel through a review of the

implementation contractor’s tracking data base. ADM reviewed the database to ensure

there were no input errors or repeat entries and verified the savings were calculated as


187

described in the CLEAResult CoolSaver M&V plan. ADM found the database and

calculations to be accurate and thus, this program channel received a 100% gross

realization rate for both kWh and kW.

7.5.6 CEI Gross Impact Findings

The CEI program channel accounted for 9% of the overall program claimed savings.

During the M&V process, the Evaluators reviewed the regression models created for each

CEI participant. Through this review, regression coefficients were re-calculated using the

provided energy usage, production, and weather data. Ex post savings were then

calculated for each site for the period of January 1, 2017 through November 30, 2017. A

summary, by customer, of the ex post savings is shown in Table 7-11. The total ex post

savings for this program channel are 10,088,846 kWh. No peak demand kW savings were

claimed.

Table 7-11: CEI Findings Summary

Site Name Ex Ante

kWh Savings

Ex Post kWh

Savings

Gross Realization

Rate

ATC Drivetrain 1,227,939 1,307,950 107%

Noble Research Institute 801,384 925,008 115%

Mid America Steel & Wire 1,565,675 1,667,063 106%

Carlisle Food Service Products

1,062,099 1,247,460 117%

Veolia 804,963 801,348 100%

Oklahoma Steel and Wire 501,700 653,491 130%

Dal-Tile Corporation 2,276,146 3,486,524 153%

Totals 8,239,906 10,088,846 122%

The higher ex post savings appear to be due to the fact that the ex ante savings included

estimated savings for the final month (November 2017). To allow final incentive payments

to be made to customers prior to the end of the program year, the implementation

contractor had to finalize estimated program year savings prior to the end of November.

However, because the Evaluators analysis was not completed until after the end of the

program year, actual weather, production and energy usage data was available to allow

calculation of energy savings through November 2017, thus, no predictions need to be

made in the ex post analysis. The ability of the Evaluators to use actual data to calculate

the final month of savings caused the ex post savings to generally be higher than the ex

ante claimed savings.


188

7.6 Net to Gross Evaluation

The following sections summarize the methodologies used to estimate free ridership and

spillover impacts of CEEP.

7.6.1 Free Ridership Estimation

ADM estimated a free ridership probability for the incentivized energy efficiency

equipment. This free ridership probability is then rounded, yielding a binary score.21

7.6.1.1 Large C&I, SAGE, SBDI, HVAC Tune-up, and CEI Free Ridership

Methodology

Information collected from a sample of program participants through a customer decision

maker survey was used to estimate free ridership. The decision maker survey responses

were reviewed to assess the likelihood that participants were free riders.

Several criteria were used for determining the likelihood that a customer was a free rider.

The first criterion was based on the response to the question: “Would you have been

financially able to install energy efficient [Measure/Equipment] at the location without the

financial incentive from the program?” Customers that answer “No” to this question were

not deemed a free rider.

For decision makers that indicated that they were able to undertake energy efficiency

projects without financial assistance from the program, three factors were analyzed to

determine the likelihood that they were free riders. The three factors were:

Plans and intentions of the firm to install a measure even without support from the

program;

Influence that the program had on the decision to install a measure; and

A firm’s previous experience with a measure installed under the program.

For each of these factors, rules were applied to develop binary variables indicating if a

participant’s behavior showed free ridership.

The first factor requires determining if a participant stated that his or her intention was to

install an energy efficiency measure even without the program. The answers to a

combination of several questions were used with a set of rules to determine whether a

participant’s behavior indicates likely free ridership. Two binary variables were

constructed to account for customer plans and intentions: one, based on a more

restrictive set of criteria that may describe a high likelihood of free ridership, and a second,

21Protocol F in the Arkansas Technical Reference Manual Version 6.0 states that partial free ridership scores are not

to be used in net-to-gross analysis.


189

based on a less restrictive set of criteria that may describe a relatively lower likelihood of

free ridership.

The first, more restrictive criteria indicating customer plans and intentions that likely

signify free ridership are as follows (Definition 1):

The respondent answers “yes” to the following two questions: “Did you have plans to

install energy efficient [Measure/Equipment] at the location before deciding to

participate in the program?” and “Would you have gone ahead with this planned

project if you had not received the rebate through the program?”

The respondent answers “definitely would have installed” to the following question: “If

the rebates from the program had not been available, how likely is it that you would

have installed energy efficient [Measure/Equipment] at the location anyway?”

Either the respondent answers “no, program did not affect timing of purchase and

installation” to the following question: “Did you purchase and install energy efficient

[Measure/Equipment] earlier than you otherwise would have without the program?” or

the respondent indicates that while program information and financial incentives did

affect the timing of equipment purchase and installation, in the absence of the program

they would have purchased and installed the equipment within the next year.

The respondent answers “no, program did not affect level of efficiency chosen for

equipment” in response to the following question: “Did you choose equipment that was

more energy efficient than you would have chosen had you not participated in the

program?”

The second, less restrictive criteria indicating customer plans and intentions that likely

signify free ridership are as follows (Definition 2):

The respondent answers “yes” to the following two questions: “Did you have plans to

install energy efficient [Measure/Equipment] at the location before participating in the

program?” and “Would you have gone ahead with this planned installation even if you

had not participated in the program?”

Either the respondent answers “definitely would have installed” or “probably would

have installed” to the following question: “If the rebates from the program had not been

available, how likely is it that you would have installed energy efficient

[Measure/Equipment] at the location anyway?”

Either the respondent answers “no, program did not affect timing of purchase and

installation” to the following question: “Did you purchase and install energy efficient

[Measure/Equipment] earlier than you otherwise would have without the program?” or

the respondent indicates that while program information and financial incentives did

affect the timing of equipment purchase and installation, in the absence of the program

they would have purchased and installed the equipment within the next year.


190

The respondent answers “no, program did not affect level of efficiency chosen for

equipment” in response to the following question: “Did you choose equipment that was

more energy efficient than you would have chosen had you not participated in the

program?”

The second factor requires determining if a customer reported that a recommendation

from a program representative or past experience with the program was influential in the

decision to install a particular piece of equipment or measure.

The criterion indicating that program influence may signify a lower likelihood of free

ridership is that either of the following conditions is true:

The respondent answers “very important” to the following question: “How important

was previous experience with the program in making your decision to install energy

efficient [Measure/Equipment] at the location?”

The respondent answers “probably would not have” or “definitely would not have” to

the following question: “If the program representative had not recommended

[Measure/Equipment], how likely is it that you would have installed it anyway?”

The third factor requires determining if a participant in the program indicates that he or

she had previously installed an energy efficiency measure similar to one that they

installed under the program without an energy efficiency program incentive during the last

three years. A participant indicating that he or she had installed a similar measure is

considered to have a likelihood of free ridership.

The criteria indicating that previous experience may signify a higher likelihood of free

ridership are as follows:

The respondent answers “yes” to the following question: “Before participating in the

Program, had you installed any equipment or measure similar to energy efficient

[Measure/Equipment] at the location?”

The respondent answers “yes” to the following question: “Has your organization

purchased any significant energy efficient equipment in the last three years at the

location?” and answered “yes” to the question: “Did you install any of that equipment

without applying for a financial incentive through an energy efficiency program?”

The four sets of rules described above were used to construct four different indicator

variables that address free ridership behavior. For each customer, a free ridership value

was assigned based on the combination of variables. With the four indicator variables,

there are 12 applicable combinations for assigning free ridership scores for each

respondent, depending on the combination of answers to the questions creating the

indicator variables. Table 7-12 shows these values.


191

Table 7-12 Free Ridership Scores for Combinations of Indicator Variable Responses

Indicator Variables

Had Plans and Intentions to

Install Measure without

Program? (Definition 1)

Had Plans and Intentions to

Install Measure without

Program? (Definition 2)

Program had influence on Decision to

Install Measure?

Had Previous Experience

with Measure?

Free Ridership Score

Y N/A Y Y 100%

Y N/A N N 100%

Y N/A N Y 100%

Y N/A Y N 100%

N Y N Y 100%

N Y N N 0%

N Y Y N 0%

N Y Y Y 0%

N N N Y 0%

N N N N 0%

N N Y N 0%

N N Y Y 0%

7.6.1.2 Midstream Lighting Free Ridership Methodology

Information collected from a sample of participating distributors was used for the analysis

of free ridership.

Participating distributors estimated the impact program discounts had on sales of lighting

products. For each lamp type, distributors were asked to estimate what share of the lamps

they sold through the program would have sold without the available program discounts.22

The reported share of products sold through the program was used as the estimate of

free ridership for the product. For example, if a respondent estimated that 15% of the

lamps would have sold without the discounts, the free ridership for that lamp type was

estimated to be 15%. Respondents’ estimates of the sales that would occur in the

absence of the program were reviewed for consistency with open-ended responses to

questions about the program’s impact on their sales of the lighting products. Estimated

free ridership for each lamp type was then rounded to 1 or 0.

22 The number of lamp types distributors were asked about was limited to five to avoid fatigue.


192

7.6.2 Spillover Estimation

Program participants may implement additional energy saving measures without

receiving a program incentive because of their participation in the program. The energy

savings resulting from these additional measures constitute program participant spillover

effects.

To assess participant spillover savings for the Large C&I, SAGE, SBDI, and HVAC Tune

Up channels, survey respondents were asked if they implemented any additional energy

saving measures for which they did not receive a program incentive. Respondents that

indicated that they did install additional measures were asked two questions to assess if

the associated savings are attributable to the program. Specifically, respondents were

asked:

“How important was your experience with the <PROGRAM> in your decision to

implement this Measure, using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all important and

10 is extremely important?”

“If you had not participated in the <PROGRAM>, how likely is it that your organization

would still have implemented this measure, using a 0 to 10 scale, where 0 means you

definitely WOULD NOT have implemented this measure and 10 means you definitely

WOULD have implemented this measure?”

The energy savings associated with the measure are considered attributable to the

program if the average of the rating for the first question, and the rating for the second

question, is greater than five.

Spillover project energy savings were based on respondent estimates of the projects

savings impact.

Spillover was not estimated for the midstream lighting channel. In the context of a program

for product price mark downs, the following examples illustrate potential sources of

spillover:

Participant spillover: a customer who purchases program discounted products is

influenced to install additional (non-rebated) energy efficiency measures or change

their energy usage behavior as a result of their program experience.

Nonparticipant spillover: a customer notices OG&E sponsored discounts or

receives educational resources. While they do not ultimately purchase program

discounted products, their interaction with the program encourages them to install

other (non-rebated) energy efficiency measures or change their energy usage

behavior.

It is likely that some combination of these spillover effects increase the savings

attributable to the midstream lighting discount program channel. However, there is also


193

reason to believe these effects may be small overall. Participant and non-participant

spillover typically occurs through customer education and there is limited opportunity for

this in a midstream discount program.

Overall, it should be noted that spillover effects likely remain a minor factor, and the net-

to-gross estimate developed in this evaluation should be considered with these omitted

effects in mind.

7.7 Net Savings Results

The following sections summarize the net savings results of each channel of CEEP. Table

7-13 summarizes the number of respondents used in the analysis of net savings for each

of the CEEP channels.23

Table 7-13 Sample Sizes for CEEP Participant Surveys

Program Channel Sample Size

Large C&I 96

SAGE 24

SBDI 12

Midstream Lighting 17

HVAC Tune Up 109

CEI 3

Total 261

7.7.1 Large C&I

Program free ridership was estimated by weighting each participant’s response by the

gross energy savings (kWh) or peak demand reductions (kW) associated with the

measures. Program free ridership (kWh) is estimated at 16.8%.

None of the respondents reported that they installed additional spillover equipment with

quantified energy savings because of the program.

Table 7-14 and Table 7-15 summarize the realized net kWh savings and peak kW

demand reductions of the channel. Net energy savings (kWh) totaled to 35,419,432 and

equal 83.2% of gross program channel level savings. Net peak demand reductions (kW)

totaled 4,911.71 and equal 83.2% of realized gross program channel peak demand

reductions.

23 Four responses were dropped from the analysis because “Don’t know” responses were provided to key questions

used to estimate free ridership.


194

Table 7-14 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – Large C&I

Program Channel


Realization Rate

Net Impacts


Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh)

Large C&I 40,370,160 42,594,793 106% 83.2% 35,419,432

Table 7-15 Summary of Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW) – Large C&I

Program Channel

Gross Peak Demand Reduction

(kW) Gross

Realization Rate

Net Impacts


Net Peak Demand Reduction (kW)

Large C&I 5,616.23 5,906.74 105% 83.2% 4,911.71

7.7.2 SAGE

Program free ridership was estimated by weighting each participant’s response by the

gross energy savings (kWh) or peak demand reductions (kW) associated with the

measures. Program free ridership (kWh) is estimated at 7.9%.

None of the respondents reported that they installed additional spillover equipment with

quantified energy savings because of the program.


demand reductions of this program channel. Net energy savings (kWh) totaled to

10,909,180 kWh and equal 92.1% of gross program channel savings. Net peak demand

reductions (kW) totaled 1,767.86 kW.


195

Table 7-16 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – SAGE

Program Channel


Realization Rate

Net Impacts



SAGE 11,570,732 11,840,671 102% 92.1% 10,909,180

Table 7-17 Summary of Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW) – SAGE

Program Channel


(kW) Gross

Realization Rate

Net Impacts



SAGE 2,243.41 1,918.81 86% 92.1% 1,767.86

7.7.3 SBDI

Program channel free ridership was estimated by weighting each participant’s response

by the gross energy savings (kWh) or peak demand reductions (kW) associated with the

measures. Program channel free ridership (kWh) is estimated at 0%. None of the

respondents reported that they installed additional spillover equipment with quantified

energy savings because of the program.


demand reductions of the program. Net energy savings (kWh) totaled to 8,486,556 and

equal 100.0% of gross program channel savings. Net peak demand reductions (kW)

totaled 1,405.09.


196

Table 7-18 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – SBDI

Program Channel

Gross Annual Energy Savings

(kWh) Gross

Realization Rate

Net Impacts



SBDI 8,629,668 8,486,556 98% 100.0% 8,486,556

Table 7-19 Summary of Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW) – SBDI

Program Channel


(kW) Gross

Realization Rate

Net Impacts



SBDI 1,308.92 1,405.09 107% 100.0% 1,405.09

7.7.4 Midstream Lighting

Table 7-20 summarizes the results of the free ridership scoring for the lamp types and the

number of responses obtained for each lamp type. As shown, free ridership was equal to

100% for two measures: LED linear fixtures, and LED lowbay/highbay lamps. It is

important to keep in mind that for the last measure, estimated free ridership was based

on a single distributor’s estimate of program impacts. However, the free ridership score

for the 2x4 LED linear fixtures was based on multiple distributor responses. This is also

the second year in a row that the 2x4 LED linear fixture received a 100% free ridership

score.

Program channel free ridership was estimated by weighting the response for each lamp

type by the gross energy savings (kWh) or peak demand reductions (kW) associated with

the lamp type.


197

Table 7-20 Free ridership by Lamp Type

Measure Number of Responses

Free Ridership

LED A-Line 8 14.4%

LED Downlight/Trim Kit 2 65.4%

LED Linear Fixture 5 100.0%

LED Linear Lamp 7 89.9%

LED Lowbay/Highbay 1 100.0%

LED Reflector 4 32.6%

LED Wall Pack/Flood 1 0.0%


demand reductions of the program channel.

Net energy savings (kWh) totaled to 15,232,754 and equal 65.2% of gross program

channel savings. Net peak demand reductions (kW) totaled 2,727.56.

Table 7-21 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – Midstream Lighting

Program Channel

Gross Annual Energy Savings (kWh)

Gross Realization

Rate

Net Impacts



Midstream Lighting 20,317,247 23,345,591 115% 65.2% 15,232,754

Table 7-22 Summary of Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW) – Midstream

Lighting

Program Channel


(kW) Gross Realization

Rate

Net Impacts


Net Peak Demand

Reduction (kW)

Midstream Lighting 3,674.71 4,180.23 114% 65.2% 2,727.56

7.7.5 HVAC Tune-up

The HVAC Tune-up program channel free ridership (kWh) is estimated at 0%. None of

the respondents reported that they installed additional spillover equipment with quantified



198


demand reductions of the program channel. Net energy savings (kWh) totaled to

3,665,469 and equal 100% of gross program channel savings. Net peak demand

reductions (kW) totaled 2,073.22.

Table 7-23 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – HVAC Tune Up

Program Channel


(kWh) Gross

Realization Rate

Net Impacts



HVAC Tune Up 3,665,469 3,665,469 100% 100.0% 3,665,469

Table 7-24 Summary of Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW) – HVAC Tune Up

Program Channel


(kW) Gross Realization

Rate

Net Impacts



HVAC Tune Up 2,073.22 2,073.22 100% 100.0% 2,073.22

7.7.6 CEI

The CEI program channel free ridership (kWh) is estimated at 0%. None of the

respondents reported that they installed additional spillover equipment with quantified


Table 7-25 summarizes the realized net kWh savings of the program channel. No peak

demand savings were claimed for this channel. Net energy savings (kWh) totaled to

10,088,846 and equal 100% of gross program channel savings.

Table 7-25 Summary of Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh) – CEI

Program Channel


(kWh) Gross

Realization Rate

Net Impacts



CEI 8,239,906 10,088,846 122% 100.0% 10,088,846


199

7.7.7 Summary of Net Savings Results

Table 7-26 and Table 7-27 summarize CEEP net savings.

Table 7-26 Summary of CEEP Net Annual Energy Savings (kWh)

Program Channel

Gross Annual Energy Savings (kWh)

Gross Realization

Rate

Net Impacts



Large C&I 40,370,160 42,594,793 106% 83.2% 35,419,432

SAGE 11,570,732 11,840,671 102% 92.1% 10,909,180

SBDI 8,629,668 8,486,556 98% 100.0% 8,486,556

Midstream 20,317,247 23,345,591 115% 65.2% 15,232,754

HVAC Tune-up 3,665,469 3,665,469 100% 100.0% 3,665,469

CEI 8,239,906 10,088,846 122% 100.0% 10,088,846

Totals 92,793,182 100,021,926 108% 83.8% 83,802,238

Table 7-27 Summary of CEEP Net Peak Demand Reductions (kW)

Program Channel


(kW) Gross Realization Rate

Net Impacts


Net Peak Demand

Reduction (kW)

Large C&I 5,616.23 5,906.74 105% 83.2% 4,911.71

SAGE 2,243.41 1,918.81 86% 92.1% 1,767.86

SBDI 1,308.92 1,405.09 107% 100.0% 1,405.09

Midstream 3,674.71 4,180.23 114% 65.2% 2,727.56

HVAC Tune-up 2,073.22 2,073.22 100% 100.0% 2,073.22

CEI 0.00 0.00 N/A 100.0% 0.00

Totals 14,916.49 15,484.10 104% 83.2% 12,885.44


Below, the Evaluators present the methodology used for the process-related data

collection activities the evaluation team performed in association with the OK CEEP

program evaluations. These activities included program staff interviews, interviews with

trade allies and midstream distributors, and a survey of participating customers.


200

7.8.1 Program Staff Interviews

The evaluation team completed an in-depth interview with the two OK CEEP program

managers at OG&E and one additional interview with four staff at CLEAResult -- the

program implementer -- as part of the process evaluation covering all six CEEP program

channels. The evaluation team used these program staff interviews to identify program

updates or changes experienced in PY17. Further, these interviews explored energy

efficiency staff roles and responsibilities, program communications and marketing, the

overall program delivery processes in place during PY17, and suggestions for

researchable issues to explore further in the trade ally and customer interviews.

7.8.2 Participating Customer Surveys

The evaluation team surveyed OG&E OK CEEP program participants by telephone using

Tetra Tech’s in-house survey lab in January and February 2018. The surveys collected

respondent feedback on program communication and offerings, program measures

(including installation verification), program impact on decision-making, and participant

satisfaction. The survey also collected key business characteristic information from

program participants. The evaluation team received and reviewed multiple Oklahoma

CEEP program channel participation data files from CLEAResult after PY17 concluded.

These program tracking data provided contact information for participating customers and

measure descriptions for installed equipment through the program channels evaluated

for PY17.

Tetra Tech began fielding the participant survey on January 18, 2018, and data collection

ended on February 2, 2018. We ultimately completed surveys with 244 Oklahoma CEEP

program participants. Information about the starting record counts and the final response

rate for this survey can be found in Appendix B.

7.8.3 Participating Trade Ally / Midstream In-Depth Interviews

The evaluation team completed 18 in-depth interviews with OK contractors in the Large

C&I, SBDI, and HVAC Tune-up Program channels. Five of these 18 contractors provided

information on two program channels and one other provided information on all three

program channels. In addition to the contractor in-depth interviews, the evaluation team

completed interviews with 13 lighting distributors working under the Midstream Lighting

Program in 2017.

Trade ally contact and lighting distributor contact information, along with their project

volume within the program, was available to the team for review and consideration within

the program participant tracking data delivered by CLEAResult upon completion of the

PY17 program year. These data drove the trade ally interview selection. We prioritized

trade ally selection for interviews based on their program participation volume, opting to


201

offer an interview opportunity to those who worked most with the Large C&I and HVAC

tune-up program channels. Given the small number of SBDI contractors and Midstream

lighting distributors, the evaluation team attempted to complete as many interviews as

possible with these two groups.

The in-depth interviews with contractors were completed between January 8 and January

28, 2018. The interviews with lighting distributers were completed between January 10

and January 20, 2018.

7.8.4 Process Evaluation Findings


communications and marketing, program delivery, program satisfaction, and customer

characteristics.

7.8.4.1 Program Communications and Marketing

CLEAResult was responsible for a majority of the OK CEEP program marketing in 2017,

although OG&E program and education managers, and account representatives also

played a role. The OK C&I programs are marketed via the internet, billboards, radio ads,

point of sale materials, and one-on-one outreach. Efforts varied by program channel. For

example, SAGE marketing was done mostly via direct outreach. Both Large C&I and

SBDI were more contractor-driven programs, while Midstream distributors promoted

program incentives directly to customers (end use customers and contractors to which

they sell) by word-of-mouth and program marketing materials provided to them (counter

mats, in-store displays) by CLEAResult. CLEAResult also maintains a toll-free number

for customers to call. The main exception to program marketing delivered by CLEAResult

is the OG&E program website. OG&E uses its website to promote their programs, and

CLEAResult works with OG&E to incorporate any program materials / messaging onto

their website. In 2017, CLEAResult updated the C&I webpage to make it easier for

customers to understand the various program offerings by OG&E. Finally, OG&E and

CLEAResult both took opportunities to present at nonprofits, social / civic activities or

meetings, trade shows and seminars throughout PY17.

The wide variety of program marketing tactics employed under the CEEP program

umbrella were apparent within the participant data we collected for this evaluation. Fifty

percent of participants reported hearing about this program directly from a contractor or

vendor, and another 19 percent confirmed that they heard about the program through

word of mouth – a colleague, other business, etc. Fifteen percent cited a Business Energy

Advisor or Program Representative and 14 percent cited an account representative.

Between six to seven percent each cited a conference/trade show/expo, a mailing from

OG&E, the OG&E website, and previous experience with an OG&E program.


202

Table 7-28 How learned of program

Category Large C&I SBDI SAGE

HVAC Tune

Up CEI Total

Contractor / Vendor 41% 58% 58% 56% 0% 50%

Colleague/Another business 16% 33% 32% 15% 0% 19%

Business Energy Advisor or Program Representative

20% 0% 11% 15% 33% 15%

Account representative 16% 0% 11% 13% 67% 14%

Conference/Trade Show/Expo 2% 17% 16% 5% 33% 7%

Mail from OG&E 4% 17% 0% 9% 0% 6%

OG&E website 14% 0% 5% 2% 0% 6%

*Previous experience with an OG&E program

10% 8% 11% 2% 0% 6%

Other 6% 25% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Email from OG&E 0% 0% 5% 4% 0% 2%

Radio / Print Advertising 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 1%

*Internet search 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Total (N) N=51 N=12 N=19 N=55 N=3 N=140

Source: Question A1 Note: May not total 100 percent as respondents could select more than one answer

*Indicates category created during analysis

Account representatives were the most frequently cited source of information for CEI

participants, while Large C&I, SBDI, SAGE, and HVAC Tune-up participants were most

likely to cite a contractor/vendor as the source of their program information. This was a

significant increase among HVAC Tune-up participants from FY16, where only 19 percent

of HVAC Tune-up participants reported hearing of the program from a contractor/vendor.

A summary of the CEEP participant responses across program channels appear in Table

7-28.

Respondents generally reported having received enough information about the program

when they first heard about it. Ninety-three percent of CEEP respondents overall

confirmed they received enough information about the program through their

communication channel; this is a slight increase from PY16 (88 percent).

HVAC Tune-up respondents were more likely to report that they felt they had enough

information about the program in their initial contact in PY17 (95 percent) than they did in

PY16 (81 percent). This may be because HVAC Tune-up respondents were more likely

to hear about the program directly from a contractor or vendor in PY17, and less likely to


203

learn about the program through OG&E direct mail or some other information source as

they did in PY16.

Table 7-29 Method learned of program provided enough information


HVAC Tune Up CEI Total

Yes 94% 92% 89% 95% 100% 93%

No 6% 8% 11% 5% 0% 7%

Total (N) N=49 N=12 N=19 N=55 N=3 N=138

Source: Question A2

When we asked respondents what kind of additional information they would have liked to receive about the program, answers varied. However, clear themes about more information – especially about more information on the project details and actual project savings – were repeatedly mentioned by respondents. As one respondent noted:

“There was almost no information on the website, so I had to be routed through a third-party vendor (CLEAResult) that was managing their program. It would be nice if it just laid out how the program worked and the forms needed.”

Program participants were asked if there are other ways that they would prefer OG&E

contact them about their CEEP programs. Overall, 59 percent of participants could not

think of another preferred method. Among those preferring another method, SBDI and

SAGE participants were most likely to do so (58 and 65 percent, respectively). Email or

a direct call from the contractor or OG&E were the most preferred methods among those

having another preferred method.

7.8.4.2 Trade Ally and Lighting Distributor Communications and Marketing

Trade allies were asked about how they became aware of the programs, and their

preferences for receiving program information. When asked how they heard about the

CEEP programs, about one-half of the trade allies said they heard about CEEP from

OG&E or CLEAResult staff. The rest learned about the program from a former employer,

word-of-mouth from industry sources, advertising, or by doing their own research.

Eleven of the 18 trade allies said they have been involved in the program for 2 to 3 years

or less. Four of the trade allies said their company had a long-time relationship with OG&E

programs dating back as far as 10 years ago. The rest of the trade allies did not know for

sure how long their company had been involved with the programs.

When asked why they or their company decided to get involved in the programs, reasons

cited by trade allies included:


204

The programs fit well with their company philosophy and the types of products and services offered to their customers

To make money or expand their customer base To help customers save money and energy To get their business name out there—recognition for newer businesses The incentives were a good deal.

Most trade allies (15 of 18) interviewed prefer to receive program information from OG&E

and/or CLEAResult by email. The remaining three trade allies prefer personal contact

including webinars and one-on-one training with CLEAResult where they can ask

questions. A little over half, 10 of the 18 trade allies, felt that the communication they had

received about the program was adequate. Two of the trade allies did not answer or were

unsure. One was very familiar with the programs and did not need much communication,

and one did not need much communication since they only had one project.

Midstream Lighting distributors were asked how they first heard about the incentives

available through the Midstream Lighting Program, and why they chose to participate in

the program. Of the 12 distributors who could answer this question, they mentioned

various sources of information and sometimes more than one source. Four mentioned

learning about the incentives through other OG&E programs they had worked on, and

four mentioned from a colleague at work. Three reported hearing about the incentives

from CLEAResult, one mentioned OG&E staff, and one heard about the incentives from

a customer.

Enhanced sales (7 of 13 distributors), enhanced customer service (4), saving customers

money (3), and energy savings (3) were the primary reasons given for getting involved

with the Midstream Lighting program. As one distributor added: “It is my job to offer

solutions to our customers”. Other reasons for participation mentioned by one distributor

each included keeping up with the competition, and because customers were asking

whether they were a participating distributor.

Lighting distributors were asked about the OG&E marketing materials they provide to

customers and customer awareness of OG&E’s discounts. Midstream flyers (6) and

instant rebate sheets (4) were the materials most often mentioned.

7.8.4.3 Program Influence on Trade Allies and Lighting Distributors

Trade allies were asked to rate the importance of the program, including the rebates and

information, in influencing their marketing and sales of equipment or measures during




205

Eight of the 18 trade allies rated the importance of program influence at 8 to 10 for at least

one program channel. Five trade allies gave program influence ratings of 5 to 7. Two of

the 18 trade allies could not provide a rating.

One Large C&I HVAC trade ally gave the program influence a 2 or 3 because they had

only had one project (although they recognize that the program helped to sell the

geothermal heating and cooling project). Another HVAC Tune-up trade ally gave a rating

of 3 to 4 and commented that when they started the program they expected a 9 or 10 on

the program influence. The trade ally further commented that because they were doing

one very large school project, they were too busy to take on any additional work with the

technical staff they had available. In addition, the trade ally said they would have done

more to aggressively pursue projects using the program if they had had enough staff.

The trade allies were also asked if the availability of the program incentives influenced

the type, quantity, or efficient level of items they recommended to customers. Only one

of the trade allies said they would make different recommendations if the CEEP program

was not available. One trade ally, an HVAC business, clarified that they would sell the

equipment anyway, but the rebate increases the number of units they would sell.

All Midstream lighting distributors reported using the discounts as a marketing tool.

Therefore, all customers are aware that they are receiving discounted lighting, and all

customers are informed that OG&E is the source of this discount.

Twelve of 13 lighting distributors expected that participating in the program would

increase their sales of efficient lighting, and 11 of these 12 felt their expectations were

met. As one distributor commented: “We can definitely tell the difference in our sales

since we’ve been participating.” Another distributor noted that: “It seemed like we were

hearing about it, other companies were doing it, and we were losing sales. We lost some

customers that first year when we only had a small allotment, but most of our customers

have come back since they’ve given us larger allocations. . . it totally benefitted our

customers and us.” The one distributor who said expectations were not met does not deal

with screw-in bulbs.

The only distributor who did not expect their sales to increase said “No, I did not expect it

to have the impact that it did. It was a pleasant surprise!”

In addition to increasing sales of efficient lighting, 10 of 12 distributors felt their

participation in the program has helped to expand their customer base by bringing in new

contractors and small businesses.


The PY17 OK CEEP programs had oversight through an OG&E program manager and

CLEAResult implementation staff. CLEAResult worked directly with customers and


206

contractors in the field to assess project sites, make project recommendations, and

process program paperwork and rebate payments. CLEAResult also worked with trade

allies and Midstream distributors to assist in marketing the program channels, creating

and distributing marketing collateral for their use, and offering training as needed within

each channel – especially during the project year kickoff and wrap-up periods.

CLEAResult provided regular progress reports to OG&E for all CEEP program channels

that reported progress towards program goals, assessed active projects, and provided

details about the upcoming project pipeline. Both OG&E and CLEAResult also reported

regularly communicating with each other through email, by phone, and occasionally, in

person.

OG&E CEEP customers within the Large C&I, SBDI, or SAGE channels typically initiated

program participation by making an inquiry on the OG&E website or talking with an OG&E

or CLEAResult representative. After that initial contact, a participant generally takes these

steps to participate in these CEEP channel offerings:

1) After contacting the program, the customer signs a Participation Agreement or

Customer Proposal with OG&E which describes program commitments required

of the participant and agrees to the conditions and processes set forth for the

program. CLEAResult then contacts participants to provide details on program

participation, benefits, and requirements, and to begin the program process.

2) A customer (typically an owner or a facilities manager within this process) has their

facility assessed by CLEAResult. The assessment helps identify energy efficiency

improvement options, and the customer receives these recommendations for

improvements. In some cases – such as the SBDI channel – nonresidential

customers may receive direct install measures through the programs.

3) The customer also receives an estimate of potential energy efficiency savings

worked up through a program calculator and incentive amount estimates to help

them calculate net project costs (post-incentives).

4) If a contractor is not already involved, a customer may select a contractor to help

implement their energy efficient project.

5) If a contractor is selected to work with a customer, CLEAResult stays in touch with

the customer to monitor work progress and troubleshoot any problems or

challenges that may arise.

6) After project work is complete, CLEAResult performs a project post-inspection and

if applicable, pays the customer their incentive.

For the HVAC tune-up program channel, customers must provide necessary account

information to determine participation and eligibility. They then choose a Trade Ally from

the approved Contractor list to install eligible measures, and allow CLEAResult access to

verify completed A/C Tune-ups and installed measures. Trade Allies provide a customer

with the discount at the time of the service, and they are reimbursed for these discounts

after they have submitted completed documentation.


207

The CEI program track is designed to meet the needs of OG&E’s top customers.

CLEAResult engineers go to the customer’s facilities and conduct an audit focusing on

low cost / no-cost behavioral changes. The audits also bring capital projects to customers’

attentions as needed, which has led some customers to participate in other C&I program

channels. Participants are expected to meet jointly with the cohort of other participants

up to six times per year.

CLEAResult interacted with contractors working with the program in PY17 to provide them

with program tools such as promotional materials and energy savings calculators to

assess and recommend program-incented equipment to customers. CLEAResult offered

these contractors informal program training on the calculators, through meeting them

directly in the field, or in some cases, via webinar. CLEAResult additionally interacted

with Midstream distributors working within the lighting channel in PY17 by sending field

representatives out to distribution sites and storefronts. They provided distributors with

program marketing collateral, and an overview about how CLEAResult would support

them within their program experience.

Participating Customer Delivery Experience

We began understanding the program participant delivery experience by asking program

participants if they worked with an OK contractor to complete their CEEP project. Fifty-

eight percent of overall respondents confirmed working with a contractor or vendor, while

20 percent indicated they relied on their internal staff. Eighteen percent reported they

used a combination of internal resources and outside contractors. All SBDI participants

(100 percent) said they worked with a contractor/vendor, likely due to small businesses

typically having far fewer staff resources than larger commercial customers. CEI

participants relied heavily on internal staff.


208

Table 7-30 Worked with contractor / vendor / internal staff to implement project



Worked with a contractor / vendor

63% 100% 56% 48% 33% 58%

Internal staff at company

11% 0% 11% 32% 67% 19%

Both the contractor and internal staff

23% 0% 33% 12% 0% 18%

Neither 3% 0% 0% 8% 0% 4%

Total (N) N=35 N=5 N=9 N=25 N=3 N=77

Source: Question A4 Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding

We then asked survey respondents why they decided to apply to the program(s) in 2017.

The rebate or reduced cost of equipment due to the rebate was cited most often as the

reason for applying to the program (62 percent). Another 28 percent cited the energy

savings they would get through the program, and 12 percent said they wanted to improve

the performance of their building or equipment. Other reasons included wanting a lower

energy bill (10 percent) and wanting to upgrade equipment (9 percent).

Application paperwork

Most survey respondents (76 percent) could recall the program application or other

paperwork processes. HVAC Tune-up respondents were least likely to recall this (64

percent). We asked respondents who could recall the process who submitted their

program paperwork, and we allowed them to select more than one answer. Among those

who could recall the process, over half of the respondents (56 percent overall) confirmed

that their contractor or vendor submitted program paperwork on their behalf. SBDI and

SAGE respondents were most likely to indicate their contractor or vendor completed their

program paperwork (78 and 65 percent, respectively). Forty-four percent of respondents

also confirmed they played a role in completing the program paperwork, and 27 percent

said an OG&E or CLEAResult representative completed the paperwork.


209

Table 7-31 Parties involved in submitting program application or paperwork



Contractor / Vendor 56% 78% 65% 52% 0% 56%

Respondent 46% 56% 71% 24% 33% 44%

An OG&E or CLEAResult representative

32% 11% 47% 18% 0% 27%

Someone else at my company

20% 0% 18% 24% 100% 21%

Other 2% 0% 0% 3% 0% 2%

Total (N) N=41 N=9 N=17 N=33 N=3 N=103

Source: Question A8_O Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent as respondents could select more than one answer

Regardless of how the program paperwork got done, OK CEEP program participants

were highly satisfied with the process. We asked these respondents to rate their

satisfaction with the paperwork process using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is "very

dissatisfied" and 10 is "very satisfied". Eighty-nine percent of participants rated the

paperwork process with an 8, a 9, or a 10. The mean overall paperwork satisfaction score

across all program channels was 8.9. When looking at respondent data in specific

channels, SAGE (9.7), HVAC Tune-up (8.9), and Large C&I (8.7) participants had the

highest paperwork satisfaction.

7.8.4.5 Measure Installation

We asked the program participants about their experiences with up to two of their installed

program measures (as applicable). We began this section by asking them to identify any

barriers they may have encountered while purchasing or installing program measures

(this excludes audits and tune-ups). Most respondents did not encounter any barriers with

either their first (92 percent) or second (95 percent) program measure. However,

respondents who participated in the SBDI program were slightly more likely to encounter

a barrier (17 percent with MEASURE 1, no barriers with MEASURE 2) than those in the

other program tracks. When SBDI respondents were asked to provide more information

about any barriers they may have faced, respondents contributed their challenges to the

length of time to complete the project and some failed lights.


210

Table 7-32 Did you experience barriers purchasing or installing program measures?

Category Large C&I

SBDI SAGE Total

Yes 6% 17% 10% 8%

No 94% 83% 90% 92%

Total (N) N=54 N=12 N=20 N=86

Source: Question M1R1

All respondents (100 percent for MEASURE 1, 100 percent for MEASURE 2) who

participated in the various PY17 CEEP program channels confirmed their measures were

still installed today. All respondents also confirmed the measures were in working order.

7.8.4.6 Program Satisfaction

Program Participant Satisfaction

The evaluation team asked program participants to rate their overall program satisfaction

using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is "very dissatisfied" and 10 is "very satisfied".

Participants’ mean overall program satisfaction score averaged across all program tracks

was 8.3, which is lower than the 9.1 satisfaction score given in PY16. SAGE and CEI

participants rated their overall satisfaction the highest with a mean score of 9.3, while

HVAC Tune-up customers rated their satisfaction the lowest (7.5).

The evaluation team also asked participants to rate their satisfaction with the measures

they had installed through the program, using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is "very

dissatisfied" and 10 is "very satisfied". Participants were highly satisfied (96 to 100

percent for MEASURE 1 and MEASURE 2 respectively) with the equipment they installed

through CEEP. The mean overall measure satisfaction score (all tracks) across the two

measures we discussed with them was 9.3 and 9.6 (for MEASURE 1 and MEASURE 2

respectively).

To further assess participant satisfaction with the OK CEEP program channels, we asked

respondents to rate their satisfaction with various CEEP program components. We

presented a 0 to 10 scale to respondents to use when scoring the program components,

where 0 is “very dissatisfied” and 10 is “very satisfied”. Table 7-33 displays the mean total

value score of each program component among CEEP respondents overall. Among all

participants, the highest satisfaction ratings were for the incentive amount compared to

the total project cost (8.5), the technical assistance from a contractor or vendor (8.4), and

the energy efficient measures that OG&E provides through the program (8.4).


211

Satisfaction with program components varied somewhat by program channel. CEI and

SAGE participants were the most satisfied with the various program components. HVAC

Tune-up customers were least satisfied with the communication from program

representatives (7.2), the technical assistance from a contractor/vendor (7.5), the

materials they received describing the program requirements and benefits (7.6), and the

technical assistance from OG&E or CLEAResult (7.7).

Table 7-33 Satisfaction with various program components?

OK CEEP Program Component

Program Track

Large C&I

SBDI SAGE HVAC Tune

Up CEI Total

The incentive amount compared to your total project cost

Mean 7.9 8.7 8.6 8.9 9.3 8.5

Technical assistance from your contractor or vendor Mean 8.9 8.5 9.4 7.5 9.0 8.4

The energy efficient measures that OG&E provides through the program

Mean 8.5 8.4 9.1 8.0 9.0 8.4

The amount of time it took between applying for the program and the work being completed

Mean 8.1 6.6 9.0 8.1 9.0 8.1

Technical assistance from OG&E or CLEAResult program representatives

Mean 7.9 8.5 9.1 7.7 9.3 8.1

Materials describing the program requirements and benefits

Mean 7.8 8.6 9.1 7.6 9.0 8.0

The amount of time it took to receive the incentive Mean 7.5 7.6 8.7 8.2 8.7 7.9

Communication from program representatives Mean 7.6 7.0 8.9 7.2 9.3 7.6

Source: Questions SAT5A SAT5B SAT5C SAT5D SAT5E SAT5F

Another way to measure program satisfaction is to understand whether a program

participant has recommended the program to other OG&E customers. When we asked

CEEP respondents if they had recommended the OK CEEP programs offerings to others,

53 percent of overall participants had done so. SAGE participants were most likely to

have recommended the program to someone (95 percent) and HVAC Tune-up customers

were least likely to have recommended the program (42 percent).


212

Among those 47 percent who had not yet recommended the program, we asked them if

they would recommend the program to others if provided the opportunity. Eighty-two

percent of the respondents in the different program channels confirmed they would

recommend the program if the opportunity presented itself. HVAC Tune-up participants

were least likely to say they would recommend the program to others (69 percent).

Table 7-34 highlights what respondents said when asked what they would change about

the CEEP program channels if given the opportunity. Sixty-one percent indicated they

would not change anything. Both SAGE and CEI participants were much more likely to

suggest some type of change (65 and 50 percent respectively).

The second most popular answer to this question was “other”. These responses were

categorized during the analysis phase. Participants most frequently provided “other”

examples relating to improving program communications and having better

advertisement (10 percent). Other popular responses in the “other” category was having

better contractors and having funds available for rebates year-round (4 percent each). Six

percent said they would improve the program application process.

Table 7-34 What would you change about the program?

Large C&I SBDI SAGE

HVAC Tune

Up CEI Total Would not change anything 62% 64% 35% 69% 50% 61%

*Improve program communications/advertisement

6% 18% 15% 11% 0% 10%

Other 8% 9% 0% 9% 50% 8%

Improve the program application / paperwork process

11% 0% 5% 2% 0% 6%

*Better contractors 0% 0% 5% 9% 0% 4%

*Have funds available year-round 2% 9% 20% 0% 0% 4%

*Provide more information about the program

6% 0% 10% 0% 0% 4%

Improve initial processing time 6% 0% 5% 0% 0% 3%

Increase incentive amount 6% 0% 5% 0% 0% 3%

Improve incentive payment speed 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Total (N) N=53 N=11 N=20 N=55 N=2 N=141

Source: Questions SAT1C01 SAT1C02 SAT1C03 SAT1C04 SAT1C05 SAT1C06 Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent as respondents could select more than one answer *Indicates response category computed during analysis

Finally, respondents were asked to assess their overall satisfaction with the programs.

We presented a 0 to 10 scale to respondents to use when scoring the program

components, where 0 is “very dissatisfied” and 10 is “very satisfied”. Respondents rated

their overall satisfaction as an 8.5. SBDI and CEI participants recorded the highest

satisfaction with OG&E (9.0 and 9.3 respectively).


213

Trade Ally and Lighting Distributor Satisfaction

Trade allies were asked to rate their satisfaction with the OG&E program channel(s) they

worked with. Over two-thirds (69 percent) of the trade ally ratings given for the Large

C&I, SBDI, and HVAC Tune-up program channels were an 8 through 10 on a scale of 0

to 10, where 0 means “very dissatisfied” and 10 means “extremely satisfied.”

The average rating of CEEP program satisfaction for the nine Large C&I Lighting

businesses was 8.6, and five of the nine Large C&I trade allies gave CEEP a 9 or 10

rating. The lowest rating was a 7 rating by two Large C&I businesses. Those two

businesses commented that turnaround time on approvals took too long. The SBDI

program was rated a 9 or a 10 by four of the five SBDI businesses that were interviewed.

One gave a 7 rating but said the rating would be higher if the payments were made on

a timelier basis.

The HVAC Tune-up Program was rated an 8, 9 or a 10 by four of the eight business.

Three of the HVAC Tune-up businesses rated the program lower with a 4 or a 6. Two of

the three cited problems with approval and payment turnaround. One HVAC Tune-up

business that gave the program a low rating also noted that the program, with some

tweaking, could be a great program if it were not patterned after residential.

One HVAC Tune-up trade ally indicated the program was not financially viable for them

due to pre-cleaning requirements and having to remove the coil for cleaning without

adequate compensation to cover the labor costs. One Large C&I HVAC business also

did HVAC tune-ups and expressed similar financial concerns in not getting involved in

the program.

Trade allies were also asked to rate various aspects of the 2017 CEEP Program using a

scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is “very dissatisfied” and 10 is “very satisfied.” In general, most

trade allies were satisfied with the different program components.

The Level of Communications with CLEAResult Program Staff

Thirteen of the 18 trade allies rated satisfaction with the level of communications as an 8

through 10. There were three businesses who gave ratings of 7, but one said they just

did not have a lot of contact having only done one Large C&I HVAC project. Another

Large C&I lighting trade ally felt communication with CLEAResult was somewhat delayed

while the third who rated it a 7 said they needed more CLEAResult staff so that site visits

for SAGE and SBDI were not so delayed.

One SBDI trade ally rated communications a 4 indicating it took four to five days to get

responses to their emails. One of the eight HVAC Tune-up businesses gave a rating of

6, because they felt the performance had dropped off in the past year.

The Amount of Program Paperwork


214

Eleven of the 18 trade allies rated their satisfaction with the amount of paperwork required

for the program as 8 through 10. Of those who rated the paperwork lower (5 through 7),

four were Large C&I trade allies. Two of the HVAC Tune-up trade allies had issues with

data reporting, which is done electronically. One HVAC Tune-up trade ally said it took

much longer to get projects through the system in the second year of the program than in

the first year of the program. The other HVAC Tune-up trade ally commented that data

requirements are high and how the data gets reported in the system is difficult to match

up with invoicing.

The Actual Program Measures and/or Rebated Equipment Offered through the

CEEP Program

Most of the trade allies were happy with the types of measures and equipment offered.

Large C&I Lighting and SBDI trade allies gave ratings of 8 to 10. HVAC Tune-up trade

allies often did not provide ratings although only one suggested offering rebates for 14

SEER units. This HVAC business felt that their customers would be willing to change out

20-year old units, instead of repairing them, if they did not have to go to 16 SEER to get

the rebate.

The Timeliness of Rebate Payments to Customers

Thirteen of the 18 trade allies interviewed gave satisfaction ratings of 8 to 10 on the

timeliness of the rebate payments to customers for at least one of their program channels.

Three trade allies gave lower ratings on the timeliness of rebate payments for Large C&I

at 6 or 7. Two of the five SBDI trade allies gave rebate timeliness a 3 and a 5. One of

these trade allies said it took eight weeks to get rebate checks, and that is a major problem

for them since they are a small business.

Two of the eight HVAC Tune-up trade allies gave 5 and 7 satisfaction ratings for

timeliness of rebate payments. One felt there were more delays in the second year of the

program in getting paid after approvals. The other HVAC Tune-up business said there

was a delay when they were told addresses were incorrect, although they were correct.

The Rebate Amount

Eleven of the 18 trade allies rated their satisfaction with the rebate amount at 8 to 10.

Another trade ally did not give a rating but thought that just getting a rebate is great. Two

HVAC trade allies gave the rebates a lower satisfaction rating of 6 for HVAC Tune-ups.

They explained that for large HVAC systems, the rebate amount did not cover the cost of

the free materials that they were required to provide, and for the greater number of labor

hours needed to do the tune-ups. Another Large C&I HVAC trade ally did not provide a

rating for HVAC Tune-up, but commented that the rebates did not cover their costs of

doing a tune-up on a 200-ton unit.


215

The OG&E Energy Efficiency Website

A majority of the trade allies (11 of 18) said they do not use the OG&E Energy Efficiency

Website. Those who do use it, typically gave it a 7 or 8 rating. One HVAC business rated

the website a 2 in terms of satisfaction level, commenting that most of the content was

for lighting businesses.

CEEP Program Training

Most of the trade allies (16 of 18) have attended training sessions that typically include

the annual program kickoff. Some also mentioned webinars, technical and software

training, and one-on-one training with CLEAResult.

Of the 16 trade allies who attended training, 12 ranked their level of satisfaction as 8 to

10. All three trade allies who gave low ratings for their satisfaction with the training were

HVAC trade allies (one gave a 2 rating and two gave a 6 rating). The trade ally who rated

the training a 2 worked on both Large C&I HVAC and HVAC Tune-up projects and

commented that the annual training focused primarily on lighting with very little time on

HVAC. Another HVAC Tune-up trade ally who gave a 6-rating had two training sessions

with program representatives and felt that one was clearly a better trainer than the other.

Lighting Distributor Satisfaction

Lighting distributors rated their overall satisfaction with the program on a 5-point scale—

very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neither satisfied or dissatisfied, somewhat

dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied. Ten of 12 lighting distributors were very satisfied with

the program overall, while two were somewhat satisfied.

Lighting distributors were also asked to rate aspects of the 2017 Midstream program

using a scale of very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied,

somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. Program aspects rated by the distributors

included the enrollment process, sales tracking process, incentive processing, sales that

the incentives have generated, program managers and other staff involved with the

program, and their overall level of satisfaction. Generally, distributors were satisfied with

the program.

Enrollment

Nine of 11 distributors were very satisfied with the process of discussing the program with

a program representative and signing their firm up as a program lamp distributor. The

remaining distributors were somewhat satisfied with this process.

Sales tracking


216

Seven of 10 distributors who responded to this question were satisfied with the process

used to track the sales of program discounted products by their firm, with the remaining

three being somewhat satisfied.

Incentive processing

Distributor satisfaction with incentive processing varied. Six of 11 distributors were very

satisfied with the incentive processing process, while three were somewhat satisfied.

One distributor said they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, and another said they

were very dissatisfied. The distributor who was very dissatisfied said that 2017 was an

invoice nightmare—some invoices were lost and payments were taking 45-60 days.

Another distributor noted that their first payment took 5 months to receive, but after that

payment was fine.

Sales that the program incentives have generated

Ten of 12 distributors were very satisfied with the sales they have experienced because

of the program, one was somewhat satisfied, and one was neither satisfied nor

dissatisfied.

Program managers and other staff involved with the program

Ten of 12 distributors were very satisfied with the program managers and other staff,

while two were somewhat satisfied.

In general, satisfaction with the Midstream Lighting program is high, and distributors feel

the program, incentives, and marketing materials have increased their sales. Ten

distributors said that program staff provided them with training. Seven of these 10 were

satisfied with the training. Those who weren’t completely satisfied mentioned that

sometimes the training seemed disorganized, or that staff could be a little quicker to

respond to requests (e.g., if a zip code is qualified).

Distributors are generally happy with the amount of support the program provides to them.

Five distributors added that they are provided with immediate support whenever they ask.

The only request for additional support was the need for program flyers and adding a list

of authorized distributors on the website.

Finally, 11 of 12 distributors felt the discount offered by OG&E was sufficient to induce

customers to buy efficient products. The 12th distributor felt the discount offered was

sufficient in about one-half of the cases.

7.8.4.7 Participant Characterization

Table 7-35 summarizes basic information collected about the participating respondents

and their facilities. The OK CEEP program channels served OG&E business customers


217

within a variety of sectors and facilities, such as retail, schools, industrial & manufacturing

facilities, offices, and warehouse/distribution centers. As expected, the type of customers

served within each program channel varied.

The mean number of employees in these facilities also varied greatly – spanning from 21

within SBDI facilities to 542 in Large C&I facilities.

Two-thirds (66 percent) of overall respondents indicated they owned and occupied the

building they were doing business in. CEI track participants were most likely (100 percent)

to both own and occupy their building, and HVAC Tune-up participants were least likely

(54 percent) to own and occupy their building. We asked those who did not both own and

occupy their building if they at least paid the electric bill at their facility. Ninety-two percent

of overall respondents confirmed they paid the bill if they did not own their building. All

SAGE and SBDI customers answering this question indicated they paid the utility bill at

their facility.


218

Table 7-35 CEEP Participant Characteristics

Survey Query

Response Category

Large C&I

SBDI SAGE HVAC Tune

Up CEI Total

Business activity that accounts for most of the floor space covered by your OG&E utility bill

Retail 29% 50% 0% 29% 0% 26%

Industrial / Manufacturing

18% 8% 5% 13% 67% 14%

School K-12 2% 0% 70% 9% 0% 14%

Office 16% 8% 5% 14% 33% 14%

Warehouse or distribution center

13% 17% 0% 4% 0% 8%

*Other service 2% 0% 0% 9% 0% 4%

*Auto repair 2% 8% 0% 5% 0% 3%

Religious worship 2% 0% 0% 5% 0% 3%

Other healthcare 4% 0% 0% 4% 0% 3%

Public assembly 2% 8% 5% 0% 0% 2%

Restaurant 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 2%

Lodging 4% 0% 5% 0% 0% 2%

Institution/government

2% 0% 5% 2% 0% 2%

*Parking 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

College / university 0% 0% 5% 2% 0% 1%

Grocery 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Total (N) N=55 N=12 N=20 N=56 N=3 N=146

Best description of company's ownership of this facility

Your company owns and occupies this facility

66% 67% 95% 54% 100% 66%

Your company rents this facility from someone else

13% 25% 0% 40% 0% 23%

Your company owns this facility but it is rented to someone else

21% 8% 5% 5% 0% 11%

Total (N) N=53 N=12 N=20 N=57 N=3 N=145

Does the company pay the electric bill at this facility?

Yes 82% 100% 100% 96% N/A 92%

No 18% 0% 0% 4% N/A 8%

Total (N) N=17 N=4 N=1 N=26 N=0 N=44

Source: Questions FIRM1 FIRM2 FIRM3 Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding


219

Table 7-36 provides information on how budget and energy efficiency decisions are made

within the organizations of these OK CEEP respondents. Eight of every 10 (82 percent)

CEEP respondents confirmed their company's budget decisions are made locally, 7

percent are made nationally, and 6 percent are made regionally. Two-thirds of

respondents indicated their company requires that an energy efficiency purchase meet a

certain return on investment criteria (24 percent) or simple payback threshold (41 percent)

to be purchased and installed, while 35 percent indicated they had no such requirement.

Table 7-36 How CEEP Participants Make Energy Efficiency Project Decisions

Survey Query Response Category

Large C&I

SBDI SAGE HVAC Tune

Up CEI Total

Are your company's budget decisions made locally, regionally, nationally, worldwide, or something else?

Locally 67% 100% 90% 93% 67% 82%

Nationally 17% 0% 0% 2% 0% 7%

Regionally 7% 0% 5% 6% 0% 6%

Other 7% 0% 5% 0% 33% 4%

Worldwide 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Total (N) N=54 N=11 N=20 N=54 N=3 N=142

Does your company require that an energy efficiency investment meet certain return on investment or simple payback thresholds in order to be purchased and installed?

Yes, specific ROI

29% 18% 11% 22% 67% 24%

Yes, simple payback

42% 55% 58% 33% 0% 41%

No 29% 27% 32% 45% 33% 35%

Total (N) N=52 N=11 N=19 N=49 N=3 N=134

Source: Questions FIRM5 FIRM6 Note: Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding


220

7.9 Program Recommendations

Based on the findings from the 2017 evaluation of the CEEP program, the evaluation

team has developed the following recommendations:

Improve Quality Control on Project Documentation and Program Database:

Through the evaluation of sampled sites, ADM found several projects with project

documentation that did not match the claimed savings in the program database.

With these projects, it is often unclear how the final claimed program savings

(savings included in the program database) were determined. For determining

GRRs for these projects, the Evaluators referred to both kWh and kW savings

included in the program database and not in the project documentation (savings

calculators, etc.). It is recommended that the process for tracking and reporting ex

ante savings be reviewed to ensure the program database is being populated with

the correct kWh and kW savings for each project.

Provide Calculators for Direct Install Projects: None of the project

documentation requested for SBDI projects included a calculator or sufficient data

to determine how ex ante savings are calculated. Most often, the documentation

provided for these projects included an invoice from the contractor and a statement

of work which include fixture quantities and installation locations. However, there

is no calculator that shows fixture wattages or annual operating hours (or facility

type) used in the calculations. Providing a calculator would allow ADM to identify

differences between ex ante and ex post savings as well as allow a full review of

ex ante calculation approaches. If no calculators are available for SBDI projects,

the program tracking database should be updated to include all inputs required to

allow the Evaluators to recreate ex ante savings. The data fields required would

include quantities of lamps/fixtures installed, quantities removed, baseline and

installed lamp/fixture wattage, facility type, annual hours of use, etc.

Initiate a Pre-Construction Review Process: ADM recommends a pre-

construction review process be designed and implemented for large or custom

projects. The pre-construction review should be designed to allow both

implementer and evaluator access to project documentation and ex ante savings

calculations prior to projects being completed and incentives being paid. The

purpose of the review process would be to identify any potential M&V related

issues, determine data collection requirements, and establish project timelines

prior to funding being reserved for customers. This proposed process can help

minimize uncertainty and risk associated with large or custom projects and may be

especially useful with the planned program changes in PY2017.


221

Update Midstream Lighting ex ante measure wattages: ADM recommends that

the average watts per measure category figures be updated annually, using the

previous year’s data. Currently, the average efficient measure wattage is based on

a weighted average using years of sales data prior to the implementation of the

program. The PY2017 ex post analysis utilized program year sales data to

determine ex post measure wattages. It is recommended that the ex ante wattages

be updated annually to more accurately reflect market conditions within the

program territory.

Improve Midstream Lighting tracking database: During PY2017, two separate

datasets had to be reviewed to determine ex post savings for this program channel.

Inconsistencies between the two datasets significantly increased the effort

required to determine ex post savings and limited the level of evaluation that could

be completed. For example, the lack of a common data field between the two data

sets prevents the Evaluators from determining whether deemed parameters are

being used correctly in ex ante savings calculations and also prevents a direct

comparison of savings for each lamp type. It is recommended that the process for

updating and managing these two datasets be reviewed. If it is deemed necessary

to continue using two datasets, it is recommended that improvements be made to

ensure lamp type designations, invoice number, PRJ number, ex ante savings,

etc. are included in both datasets.

Continue to Track Midstream Lighting End Customer: It is recommended that

the implementation contractor continue to track the end customer for all Midstream

lighting projects. Tracking the end customer allows for a better evaluation of market

conditions and allows for a more accurate determination of HOUs and CFs for this

program channel. It is recommended that this information continue to be collected

and that deemed HOUs and CFs be updated after two to three years of data is

collected.

Based on the findings from the process evaluation, the Evaluators pose the following

recommendations for program design and implementation.

Ensure that vendors and contractors are educated on the program details and expected savings since this is the most common source of awareness among participating customers. Update the website to contain adequate information on program participation details and potential savings to provide additional program support to customers who are not dependent on contractors. Clear themes emerged from the customer survey about the need for more information – especially about more information on the project details and actual project savings. As one respondent noted: “There was almost no information on the website, so I had to be routed through a third-party vendor


222

(CLEAResult) that was managing their program. It would be nice if it just laid out how the program worked and the forms needed.”

Improve turnaround time for communications with trade allies. Some of the

trade allies and lighting distributors were unhappy with the level and/or the timing

of communication. Contractors and distributors are key actors in selling the

program and ensuring participation runs smoothly. Having to wait for

communications on a specific customer’s eligibility or project approvals is

counterproductive.

Program staff should identify ways to maintain or increase program

satisfaction ratings. Participants’ overall program satisfaction score across all

program tracks was 8.3, which is lower than the 9.1 satisfaction score given in

PY16. Satisfaction with the length of time it took to receive the rebate and program

communications received the lowest satisfaction scores and should be an area to

focus on improving. HVAC Tune-up customers were the least satisfied with the

program (rating of 7.5) and gave the lowest satisfaction to program

communications.

Improving communication and increasing program satisfaction will increase

the likelihood that participants recommend the program to others. SAGE

participants were most likely to have recommended the program to someone (95

percent) and HVAC Tune-up customers were least likely to have recommended

the program (42 percent). Among those who had not yet recommended the

program, we asked them if they would recommend the program to others if

provided the opportunity. Eighty-two percent of the respondents in the different

program channels confirmed they would recommend the program if the opportunity

presented itself. HVAC Tune-up participants were least likely to say they would

recommend the program to others (69 percent).

Consider improving HVAC-specific training. Three of the trade allies who gave

low ratings for their satisfaction with the training were HVAC trade allies (one gave

a 2 rating and two gave a 6 rating). The trade ally who rated the training a 2 worked

on both Large C&I HVAC and HVAC Tune-up projects and commented that the

annual training focused primarily on lighting with very little time on HVAC. Another

HVAC Tune-up trade ally who gave a 6-rating had two training sessions with

program representatives and felt that one was clearly a better trainer than the

other.


223

Appendix A. Portfolio Cost-effectiveness

A.1 Overview

ADM estimated the cost-effectiveness for the overall Demand Program portfolio and

programs, based on 2017 costs and savings estimates provided by OG&E and their third-

party implementers. This appendix provides the cost-effectiveness results, as well as a

brief overview of the approach taken by the Evaluators.

The portfolio, and programs, pass all the cost-effectiveness tests except the RIM test.

The table below presents the cost effectiveness results for the PY2017 portfolio.

Table A-1 Cost Effectiveness Results


HEEP 3.37 3.34 0.63 8.65 4.95

PE-NHC 2.48 4.04 0.61 2.67 3.48

WRAP 2.83 2.83 0.83 3.77 4.30

CEEP 1.58 3.42 0.69 2.62 2.21

IVVC 0.52 0.52 0.47 1.11 0.73

Energy Education Res 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy Education C&I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Planning 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Regulatory 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

R&D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 1.65 2.32 0.65 2.85 2.37

A.2 Approach

The California Standard Practice Model was used as a guideline for the calculations,

along with guidance from the Arkansas TRM version 6.0. The cost effectiveness analysis

methods which were used in this analysis are among the set of standard methods used

in this industry and include the Utility Cost Test (UCT), Total Resource Cost Test (TRC),

Ratepayer Impact Measure Test (RIM), and Participant Cost Test (PCT). All tests weigh

monetized benefits against costs. These monetized amounts are presented as Net

Present Value (NPV) evaluated over the lifespan of the measure. The benefits and costs

differ for each test based on the perspective of the test. The definitions below are taken

from the California Standard Practice Manual.

The Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) measures the net costs of a demand-side

management program as a resource option based on the total costs of the

program, including both the participants' and the utility's costs.

The Utility Cost Test (UCT) measures the net costs of a demand-side

management program as a resource option based on the costs incurred by the


224

program administrator (including incentive costs) and excluding any net costs

incurred by the participant. The benefits are similar to the TRC benefits. Costs are

defined more narrowly.

The Participants Cost Test (PCT) is the measure of the quantifiable benefits and

costs to the customer due to participation in a program. Since many customers do

not base their decision to participate in a program entirely on quantifiable variables,

this test cannot be a complete measure of the benefits and costs of a program to

a customer.

The Ratepayer Impact Measure Test (RIM) test measures what happens to

customer bills or rates due to changes in utility revenues and operating costs

caused by the program. Rates will go down if the change in revenues from the

program is greater than the change in utility costs. Conversely, rates or bills will go

up if revenues collected after program implementation is less than the total costs

incurred by the utility in implementing the program. This test indicates the direction

and magnitude of the expected change in customer bills or rate levels.

A common misperception is that there is a single best perspective for evaluation of

cost-effectiveness. Each test is useful and accurate, but the results of each test are

intended to answer a different set of questions. The questions to be addressed by

each cost test are shown in the table below.24

24 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/suca/cost-effectiveness.pdf


225

Table A-2 Questions Addressed by the Various Cost Tests

Cost Test Questions Addressed

Participant Cost Test (PCT)

Is it worth it to the customer to install energy efficiency?

Is it likely that the customer wants to participate in a utility program that promotes energy efficiency?

Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM)

What is the impact of the energy efficiency project on the utility’s operating margin?

Would the project require an increase in rates to reach the same operating margin?

Utility Cost Test (UCT)

Do total utility costs increase or decrease?

What is the change in total customer bills required to keep the utility whole?

Total Resource Cost Test (TRC)

What is the regional benefit of the energy efficiency project (including the net costs and benefits to the utility and its customers)?

Are all of the benefits greater than all of the costs (regardless of who pays the costs and who receives the benefits)?

Is more or less money required by the region to pay for energy needs?

Societal Cost Test (SCT)

What is the overall benefit to the community of including indirect benefits?

Are all of the benefits, including indirect benefits, greater than all of the costs (regardless of who pays the cost and who receives the benefits)?

Overall, the results of all five-cost-effectiveness tests provide a more comprehensive

picture than the use of any one test alone. The TRC and SCT cost address whether

energy efficiency is cost-effective overall. The PCT, UCT, and RIM address whether the

selection of measures and design of the program are balanced from the perspective of

the participants, utilities, and non-participants. The scope of the benefit and cost

components included in each test are summarized in the table below.25

25 Ibid.


226

Table A-3 Benefits and Costs Included in each Cost-Effectiveness Test

Test Benefits Costs PCT (Benefits and costs from the perspective of the customer installing the measure)

Incentive payments Incremental equipment costs

Bill Savings Incremental installation costs

Applicable tax credits or incentives

UCT (Perspective of utility, government agency, or third party implementing the program

Energy-related costs avoided by the utility

Program overhead costs

Capacity-related costs avoided by the utility, including generation, transmission, and distribution

Utility/program administrator incentive costs

TRC (Benefits and costs from the perspective of all utility customers in the utility service territory)




Program installation costs

Additional resource savings Incremental measure costs

Monetized non-energy benefits as outlined by the TRM version 6.0

SCT (Benefits and cost to all in the utility service territory, state, or nation as a whole).




Program installation costs

Non-energy benefits as outlined by the TRM version 6.0

Incremental measure costs

RIM (Impact of efficiency measure on non-participating ratepayers overall)




Lost revenue due to reduced energy bills

Utility/program administrator installation costs

A.3 Economic Inputs for Cost Effectiveness Analysis

The Evaluators used the avoided costs provided by OG&E for the cost benefit analysis.

The Evaluators also used the discount rates provided by OG&E to perform the cost

benefit analysis, and these values align with the rates used in the Plan.

The evaluated net energy savings (kWh) and demand reductions (kW) values utilized in

the cost benefit analysis include a line loss factor of 1.0859 for demand (kW) and

1.0776 for energy (kWh).

A.4 Results

The following tables outline the results for each test, for both the programs, and the

portfolio as a whole.


227

Table A-4 Cost-Effectiveness Results by Program


HEEP 3.37 3.34 0.63 8.65 4.95

PE-NHC 2.48 4.04 0.61 2.67 3.48

WRAP 2.83 2.83 0.83 3.77 4.30

CEEP 1.58 3.42 0.69 2.62 2.21

IVVC 0.52 0.52 0.47 1.11 0.73

Energy Education Res 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy Education C&I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Planning 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Regulatory 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

R&D 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 1.65 2.32 0.65 2.85 2.37

Table A-5 Cost-Effectiveness Benefits by Program

Program TRC Benefits UCT Benefits RIM Benefits PCT Benefits SCT Benefits

HEEP $33,472,206 $33,472,206 $33,472,206 $48,611,403 $49,152,386

PE-NHC $5,361,899 $5,361,899 $5,361,899 $4,787,137 $7,543,110

WRAP $13,121,522 $13,121,522 $13,121,522 $15,148,419 $19,893,298

CEEP $58,547,436 $58,547,436 $58,547,436 $73,905,988 $81,935,121

IVVC $9,158,029 $9,158,029 $9,158,029 $18,920,675 $12,803,008

Energy Education Res $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Energy Education C&I $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Planning $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Regulatory $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

R&D $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total $119,661,093 $119,661,093 $119,661,093 $161,373,623 $171,326,923

Table A-6 Cost-Effectiveness Costs by Program

Program TRC Costs UCT Costs RIM Costs PCT Costs SCT Costs

HEEP $9,930,992 $10,034,069 $53,409,728 $5,621,366 $9,930,992

PE-NHC $2,165,083 $1,328,464 $8,787,112 $1,792,959 $2,165,083

WRAP $4,631,340 $4,631,340 $15,879,406 $4,016,827 $4,631,340

CEEP $37,139,945 $17,112,624 $84,769,992 $28,227,525 $37,139,945

IVVC $17,533,999 $17,533,999 $19,445,568 $17,026,573 $17,533,999

Energy Education Res $354,215 $354,215 $354,215 $0 $354,215

Energy Education C&I $432,930 $432,930 $432,930 $0 $432,930

Planning $263 $263 $263 $0 $263


R&D $132,880 $132,880 $132,880 $0 $132,880

Total $72,321,648 $51,560,784 $183,212,094 $56,685,249 $72,321,648


228

Table A-7 Cost-Effectiveness Net Benefits by Program

Program TRC Net Benefits

UCT Net Benefits

RIM Net Benefits

PCT Net Benefits

SCT Net Benefits

HEEP $23,541,214 $23,438,137 -$19,937,522 $42,990,037 $43,531,020

PE-NHC $3,196,816 $4,033,435 -$3,425,212 $2,994,178 $5,750,151

WRAP $8,490,182 $8,490,182 -$2,757,884 $11,131,592 $15,876,471

CEEP $21,407,491 $41,434,813 -$26,222,556 $45,678,463 $53,707,596

IVVC -$8,375,970 -$8,375,970 -$10,287,539 $1,894,103 -$4,223,564

Energy Education Res -$354,215 -$354,215 -$354,215 $0 $0

Energy Education C&I -$432,930 -$432,930 -$432,930 $0 $0

Planning -$263 -$263 -$263 $0 $0


R&D -$132,880 -$132,880 -$132,880 $0 $0

Total $47,339,445 $68,100,309 -$63,551,001 $104,688,373 $114,641,673


229

Appendix B. CEEP Participant Survey Response Rate

Table B-1 presents response rate information for the OK CEEP participant telephone

survey fielded by Tetra Tech during January and February 2018. The final overall

response rate for this survey effort was 43 percent.

Table B-1 OK CEEP Participant Survey Response Rate

OGE OK Commercial Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) Study Response Rate

Large C&I

SBDI SAGE HVAC Tune-up

CEI Overall

Sample 235 26 54 249 7 571

Business/residential line 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not a utility customer 0 0 0 0 0 0

Affiliated with utility 0 0 0 0 0 0

Eligible sample 235 26 54 249 7 571

Does not recall participating 4 0 0 26 0 30

Refusal 6 0 0 11 0 17

Incompletes (partial surveys) 1 0 1 0 0 2

Language Barrier 0 0 0 2 0 2

Bad Number 1 2 2 3 0 8

Called out 0 0 0 0 0 0

Not completed 126 12 27 99 4 268

Completed 97 12 24 108 3 244

Response Rate

Response Rate (Completed / Eligible Sample)

41.3% 46.2% 44.4% 43.4% 42.9% 42.7%

Average Survey Length (min) 17 18.2 20 16.4 38.7 17.8

Average Number of Attempts* 7.0 5.0 2.0 6.1 3.3 5.7 *Average number of attempts on active sample. Calling started 1/18/18. Calling ended 2/2/18.


230

Appendix C. HEEP Participant Survey Response Rate

Table C-1 presents response rate information for the HEEP participant telephone

survey fielded by Tetra Tech to support the PY2016 evaluation efforts.

Table C-1 HEEP Participant Survey Response Rate

OG&E Oklahoma Home Energy Efficiency Program (HEEP) Study Response Rate

AC Replacement

and Tune Up Program

Home Energy Efficiency Program

Overall

Sample 245 323 568

Business line 0 0 0

Measure incorrect 3 3 6

Address incorrect 1 1 2

Eligible sample 241 319 560

Does not recall participating 13 8 21

Refusal 22 26 48

Incompletes (partial surveys) 10 22 32

Language Barrier 0 2 2

Bad Number 55 23 78

Called out 0 0 0

Not completed 69 139 208

Completed 72 99 171

Response Rate

Response Rate (Completed / Eligible Sample)

29.9% 31.0% 30.5%

Average Survey Length (min) 21.0 25.4 23.2

Average Number of Attempts* 6.7 4.4 5.2 *Average number of attempts on active sample.

Advance letters sent on 1/24/18.

Calling started 1/25/18.

Calling ended 2/5/18.

Documents

· 3 Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company Contents 1.0 Executive Summary