SALVAGING THE INTEGRITY OF THE RCS PROGRAM:THE SANTA MONICA ENERGY FITNESS PROGRAM

Ken EgelEnergy Fitness Program Manager

City of Santa Monica

ABSTRACT

The City of Santa Monica has embarked on a nationally-uniqueenergy conservation program -. known as the Santa Monica EnergyFitness Program - which is designed to improve the effectivenessof the Residential Conservation Service (RCS) Program by utiliz­ing a variety of innovative program delivery techniqueseSpecifically, the Energy Fitness Program offers energy conserva­tion services which differ from traditional ReS Program ap­proaches in four major ways:

10 Every Santa Monica resident is eligible to participatein the Program, regardless of the size or type of build­ing in which they live and regardless of whether theyown or rent;

2$ The home energy audits are delivered thr-~---.......--------------~~----~-"""'!'"door canvass of neighborhoo s, ra r

through extensive, and often costly,advertising;

3$ Residents are provided cost, savings, and payback infor­mation during the energy audit which has been pre­calcula for "generic" building types in ants Monica,rather than haVing extensive computer evaluations per­formed for each ind idual residence; and

per discusses the reasons for which new approaches tothe ReS Program were necessitated, how the Santa Moni-di rs from ma tr itional approaches, ocess

to being the Energy Fitness Program from concept to fru­ocedures used in delivering the Program to the resi-

ta Monica, a the results from the first four weeksoperations@

Prel inary resul ts indicate that the innovations in ReSP ram del ery methods a benefits utilized by the Santa Moni­ca Energy Fitness Program are successful in increasing the ratesof customer participat particularly among typically dif-fic reach custolners, such as senior citizens, low-income

u Ids, and owners and renters of multifamily housing. More-over, it is concluded that the expansion and transfer of theseinnovat e methods to other communities, with ificationsgear to appropriately local ize the methods, may be the mostef ctive means to achieve the participation rates and energysavi s rich the designers of t R Program originallyho

KEN EGEL

SALVAGING THE INTEGRITY OF THE Res PROGRAM:THE SANTA MONICA ENERGY FITNESS PROGRAM

Ken EgelEnergy Fitness Program Manager

City of Santa Monica

INTRODUCTION

The City of Santa Monica has embarked on a nationally-uniqueenergy conservation program .- known as the Santa Monica EnergyFitness Program - which is designed to improve the effectivenessof the Residential Conservation Service (ReS) Program by utiliz­ing a variety of innovative program delivery techniques9 Thepresent paper discusses five major questions concerning the Ener­gy Fitness Program:

Ie Why was a new approach to the ReS Program necessary?

II~ How does the Santa Monica approach differ from tradtional approaches?

III @ What was the ocess required to bring the programfrom concept to uit

IV @ What are the logistics of delivering the program tocommuni

V@ To t extent has the program been successful duringits first ee months of operation?

E MONICA ENERGY FITNESS PROGRAM NECESSARY?

National ergy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) of 1978a n io ener conservation program designed Uto

in allation of energy conservation and renewableresource measures in exi homes of customers of large gas andelectric ilities~n The program, known as the Residential Con­servatiGn Serv ice (ReS) Progr am, began in Cal i fornia in 1981a er rnia Energy Commission's plan for administeringa Res Program was approved and accepted by theU@Se of EnergYe

Ii nia ReS State Plan gave new responsibilities tot major investor-owned and municipal utility companies (as wellas a number of utilities which volunteered to participate in theReS Program), requiring them to provide energy conservation ser­vices to their customers as well as natural gas and/or electrici­t e Since 1981, these services have been traditionally manifes­t in the form of home energy audits$

KEN EGEL

Although based on sound economic, environmental, and publicpolicy principles, the Residential Conservation Service Programhas not performed as well as its designers on either federal orstate levels anticipated or hopede Most utilities generally havebeen unable to reach enough or the most needy of their customerswith their energy conservation services and, traditionally, thosecustomers reached saved little energy_ The standard rate of pen­etration in the U@S. has been 3-5% and it has been estimated thatonly one of seven participating customers actually installed anyof the energy conservation or renewable resource measures whichwere recommended dur ing the home energy aud it and, of cour se,which were the basis for the existence of the RCS Program*

Moreover, each home energy audit cost more than the Califor­nia Energy Commission or the California Public Utilities Commis­sion anticipated e According to the CPUC, the average cost peraud it in 1981 for the Southern Cal i forn ia Gas and Southern Cal­ifornia Edison companies, whose service territories include SantaMonica, was $433e After amortizing start~up costs and improvingthe efficiency of delivering the home energy audits, the utilitycOlDpanies were able (and often required to) lower their costs ~

Between 1981 and 1984, the Southern Cal i rnia Gas a Ed isoncompanies completed 249,895 its at a cost of $36,197,062 ran average cost of $149 per audit@ Since proportion of par-tici s who took action as a result of an He audit was, assta above, quite low and traditional ReS audit did notincl e the provision of any energy saving devices, the cost ofan effect audit was much, much higher$

There were other factors of ticular importance in Santalea which made the operation 0 the S Program even less etive, and sometimes inap iate inequi table $ Al though

all utility customers paid for the ReS Program, not all of themwere eligible to benefit from its services@ For instance, rent-ers 1 ed in i ings of f e or more units were ineligible@

is esen a ob m in ta Monica because 78% of itscitizens are renters a 65% of all City's residences are inbuildi f e or more units~

reover, 16%citizens~ Bo senagencies ilityhave s cial enerener conservationis rily rtion thatestabli @)

of Santa Monica's residents are seniorrs a ren rs are recognized by most statec anies as bei "tar t ation,conservat n needs and for whom traditional

a oa s do not work as well@ (I e , itressing ne s of ese "target po 3=-

Nation Ener Extension Service was

In fall of 1981, as a consequence of these tors, tCity of Santa Monica 0 sed to the Southern California Gas a

rn California son companies assume res nsibility ration of the RCS Program wi thin t Santa Monica Ci ty

H-164

KEN EGEL

limits and to use a variety of innovative program delivery tech­niques which would more appropriately address the energy conser­vation needs of the residents of Santa Monica. If proven suc­cessful , it was proposed, the Santa Mon ica approach could betransferred to other cities and utility company service ter­ritories which were similarly affected by the deficiences oftraditional ReS Program delivery techniques~

lIe HOW DOES THE SANTA MONICA ENERGY FITNESS PROGRAM DIFFER FROMTRADITIONAL ReS APPROACHES?

The Santa Monica Energy Fitness Program is the manifestationof one of the first contracts in the Uni ted states between amajor utility company and a local government under which the lo­cal government assumes complete responsibility for the ReS Pro­gram as it is conducted within its city or county limits@ SantaMonica is a community of 88,000 which has relatively mild weather(having average annual temperatures between 59 degrees F9 and 72degrees F * ) e Average residential energy use in the region isapproximately 5100 kwh and 670 therms, a great deal of which isdevoted to water heating$

In order more effect ely address the energy conservationne s of Santa Monica residents, the Energy Fitness Program of­

rs energy conservation services which differ from traditionalReS ogram approaches in four major ways:

19 Every Santa Monica resident is eligible to participatefn the program, regardless of the number of dwellingunits in the building in which they live and regard­less of whether they own or rent;

2~ home energy audits are delivered through a door-door canvass of Santa Monica neighborhoods, rather

than sol ic i ted through extensive, and often costomotion ertisi

3~ sidents are id cost, savings, and payback in~

formation during the energy audit which has been pre­calculated for "generic" types in Santa Monica, ratherthan having extensive computer evaluations performed

r e individual residence; and

4 @ program's energy auditors provide and install,ee of charge and at the _~!me of the audit! up to

three of the following types of energy saving devices:water heater insulation jackets, pipe insulation, en­ergy efficient showerheads, energy efficient faucetaerators, and door sweep weatherstripping@

These program delivery techniques are specifically designedto increase part ic ipat ion rates 0 f res idents in the progr am byloosening eligibility requirements and offering the program door-

H-163

KEN EGEL

to-door; greatly shorten the length of the audit without signifi­cantly reducing the quality of the recomlnendations provided byusing "generic" costs, savings and payback information; and im­prove energy savings and cost-effectiveness of the program byactually installing energy saving devices at the time of theaudit~

III@ WHAT WAS THE PROCESS REQUIRED TO BRING THE PROGRAM FROM CON­CEPT TO FRUITION?

Since the Santa Monica Energy Fitness Program represented amajor diversion from traditional RCS Program approaches and wasdependent on the Southern California Gas and Edison companiessharing, and in SOlne ways, relinquishing traditional areas ofresponsibilities, the process required to bring the Energy Fit­ness Program from an idea to a real i ty was a long and oftentedious one~ Indeed, it took more than a year for the City tonegotiate a contract wi th the util i ty companies and the sameamount of time for the governing State agencies to approve thatnegotiated agreement~

The agreement between the City and the Southern CaliforniaGas a Edison companies for the City to assume primary ressibilities for operating the RCS Program within the Santa MonicaCi ty 1 its, as mentioned eviously, represented one of thefirst such agreements in the nationi& The agreement established

n und rules" for the operation of the program@ MoreS oi ically, the contract:

1~ Made operation of the Santa Monica ReS Program contin­gent on approvals from the California Energy Commis­sion and the California P lic utilities Commission;

2@ E abli ed the guidelines er which the City couldcomplete and re sed for the completion of ener-gy a its a all ions in ta nicares ences;

3 ~ Established an ReS Management Commi ttee composed ofre esentat es from the utilities and the City toreso e operational issues as they arose and approveall licity materials ior to public distribution;

00 con icts wi thinnt Commit e co d rmally resolv

avenues were not successful; andif

5~ Est Ii a set of min performance criteria (interms of aud its to be cOlnpleted and e ipment to beinstall ) which City was r u to meet, oncethe program was operational, r ogram tocontinue0

KEN EGEL

Negotiations between the City and the two utility companiesbegan in October of 1981 and the resulting "Residential Conserva­tion Services Reimbursement Agreement" was signed on November 29,1982. (For more information on the negotiation process and is­sues of concern between the City and the two utility companies,please see nImproving Equity and Cost-Effectiveness Under the ReSProgram" by Peggy Gardels from ACEEE's 1982 Community and LocalGovernment Programs Panel or request a copy from (213) 458-8301&)

California Energy Commission Approval

The CEe held public hearings in Santa Monica on January 4and 5, 1983, to receive public comment and testimony on four is­sues which had been generated during a prehearing conference heldthe month before:

1@ Did the Santa Monica ReS Program comply with Chapter14 of the California RCS State Plan which prohibitedunfair competition or a "substantia adverse effect oncompetition" as a result of the RCS Program?

2 @ Did the installation of energy conservation measuresat no charge during an energy audit as contemplated bythe Program have an ant competitive effect on a rele­vant rna t?

3& Was there a clearly articulated, important publicinterest served by the Program which outweighed anyant competit e effects found to be caused by theinstallation of energy conservation measures at nocharge ing an energy audit as contemplated by theProgram?

4* uld the CEe and CPUC actively monitor and superviseProgram's progress?

st ny a comments were received from a great variety ofsources, incl ing the City, utility companies, local hard­ware s es, community groups, a operty owners association, and

amber of Commerce0

June 29, 1983, the CEe issued its decision concerningse issues@ It determined that:

1 e Santa Monica ReS Program complied with all theovisions of Chapter 14 of the ReS state Plan, par­

ticularly because Santa Monica had agreed to contractout virtually all work related to the implementationof the Santa Monica ReS Program, rather than create anew City department or bureauracy* Furthermore, theCity agreed that the subcontractor hired to completethe audits and installations would be a qualified and1 icensed Cal i fornia contr ac tor, subcontractor s would

H-167

KEN EGEL

be hired through the competitive procedures the Citywas required by code to use when contracting for pro­fess ional serv ices, and that the energy conserv at ionequipment to be used in the program would be purchasedthrough competitive bidding procedures.

2@ Due to the factors detailed above, the anti­competitive effects the program may have had on sup­pliers or installers of energy conservation devices inSanta Monica were "rni tigated by various direct andindirect business stimuli contained in the Program".

3e Any remaining anti-competitive effects resulting fromthe Program were reasonable and no less anti­competitive alternative to the program was likely toachieve the same level of penetration into the com­munity as anticipated from the Santa Monica approach@

4@ It was the policy of the state, as articulated in theCalifornia ReS State Plan and previous CPUC decisions,to "support the aggressive pursuit of energy conserva­tion programs involving both the utilities and localgovernment", particularly if the local governmentwould be more proficient at reaching "target" groups,such as renters and seniors e

5~ The CEC would actively monitor and supervise theprogress of the Santa Monica Program&

California tilities Comm

ior to the CEe's hearing in Santa Monica, the CaliforniaPublic utilities Commission agreed to have staff attend the hear­ing in lieu of holding a separate set of hearings@

On November 22, 1983, the CPUC issued a decision in which ita CEe' s ev u ion of four maj or issues con­cerning the Santa Monica RCS Program, stating, I1The anti­competit e effects, if any, of the Santa Monica program shouldbe slight compar to the public policy objectives advanced bythe progr and directed CPUC staff to "actively monitor the

ogr as well~

On December 27, 1983 - two years and two months after theposed the idea to the Southern California Gas and Edison

ies - the two utility companies informed the City, as re-ired in the RCS Agreement, that they accepted the CEe' sand

CPUC's approval s as compl ete and, furthermore, that they con­sidered the ReS Agreement with the City to be immediatelyeffective@

KEN EGEL

IV $ WHAT ARE THE LOGISTICS OF DELIVERING THE PROGRAM TO THECOMMUNITY?

Contracts irms

Through a written proposal bid process, the City contractedwith three private firms to respectively operate, publicize, andevaluate the Santa Monica RCS Program, which soon become known asthe Santa Monica Energy Fitness Program. Contracts with thethree firms were approved by City Council and signed by March 10,1984$

During the next eight weeks, organizational efforts by theCity proceeded in the same three areas@ DMC Energy, Inc. was thefirm hired to be responsible for the in-the-field operation ofthe program. During the start-up period and under the guidanceof the Ci t y, DMC Energy, Inc., establ ished program offices inSanta Monica; hired and trained 28 people as CEe-certified ReSaud i tor s; procured uni forms, photo ID badges and three 6 pas­senger vans in order to outfit and transport the auditors; es­tablished audit production goals and quotas; defined quality con­trol and inventory maintenance procedures; and satisfied count­less other logistical requirements@

Da line Communications was responsible for coo inating thelici aspects of the program 0 At a most hectic pace within

the star up period, Dateline designed a program logo; designedproduced a number of bilingual publicity materials such as a

ogram announcement, doorhanger announcement, and guidebookscontaining information regarding cost-effective conservation mea­sures; uni, photo ID badge, and van insignias; coor-dinated program efforts th community and civic organizations;prepared a 30 inute cable television presentation on the pro­gram; wrote ess releases and public service announcements; andcoordinated television coverage of the first demonstration audita install ion0

Unl many other municipal energy conservation programs,Santa Monica Energy Fitness Program also began its evaluation

t two months before del ering services to the community.a1 Policy Analysts, Inc@, (NPA) was hired by the Ci ty to

a S :3 i DMe ergy , Inc ., i n t ail 0 r ing the del i ver y 0 f programservices an experimental design whereby the program could besubs tly evaluated on statistically-sound bases. Al thoughsome of the details of the experimental design are discussed in

next section, the basic design entailed the establishment ofstati ically representative test and control groups whose energyconserving actions (as measured through utility bill analyses)and attitudes (as measured through interviews) could be monitoredover the course of the twelve-month program@ In addition, NPAestablished a computerized data base management system to monitoraudits as they were performed; developed a form for informationto be collected and recorded dur i ng the aud it; and compl eted a

H-1E.9

KEN EGEL

benchmark survey of 1 ,000 Santa Monica residents to achieve abaseline understanding of energy conservation awareness, prac­tices, and attitudes in Santa Monica.

Logistics of Serving the Community

The preparatory activities of the City and these three firmsmesh as follows in a profile of program operations:

1& The City has been divided into six statistically dis­tinct geographic areas according to a variety ofhousehold, economic, and ethnic characteristics, (suchas housing values, distribution of owners versus rent­ers, concentrations of Black and Hispanic populations)as determined by the 1980 United states Census blockdatae

2@ From each area, a sample of street blocks was statis­tically selected and then clustered together@ Asecond sample of street blocks was drawn from eacharea and clustered together and third and so on untilten clusters of 4400 households were selected, cover­ing every household in Santa Monica. Again, eachcluster includes street blocks om all parts of theCity, drawn proportionately on the basis of the Censusindicators~ These clusters are also called "repli­cate because each is statistically equivalent to thenext and, in fact, represents a "microcosm" of allSanta Monica households~ (Indeed, the audit penetra­tion rate and energy saving resul ts from the firstreplicate should, theoretically, allow relatively ac­curate projections of penetration rates and savingsfrom the whole City@) See Diagram 1 for an illustra­tion of the six statistically distinct geographicareas in Santa Monica and eet blocks which comprise

first r icate~

3 0 arting wi th the street blocks in Repl icate 1, aroute by whi aud i t/ installations would be offeredwas selected@ The City estimated that it would com­plete apprOXimately 175-225 audit/installations perweek (the program's 1 year goal is 11,760 audits) and

the penetration rate (traditionally 3-5% inutility company ReS audit programs) would be 40-60%0

4 * am materials are mailed to residents of the se-lected audit route which describe the program and an­nounce the imminent arrival of the Energy Fitness Pro­gram Teams in the subsequent two to four weekse

5 ~ ApprOXimately one week before the plann arrival ofthe Energy Fitness Program Teams, doorhanger announce­ments are distributed throughout the audit route which

e

6

3

4

2

~ZtrJC')trJt-I

STREET INDEX

"On.AU. DIt.__ A-GAO€LAtDl .....__ Ii-lAA.TA IN£. HAI'PIAH WAY__ HARIZONA 1Nf..__ C..ASHl...lttOAW __ NaAMfAItO WAY __ £4eAY ST. ,.8!ACH ST. roGHNTLEY CT. __ ".SUltlCELrYST· __ C-'HVrRL£V AYr.. __ 1-1fhCKNELL ml..__ 1t04IftENTWOOOTEIl __ A-4IrII'lOADWAY O-GMY,. MIlWR AVE. __ 1"""CAUFORNIA AYE._ C"CARLYL( AYE 8...CIEOAIt 8T. r...Cf:NTINIELA 1INf...__ t-,CHELSEA AYE __ C-2CHELSEA II\.. __ C-2CLOYUI'lI!LD kYO. _ r·mcotCftADOAVf!.__ HDf:L.AWAR£ AYE. __ 005DEWEY ST. ,.-1iIDOftCHIeTP AV£._ IE-,l£SJIlAlnAWA't__ A-4EUCIJD IT. 1M

ElCfl'OSl1'IONlh.VD._C·'P'GIlfTAiLDIl Hl'lt4Nl( ST. EoaFRANKLIN ST,__ C'IFR4SER AVI.__ INIfl'ftlOPICIC ST. __ MQALf 11'1. A-IOEORO'N4 A'it.__44G\.ENN AYE. ,"'"OOt..D8MITH ST. __ I'·SEItMOm' ..L. __ ....GRANT IT - __1:.5HART AYE. £1\HARVARD IT.__I-aHlGtfPL e'2HIGHLAND AVE. __ E-'HILL ST --__E-eHOL.LISl'iR AVE ._l'!-'IOAHO MIE. B4lCAHSAS AYlit. __ I-ZKlI!JIliSINOTClN iltD.__E-oICINICY ST. "-GLA M£SA ... kiLAMESA WA"__",.,l..AItt(INPL. HI.IHC01.H kVO. __ liMUNOA LN. F4LII"TOH IINf. c-lL..OHGnu..owST.__F-SMAtN 1T. f:-eMAl'UST. It"'"MAR8U£IVTA AI/! _III~MAItINE ST. HMICHIGAN AVE. __D-iMILLS ST. £4MONTANA AVE.__ HMOSS AYE. HNAVY IT ,-sH£MASKA __. _ Do.HflLSON WAY __KNORMAN PL. a:4OAI( ST. 1:-4OCEAN AVE. ,"GeE"" PAJIllClaL.VO._E-5OLYMl"IC IL.VQ __ 006OZONE ST HIl'AQf'1CCOAITHWY'._Hi"AC11"lC ST. E-4J"AQFlCTER. HFlWSADa All!:. __"MLMCT. D-S

=-t~====::~U'MflA __D-aPICO ..VO. E";l"IfR AVE. F.PlNEST_. r...l"'fItNCITCHIT._eoZ~ADr 14PlIIOINCT 1NL__,..eRA"""*O AVE.__N;ROISOfiAYE. __ f"004IllU8KiNST. "SANTA IIIIONICA IIILVO. _ C4SAN YICSn'E "VI>._kGlICHAClERClR. __H"'TEft.__ 04STANf'ORO ST. __1-,ITI!JftPIoW. __,,04S1'I1l!MT I-iSTlWilD S't i ..IVaI:T /11II. H...."..., - __ HUIlUN AYE.-__ E-a\'ICG8TEftR. __ HYt!IIIINfUA IIW. __ E~

WMlCWOm'N IIlIV. __.4WARWICK MII:. __ INWAiIl~AW._C4

-~IIILVO._I'"wu.aLE"DIl__ f'-4WM.JNIIIt!IlUtO. __ e>e11IIUIlC*flL. ....~f'&.. .w

=~:.i~fINf..__ I£-l

:::==::t::4TN8T. C..STHIrt e.,

~~~===t:~eTH8T. c-e'OTN S't..--c-sIITH8T.__ H12TH ST__H14 TN S't__/i0415TH BT__H'8TNS'E__HU'TMft__H'6TH ft__••'lIiTNST.__I-.IOTMst__HtilT IT.__A••lt2Qft__A-.1!

=:::===:125'" 1t__ Aotte11tft__A-aUTHIt__i-eleTH ft__I-a!"TNft__I~

10TH ft__ i-.al81' It__a-,••Qft__I-,$1 RO 1T.__lE-'14TH eT.__I-'

FE

XXXXXX Street Blocks in Replicate 1

D

D

AREA 3WILSHIRE

c

= Statistical Area Boundaries

B

DIAGRAM 1

__------....AREA-f--.--.--.-....-__\'Q~~EA 3d" _~.. . __

o•••-ae.-o••

O

....----.

eo

-. ltlILSHIRE SANTA-..MQNIJ ~_.-----···_········-······_-- ...--..AllEA 5 WAY ~rIll! •••-.......... I"' OCEAN PARi'\···..·-- _ ~

a c i c ~ c e a.DSANTA MONICA'S STATISTICAL AREAS AND STREETS OF REPLICATE 1

,tlCALC III IlILES

A

t>

C][TYSANTA

CALlIFORNJIA

o Vi 8M IJt Ja

f.......~.......

2

e

5

4

s

KEN EGEL

indicate precisely what day the Teams will be on eachstreet. Hours of operation include both evenings andweekends e Consequently all residences receive atleast two notifications prior to auditors' visit;there are never any "cold call n visits~

6 • On the date ind ieated on the doorhanger, the teamsarrive on the street in clearly marked vans, wearingEnergy Fitness Program uniforms, and displaying photoidentification badges. One person, known as the "can­vasser" walks door-to-door, answering any questionsresidents might have about the program and lining upaudit/installations~ As audits are lined up, the can­vasser calls the field supervisor via walkie-talkie todetermine what audit team (consisting of one man andone woman aud i tor) is free and is to be ass igned tothe next audit. (If the resident is not home at thetime of the canvass, another doorhanger is left whichindicates the date on which the neighborhood will bere-canvassed@)

7@ The field supervisor assigns the appropriate team, whothen go to the residence to complete aud it andinstallation. Generally speaking, one team memberassumes the role of auditor/interviewer and the otherfocuses on the installation~ The auditor/intervieweris responsible for completing the program's "CustomerRelease Form" (on which the resident agrees to theaudit/installation and states that he/she has not pre­v iously receiv a ut i 1 i ty company ReS aud it), the"Audit Form" (on which the auditor records demographicdata concerning the household, the residence's utilityaccount numbers, and the types of energy savingdevices installed ring the audit), and the "HomeEne Checklis (on which she records recommenda-tions r co ef ct e measures such as atticinsulation or nace modifications determined ap-propriate during a walkthrough audit)@ The installeris responsible for completing the installation of theenergy saving devices e Participants can receive water

ater insulation jackets, pipe insulation, and energyefficient showerheads for all showers G If one or moreof these devices is already in place, infeasible toinstall, or unwanted by the partie ipant, thendoorsweep weatherstripping and faucet aerators can besubstituted~

8* Five minutes before the completion of the audit!installation, the field supervisor assigns one of thetwo inspectors (also called "crew chiefs U ) to performa quality control check and installation inspection@At the end of the audit, the resident is left with a

H-112

KEN EGEL

guidebook which describes the costs, savings, and pay­back of the recommended measures (the guidebook pro­vided depends on the type of residence) and a seriesof handouts which contain specific information con­cerning tax c red i ts, ut i1 i ty company financ ing pro­grams, tips on getting a contractor to complete energyconserving work, warranties on the energy savingdevices installed as part of the audit, and a customersatisfaction card.

9. The crew chief checks the customer release, audit, andchecklist forms for completeness and accuracy aftereach audit is finished. During the following day, theaudit form data is entered into the program's com­puterized data base.

10@ During the following week, each street is re-canvassedto try to reach residences at which no one was homeduring the first canvass@

11$ Every two to four weeks, reports are generated whichsummarize the data base and invoice the Southern Cal­i rnia Edison and Southern California Gas companiesfor both the audits and installations. The utilitycompanies pay $45 each for every audit which is com­pleted and reimburse the City for equipment installedaccording to a rebate schedule which differs accordingto the type of device installed and the type of build­ing in which the device was installed @ This figurewas calculated by the City as its anticipated cost peraudit@ To date, the City's costs have proven somewhatlower than anticipated$

TOFI

ENT HAS THE PROGRAM BEEN SUCCESSFUL DURING ITSE MONTHS OF OPERATION?

t of ACEEE con ence in August 1984, the En-ery Fitness Program will have been in operation for nearly threemonths and this paper 11 be supplemented at that time with are t of the program's first quarter results*

Data is available at the writing of this paper, however, forfirst four weeks of program operations@ This preliminary

d a 11 be reported in this section@

495 audit/installations were completed during the firstmo of operations @ Exclud ing those residences which had al­ready received ReS services from the local utility companies,this represents a 31% penetration rate. 249 households (16%)refused the service and the residents were not at home duringeither of the two canvass visits in 825 homes (53$)@

KEN EGEL

31% of those who accepted the audit live in single familydwellings; 69% live in multifamily dwellings. It is anticipatedthat this distribution will increase in the direction of multi­family dwellings, as the aud it teams began in areas which con­tained proportionally more single family residences than is typi­cal in Santa Monicao

Senior citizen residences comprised 23% of the auditedhouseholds, as compared to U@ S. Census statistics which indicatethat only 16% of Santa Monica citizens are seniors& This over­representation of seniors can be explained primarily becauseseniors are more likely to be home than non-seniors when the au­dit teams arrive e

14% of audit participants were of Hispanic origin, 83% wereCaucasian, and 3% were Asian or Black@

The Program's penetration in low-income neighborhoods wasalso higher than expected@ 25% of the audited residences qualifyas low-income households@

16% of the participating residents were renters and 24% wereowners@ This compares well with Census statistics which ind atethat 78% f ta Monica res ents are renters th the balancebei owners*

93% of residences had at least one type of energy savingdevice installed during the audit@ The most commonly installedde.vices were energy ef cient showerheads and faucet aerators(each of which were installed in 51$ of the households)@ Water

pi insulation was the least common installed device,rily because it been eviously in aIled by res

dent or technically infeasible to install. Only 17$ of theus Ids received pi in ation ri the audit~

lic reaction to am during the first month wasly sit e@ date, 195 customer satis ction s

have rece ed 0 93% of the cards rated the Program at8 out of a possible 10 points -- 74% rated the program at 10 @ Some comments from participants include n A great

idea a min of fuss anks to your courteous and neat teamservic our townhome ; "It's so great I'm recommending and

g i your number to (the per son) who own s the bu i Id ing nex tdoor -- t 11 be home from vacation in a week and has 10 uni ts";a n is is an absolutely inspired program and your workersdeserve s cial credit for their attentiveness"@

e particularly successful element of the Energy Fi tnessam's field operation has been the coordination between the

licity materials and it schedule - residents clearly recog-nize the program's field staff and know what the program offers

en they arrive@ A second element of the field operation whichhas added to operating smoothness has been the use of walkie-

H-114

KEN EGEL

talkies@ Communication betweencrew chiefs is critical andinvaluable.

thethe

canvassers, auditors,walkie-talkies have

andbeen

The major operating problem for the Energy Fitness Programhas been reaching enough people at home at the times during whichthe program is offered. Although the service is offered duringboth evenings and weekends, a larger-than-anticipated percentageof Santa Monica residents, known to be highly mobile, are nothome either time the energy audit teams arrive e Additional staffare being hired for part-time work, particul arly for weekdaysbetween 4-8pm, the time at which the audit acceptance rate tendsto be the highest. Three other methods are currently being test­ed which are also hoped to increase the penetration rate. First,a third canvass is being completed in selected neighborhoods todetermine its cost-effectiveness and may be done routinely ifsuccessful@ Second, program staff are attempting, with the use ofreverse telephone directories, to set up convenient audit timeswith many residents who were not at home during the two canvass­eS$ Finally, focused efforts with owners of large rental housingproperties on the targetted streets are being expanded to effciently complete audits and installations on the individual unitsas well as central water heating facilities$

VI$ CONCLUSION

Although the Santa Monica Energy Fitness Program is still inits infancy, preliminary results indicate that the integrity of

.the ReS Program, dely considered as a good idea wi th disap-pointi re ts, may be salvagablee The use of innovative tech­niques, particularly a door-to-door canvass and the provision ofenergy saving devices, provides utility customers easier accessto program services and increases their motivation to participateby improving direct benefits of the program$ Innovations in

am del ery methods and bene ts seem to have especialadvantageous res ts typically di cul to-reach cus~

tamers, such as sen r citizens, low-income households, andowners ren s of multi ily housing*

Moreover, expansion and transfer of these methods too communities, th modifications geared to appropriatelylac ize methods, may be the most effective means to achievethe participation rates and energy savings for which the design­ers of t ReS ogram originally hoped$