CenterPoint Energy Arkansas Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio Annual Report 2016 Program Year

Transcription

1 CenterPoint Energy Arkansas Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio Annual Report 2016 Program Year Filed: May 1, 2017

2 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Contents 1.0 Executive Summary Portfolio Programs Saving Homes Weatherization Program Energy Efficiency Arkansas Home Energy Affordability Loan Program Partnership Residential Home Energy Reports Program Low Flow Showerhead and Faucet Aerator Program Space Heating Program Water Heating Program Commercial Boiler Program Commercial Food Service Program Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Solutions Program Supplemental Requirements Staffing Stakeholder Activities Information Provided to Consumers to Promote EE

3 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF 1.0 Executive Summary On March 14, 2011, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. d/b/a CenterPoint Energy Arkansas Gas ( CenterPoint Energy or the Company ) requested approval from the Arkansas Public Service Commission ( APSC or the Commission ) of a new comprehensive portfolio of conservation improvement programs (CIP) for implementation starting on July 1, The APSC approved the program portfolio on June 30, 2011 and subsequently extended that portfolio in various orders. In October of 2014, the Company received approval to shift a total of $750,000 from the Water Heating Program and the Arkansas Weatherization Program budgets to the Home Energy Reports and Low-Flow Showerhead and Faucet Aerator Program. 1 In August of 2015, CenterPoint Arkansas received approval to replace the Arkansas Weatherization Program with the Saving Homes Weatherization Program for the 2016 program year. 2 CenterPoint Arkansas s 2016 CIP Portfolio consisted of the following ten programs: Saving Homes Weatherization Program Energy Efficiency Arkansas Home Energy Affordability Loan (HEAL) Program Home Energy Reports Low Flow Showerhead and Faucet Aerator Program Space Heating Program Water Heating Program Commercial Boiler Program Commercial Food Service Program Commercial & Industrial Solutions Program In 2016, CenterPoint Arkansas continued to deliver a comprehensive and cost-effective portfolio of energy efficiency programs. Overall net energy savings increased slightly from 2015, and the CIP portfolio reached 94% of its planned therm savings goal and 1 Order No. 73 in Docket No TF. 2 Order No. 81 in Docket No TF. 3

4 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF 100% of the Commission-mandated therm savings goal. 3 The Commission-mandated goal for the 2016 program year was 0.5% of the 2014 annual energy sales volume of eligible Arkansas customers. In 2016, more than 109,000 program participants produced 2,963,465 therms in annual energy savings, which represents more than $20.1 million in net benefits to Arkansas ratepayers. CenterPoint Arkansas Conservation Improvement Programs Planned Energy Savings (Therms) Achieved Energy Savings (Therms) 3,161,340 2,963,465 94% Program Portfolio Budget 2016 Summary Program Portfolio Expenditure $7,272,765 $6,977,923 96% % % The Space Heating and Water Heating Programs continued to post strong participation numbers and energy savings as customers utilized available rebates for the installation of high-efficiency natural gas space heating and water heating equipment. In 2016, these programs combined for a total net energy savings of 436,436 therms. The Commercial and Industrial Solutions Program yielded the highest energy savings in the Company s 2016 CIP Portfolio, achieving evaluated savings of 1,273,739 therms and posting a Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) ratio of The Home Energy Reports Program was also a major contributor to the portfolio s energy savings, generating net energy savings of 828,576 therms. In 2016, the Low-Flow Showerhead and Faucet Aerator Program saw a decrease in participation and energy savings from 2015 results. However, the program still produced net energy savings of 147,948, and was CenterPoint Arkansas s most costeffective program with a Total Resource Cost Test score of The newly implemented Saving Homes Weatherization Program was a major success in 2016, exceeding projections for participation and energy savings. This program delivered net energy savings of 142,741 therms, exceeding its goal by 163%. Positive results were also 3 Planned savings are the estimated savings set forth in the Company s adjusted portfolio filing approved on October 29, 2014 per Order No. 73 in Docket No TF. These savings are higher than the mandated savings goal set forth by the Commission. 4

5 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF seen in the 2016 Commercial Boiler and Commercial Food Service Programs. While participation and energy savings for these programs decreased slightly from 2015 to 2016, both programs performed better than historical results posted for program years , and each generated positive net economic benefits. The Company s Evaluation Measurement & Verification (EM&V) Consultant, ADM Associates, Inc. (ADM) continued to evaluate the programs in The 2016 EM&V Report from ADM can be found in Appendix A of this report. In 2016, CenterPoint Arkansas continued to focus on educating its customers and trade allies on the benefits of energy efficiency. The Company promotes its CIP programs through a variety of channels including its website, communication, bill inserts, radio, television and print advertising, case studies, as well as community and industry events. Developing and maintaining a robust network of trade allies is critical to the success of the Company s rebate programs. The CenterPoint Arkansas CIP Staff engages with these trade allies through events such as the Rebate Scoop Meetings (held in four Arkansas locations) where industry professionals are educated on the Company s CIP Portfolio. The Company remains committed to delivering a comprehensive energy efficiency portfolio that provides value to customers and generates cost-effective energy savings. The insights gained from will support continued growth and program improvement, and CenterPoint Arkansas looks forward to delivering a strong CIP Portfolio in 2017 and beyond Portfolio Summary Net Energy Savings Cost Cost-Benefits Demand Therms Energy Therms Actual Expenses LCFC Performance Incentives TRC Net Benefits TRC Ratio 111,992 2,963,465 $ 6,977,923 $ 990,313 $509,094 $ 20,176,

6 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF EE Portfolio Cost by Program 2016 % of Budget Actual Budget Program Name Target Sector Program Type ($) ($) Home Energy Affordability Loan Program Residential Whole Home 139,058-0% Home Energy Reports Residential Behavior/Education 861, , % Low Flow Showerhead and Faucet Aerator Residential Prescriptive/Standard Offer 373, ,572 80% Saving Homes Weatherization Program Residential Market Specific/Hard to Reach 598, , % Commercial and Industrial Solutions Commercial & Industrial Custom 1,990,104 1,989, % Commercial Boiler Commercial & Industrial Prescriptive/Standard Offer 232, , % Commercial Food Service Commercial & Industrial Prescriptive/Standard Offer 208, ,893 79% Space Heating All Classes Prescriptive/Standard Offer 1,714,207 1,714, % Water Heating All Classes Prescriptive/Standard Offer 996, , % Energy Efficiency Arkansas (EEA) All Classes Behavior/Education 157, ,601 77% Total 7,272,765 6,977,923 96% EE Portfolio Summary by Cost Type EE Program Cost Summary 2016 Total Cost % of Budget Actual % of Cost Type Total ($) ($) Total Planning / Design 1% 54,061 92,158 1% Marketing & Delivery 40% 2,909,715 2,582,916 37% Incentives / Direct Install Costs 48% 3,525,052 3,419,395 49% EM&V 8% 576, ,864 8% Administration 3% 207, ,591 4% Regulatory 0% - - 0% 100% 7,272,765 6,977, % Revenue and Expenses Budget Actual Company Statistics Energy Plan Evaluated Program % of % of Portfolio % of Portfolio % of Year Total Annual Net Annual Energy Net Annual Energy Total Revenue Budget Revenue Spending Revenue Energy Sales Savings Sales Savings Sales (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) ($000's) ($000's) (%=b/a) ($000's) (%=b/a) (Therms) (Therms) (%=b/a) (Therms) (%=b/a) 2012 $ 465,972 $ 6, % $ 5, % 538,863,508 2,845, % 2,019, % 2013 $ 348,947 $ 7, % $ 6, % 640,359,270 3,808, % 3,080, % 2014 $ 426,720 $ 7, % $ 5, % 668,412,784 3,636, % 2,743, % 2015 $ 370,542 $ 7, % $ 6, % 622,450,672 3,122, % 2,938, % 2016 $ 311,352 $ 7, % $ 6, % 533,706,325 3,161, % 2,963, % 6

7 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF 2.0 Portfolio Programs Saving Homes Weatherization Program Program Description. The CenterPoint Arkansas Saving Homes Program is designed to provide weatherization retrofits that will improve the efficiency and comfort of CenterPoint Arkansas s residential customers. Implementation of this program began in 2016, and it follows the guidelines developed for the Core Program approach approved by the Arkansas Public Service Commission in Order Nos. 22 and 23 in Docket No U. Under the management of CenterPoint Arkansas s vendor, contractors conduct whole-home energy assessments for residential customers and identify comprehensive and cost effective energy efficiency measures eligible for installation. Following measure installation at the premise, the participating contractor may apply for incentives from CenterPoint Arkansas, and if applicable, a participating electric utility. Program Highlights. In 2016, the Saving Homes Weatherization Program replaced the Arkansas Weatherization Program (AWP) as the company s primary delivery channel for residential weatherization services. In the first year of implementation, the program produced strong results with over 400 participants and energy savings of 142,741 therms (163% of program goal). Program Budget, Savings & Participants. Saving Homes Weatherization Program Cost Energy Savings (Therms) Demand Savings (Therms) Participants Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Actual % Program Year 2016 $ 598,379 $ 598, % 87, , % % Savings. CenterPoint Arkansas s customers saved an estimated 142,741 annual therms through the program. Evaluated energy savings for the 2016 Saving Homes Weatherization Program are below: 7

8 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Saving Homes Weatherization Program Annual Net Energy Savings (Therms) 142,741 Lifetime Energy Savings (Therms) 2,361,613 Demand Savings (Therms) 391 Description of Participants. Participants are CenterPoint Arkansas customers who have received in-home energy assessment through the Saving Homes Weatherization Program. Challenges & Opportunities. The 2016 Saving Homes Weatherization Program was able to ramp up very quickly in its first year of implementation and leveraged an existing network of contractors experienced in performing weatherization services in Arkansas. While the program exceeded projected participation and energy savings, one area for improvement is the conversion rate of home assessments that result in actual measure installations. In 2016, the overall conversion rate of assessments to measure installations was 80%. CenterPoint Arkansas will look for opportunities to increase this conversion rate so that more site assessments result in verifiable energy savings. Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination. CenterPoint Arkansas is continuing to implement the Saving Homes Weatherization Program in its CIP Portfolio, and has significantly increased the scale of the program s budget and planned energy savings. In 2016, the program demonstrated that it is an effective mechanism for the Company to deliver weatherization services to its customers, and CenterPoint Arkansas believes there is a significant opportunity to grow participation in the program. In years , the Company will increase marketing and promotional efforts for the Saving Homes Program to achieve projected levels of participation and energy savings. Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget. Order No. 81 in Docket No TF approved CenterPoint Arkansas s request to replace the AWP with the Saving Homes Program for program year 2016 and allocated the $503,910 budget previously approved for the AWP to the Saving Homes Program. For the CIP Portfolio, the Company has made substantial increases to the Saving Homes Program budget as it looks to increase the scale of program participation 8

9 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF and energy savings. The table below compares the program s 2016 budget to the budgets approved for years : Saving Homes Weatherization Program Year Budget 2016 $ 503, $ 1,652, $ 1,733, $ 1,803, Energy Efficiency Arkansas Program Description. Energy Efficiency Arkansas (EEA) provides residential and commercial customers in Arkansas with training and information about cost-effective energy efficiency and conservation opportunities. It is managed by the Arkansas Economic Development Commission's Energy Office on behalf of the state s investor-owned public utilities and participating electric cooperatives. For a detailed program description, see the EEA s report filed in Docket No TF. Program Highlights. Please see the EEA s annual report filed in Docket No TF for this information. Program Budget, Savings & Participants. The EEA program budget is shown below. While there are no direct, quantifiable energy savings attributable to this program, EEA offers a comprehensive statewide approach to training and offers utilities an additional resource to help promote their 4 The APSC approved A Budgets are used for all program budget comparisons. 9

10 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF respective programs. Please see the EEA s annual report filed in Docket No TF for participation information. Energy Efficiency Arkansas (EEA) Cost Energy Savings (Therms) Demand Savings (Therms) Participants Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Actual % Program Year 2014 $ 174,949 $ 119,162 68% NA NA - NA NA - NA NA - Program Year 2015 $ 174,949 $ 13,340 8% NA NA - NA NA - NA NA - Program Year 2016 $ 157,454 $ 120,601 77% NA NA - 0 NA - NA NA - Program Events & Training. Please see the EEA s annual report filed in Docket No TF for this information. Savings. While there are no direct, quantifiable energy savings attributable to this program, EEA offers a comprehensive statewide approach to training and offers utilities an additional resource to help promote their respective programs. Challenges & Opportunities. Please see the EEA s annual report filed in Docket No TF for this information. Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination. A comprehensive EEA program has been approved by the Commission through December 31, Please see filings made in Docket No TF for details. Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget. The table below compares the program s 2016 budget to the budgets approved for years : Energy Efficiency Arkansas Year Budget 2016 $ 174, $ 122, $ 142, $ 135,350 10

11 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Home Energy Affordability Loan Program Partnership Program Description. The Home Energy Affordability Loan (HEAL) program was implemented by the William J. Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving energy performance in residential buildings and, to a lesser extent, commercial/industrial buildings, selected as project hosts in the pilot demonstration. The program was designed with commercial partners to provide low- or no-interest loans to employees for retrofitting their homes to become more energy efficient. In some cases, the program is delivered to non-employees living in neighborhoods adjacent to participating employers. Rebates were provided to HEAL participants for air infiltration reduction, duct repair and insulation. The initial HEAL program was implemented in 2011 and designed to be delivered for the CIP Portfolio. As the original HEAL program plan extended into years 2014, 2015, and 2016, CCI changed its organizational model, focusing on expanding the HEAL model into other states, rather than continuing to act as a program implementer. As a result, the HEAL Program was not actively delivered in 2016 and did not generate program participation or energy savings. CenterPoint Arkansas has discontinued the HEAL Program in its CIP Portfolio. Program Budget, Savings & Participants. Home Energy Affordability Loan Program Cost Energy Savings (Therms) Demand Savings (Therms) Participants Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Actual % Program Year 2014 $ 154,509 $ 25,988 17% 385,050 9,012 2% % Program Year 2015 $ 154,509 $ 14,017 9% 26, % % Program Year 2016 $ 139,058 $ - 0% 26, % % Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination. The Saving Homes Program, launched in 2016, replaced both the HEAL program and the AWP as the primary delivery channel for weatherization savings in the Company s CIP 11

12 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Portfolio. The HEAL program is no longer implemented in CenterPoint Arkansas s CIP Portfolio. Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget. Funds are no longer budgeted for the HEAL program in the CIP Portfolio and weatherization projects will be implemented through the Company s Saving Homes Weatherization Program Residential Home Energy Reports Program Program Description. The Residential Home Energy Reports (HER) program provides customers with energy usage information, including energy savings tips and personalized energy usage comparisons, to encourage and motivate recipients to lower their energy usage. CenterPoint Energy s HER program is administered by Oracle, and combines technology, direct marketing and behavioral science to deliver its Home Energy Reporting System. The Home Energy Reporting System is a unique software platform that combines energy usage data with customer demographics, housing and GIS data to develop specific, targeted recommendations that educate and motivate consumers to reduce their energy consumption. Energy savings for the HER program are quantified by taking the difference in energy usage between a control group that receives no program information and a statistically identical group of customers that receive the home energy reports. Program Highlights. The HER program was approved by the APSC on June 30, 2011, and implementation of the program began immediately. The Program continues to be a key driver of the overall energy savings delivered through the CIP Portfolio. Oracle analyzed customer data and established a control group and participant group, and program participants received four home energy reports throughout the heating season. In 2016, approximately 96,900 customers were actively enrolled in the program. In 2016, the program provided annual savings of 828,576 therms. 12

13 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Program Budget, Savings and Participation. Home Energy Reports Cost Energy Savings (Therms) Demand Savings (Therms) Participants Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Actual % Program Year 2014 $ 879,688 $ 871,505 99% 1,020,310 1,102, % 0 16, ,000 82,086 82% Program Year 2015 $ 879,688 $ 848,589 96% 1,000, ,376 92% 0 13, , , % Program Year 2016 $ 861,766 $ 861, % 1,000, ,576 83% 0 12, ,000 96,967 97% Program Events and Training. In order to preserve the scientific integrity of calculating energy savings on the differences in usage between a control group and participant group, customers cannot opt into the program if they are not randomly selected into the participant group. For this reason, the program is not widely promoted to non-participants, and no mass marketing of the program is conducted. Internal training regarding responses and support for customer requests is provided to CenterPoint Energy representatives. A select group of highly trained customer service representatives and energy efficiency program staff were trained on customer service tools provided by Oracle. Savings. Oracle calculates the energy savings from the program by comparing the program participants against a similar size control group. The difference in energy usage will show the effect the program had on participating Arkansas customers. The savings reported by the program are net savings, and there are no free riders because the program does not have an open enrollment process. In 2012, Protocol J of the TRM 2.0 was proposed by the IEM and Parties Working Collaboratively and was adopted by the Commission. Protocol J sets guidelines and standards for behavior based programs. Savings for the program conform to this guideline. The HER program yielded the following residential energy savings: 13

14 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Home Energy Reports Annual Net Energy Savings (Therms) 828,576 Lifetime Energy Savings (Therms) 828,576 Demand Savings (Therms) 12,346 Description of Participants. Participants in the HER program are CenterPoint Arkansas customers who receive personalized energy reports. Challenges & Opportunities. The initial HER program delivered to new participants often results in some customer calls (substantially less than 1% of participants). Customer inquiries provide an opportunity to discuss energy saving strategies and confirm or correct any incorrect data that may have been associated with their report (e.g., square footage of the residence). In , customer communication via and enhanced online resources provide a major opportunity to improve the effectiveness of the program at driving behavioral change. Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination. Per Order No. 85 in Docket No TF, the APSC has approved delivery of the HER program in the Company s CIP Portfolio, and the Company expects that this program will continue to deliver significant energy savings. CenterPoint Arkansas has also put emphasis on increasing the cost-effectiveness of this program. Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget. In , CenterPoint Arkansas will continue to provide customer reports via direct mail, but the Company also plans to deliver electronic reports to customers through . While CenterPoint Arkansas projects the HER to be a major contributor to the overall energy savings of its CIP Porfolio, the company has significantly reduced the program delivery budget to increase cost-effectiveness. The table below compares the program s 2016 budget to the budgets approved for years : 14

15 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Home Energy Reports Year Budget 2016 $ 879, $ 406, $ 360, $ 345, Low Flow Showerhead and Faucet Aerator Program Program Description. The Low Flow Showerhead and Aerator Conservation Improvement Program (Low Flow Program) provides free energy-saving low flow showerheads and faucet aerators to CenterPoint Energy consumers. Customers can receive up to three low flow showerheads (1.5 GPM) or up to three faucet aerators (1.5 GPM). Program Highlights. The Low Flow Program distributed 7,519 kits containing low flow showerheads and faucet aerators to CenterPoint Energy customers in The program was promoted through a combination of bill inserts, campaign, and local events, such as Home Shows. promotions have shown to be the most effective means of promoting program participation. With a TRC ratio of 13.15, the Low Flow Program was the most cost-effective offering in CenterPoint Arkansas s 2016 CIP Portfolio. Therm savings for the Low Flow Program totaled 147,947. Program Budget, Savings & Participants. Low Flow Showerhead and Faucet Aerator Cost Energy Savings (Therms) Demand Savings (Therms) Participants Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Actual % Program Year 2014 $ 415,227 $ 282,502 68% 147, , % ,600 7,430 98% Program Year 2015 $ 373,704 $ 286,121 77% 147, , % ,600 8, % Program Year 2016 $ 373,704 $ 299,572 80% 147, , % ,600 7,519 99% 15

16 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Program Events & Training. Minimal training, if any, is needed for the Low Flow program, however the low flow kit mailed to the customer includes comprehensive installation instructions. CenterPoint Energy promoted this program through bill inserts, events and campaigns. Savings. The Low Flow program yielded the following residential energy savings: Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator Annual Net Energy Savings (Therms) 147,948 Lifetime Energy Savings (Therms) 1,479,479 Demand Savings (Therms) 429 Description of Participants. Participants in the Low Flow Program are defined as CenterPoint Arkansas customers who have requested and receive kits containing a combination of faucet aerators and showerheads. Challenges & Opportunities. Participation in the 2016 Low Flow Showerhead Program decreased from previous years, but the program continues to be an excellent mechanism to drive energy savings at no cost to participating customers. While the program was the most cost-effective offering delivered by CenterPoint Energy in 2016, a major challenge for this program continues to be reduced verified therm savings due to lower than optimal equipment installation rates. Given that showerheads and faucet aerators are mailed to customers for self-installation, it can be expected that some equipment may not be correctly installed, but the Company is looking for opportunities to improve these rates and increase energy savings. Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination. Per Order No. 85 in Docket No TF, the APSC has approved delivery of the Low Flow Showerhead Program in the Company s CIP Portfolio. CenterPoint Arkansas expects participation in this program to remain steady and that it will remain one of the most cost-effective offerings in the Company s CIP Portfolio. 16

17 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget. Low-Flow Program budgets for were reduced from the budget level approved for the 2016 CIP Portfolio. CenterPoint Arkansas will continue efforts to promote the program and grow participation, but recent program results have shown that achieving the level of participation and savings projected in will not require expenditures to reach program budgets approved for The table below compares the program s 2016 budget to the budgets approved for years : Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator Year Budget 2016 $ 415, $ 290, $ 290, $ 290, Space Heating Program Program Description. The Space Heating Systems CIP is designed to promote efficient heating solutions to residential (RS-1) and commercial (SCS) consumers. Rebate incentives are offered to consumers to encourage the purchase and installation of new high-efficient natural gas furnaces with an Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) rating of 90% or higher, and hydronic heating systems. HVAC contractors can receive a $50 incentive for each qualifying rebate. Program Highlights. In 2016, the Company s Space Heating Program continued to grow, and it produced a record number of participants. Overall, CenterPoint Arkansas rebated 1,690 residential heating systems and 704 commercial systems. Rebates were offered for both 90% AFUE and 95% or higher AFUE furnaces, with most participants choosing the higher efficiency option. 17

18 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF CenterPoint Arkansas continued to promote these programs through a variety of channels including bill inserts, printed material, mass media, and local industry events. Events included Home Shows, Home Builder Association events, numerous supply house customer appreciation and open house events, the annual conference for Arkansas Housing Authorities, the annual summer conference of the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators, as well as the annual Scoop Meeting for local HVAC and plumbing contractors. CenterPoint Arkansas also worked closely with school districts and housing authorities to promote energy efficient space heating and water heating solutions, and these entities comprise a significant portion of the participants utilizing the Company s rebate programs. Program Budget, Savings & Participants. Space Heating Cost Energy Savings (Therms) Demand Savings (Therms) Participants Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Actual % Program Year 2014 $ 1,657,299 $ 1,402,148 85% 1,000, ,031 26% 0 7,757-2,305 1,837 80% Program Year 2015 $ 1,730,021 $ 1,730, % 340, , % 0 113,992-2,122 2, % Program Year 2016 $ 1,714,207 $ 1,714, % 340, , % 0 94,101-2,122 2, % Program Events & Training. The Rebate Scoop meetings were held in four different locations around the state: Jonesboro, Little Rock, Conway, and Hot Springs. Trade allies in attendance included plumbers, HVAC contractors and supply house representatives. Savings. CenterPoint Energy utilized Arkansas TRM 6.0 for all primary heating applications, and ADM determined the program s net-to-gross rating to be 87% for space heating program participants. The Space Heating program yielded the following results: Space Heating Annual Net Energy Savings (Therms) 364,045 Lifetime Energy Savings (Therms 5,612,181 Demand Savings (Therms) 94,101 Description of Participants. 18

19 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Participants in the Space Heating Program are defined as the number of rebates provided to CenterPoint Arkansas customers. Challenges & Opportunities. The Company s focus on growing and maintaining its trade ally network, promoting its prescriptive rebate programs, and educating customers, has been effective at producing strong program participation. CenterPoint Arkansas will continue these efforts in its CIP Portfolio, but also plans to utilize more targeted promotional strategies to maximize the energy savings delivered. Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination. For the CIP Portfolio, CenterPoint Arkansas will continue to deliver rebates for high-efficiency space heating equipment, but it has consolidated its space heating and water heating rebates into the Natural Gas Equipment program. This program also includes additional prescriptive offerings, including a Smart Thermostat rebate, and a higher rebate level for customers who install a combination of high-efficiency space heating and water heating equipment. Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget. As discussed, the Company s Space Heating and Water Heating rebates are no longer categorized as separate program budgets in For program years these rebate offerings have been combined and are included in the Natural Gas Equipment Program Water Heating Program Program Description. The Water Heating program is designed to promote efficient water heating solutions to residential (RS-1) and small commercial (SCS) consumers. Rebate incentives are offered to consumers to encourage the purchase and installation of new high efficient natural gas storage tank water heaters and natural gas tankless water heaters. Customers that purchase and install at a location served by CenterPoint Energy can receive a $75 rebate for qualifying storage tank water heaters, and a $500 rebate for tankless water heaters. Plumbers can receive a $50 incentive for the installation of each natural gas tankless system that qualifies for the rebate. 19

20 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Program Highlights. In 2016, the Water Heating program saw continued growth in program participation. CenterPoint Energy promoted the water heater rebates and trade ally incentives for natural gas tankless systems through a variety of mechanisms to plumbers and other trade allies, including working closely with water heater manufacturers and plumbing supply houses. CenterPoint continued its efforts to promote retailer promotions by placing signage on program eligible water heaters at several big-box retail stores in its service territory. Customers who shop at these stores can find water heater program information and rebate forms next to eligible water heaters. CenterPoint Energy also promoted the water heater rebates to customers through bill inserts, printed materials, a number of local events and mass media. Events included several Home Shows, Home Builder Association events, numerous supply house customer appreciation events, the annual conference for Arkansas Housing Authorities, the annual summer conference of the Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators and others. CenterPoint Energy also worked closely with school districts and housing authorities to promote energy efficient water heating solutions and capture equipment rebates. Program Budget, Savings & Participants. Water Heating Cost Energy Savings (Therms) Demand Savings (Therms) Participants Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Actual % Program Year 2014 $ 792,864 $ 598,167 75% 26,860 68, % , % Program Year 2015 $ 761,664 $ 711,657 93% 86,040 74,034 86% ,542 1,228 80% Program Year 2016 $ 996,800 $ 996, % 86,040 72,391 84% ,542 2, % Program Events & Training. CenterPoint Energy has educated and trained plumbers and other trade allies on the rebate program and process through a variety of events hosted by water heater manufacturers and plumbing supply houses and several Home Builder Association meetings. In 2016, CenterPoint Arkansas again conducted its annual Rebate Scoop meetings for trade allies, these events were held in Jonesboro, Little Rock, Conway, and Hot Springs. 20

21 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Savings. CenterPoint Energy utilized the Arkansas TRM 6.0 for commercial and residential applications, and these savings were evaluated by ADM. The Water Heating program yielded the following results: Water Heating Annual Net Energy Savings (Therms) 72,391 Lifetime Energy Savings (Therms) 1,444,208 Demand Savings (Therms) 194 Description of Participants. Participants in the Water Heating Program are defined as the number of rebates provided to CenterPoint Arkansas customers. Challenges & Opportunities. CenterPoint Arkansas expects that participation in its water heating rebate offerings will remain strong, but does face some challenges in the CIP Portfolio. Changes to appliance standards have reduced the energy savings delivered through rebates for traditional tank water heaters. While tankless water heater rebates comprise the majority of the participants in the program and will continue to generate the majority of energy savings, the Company will continue to promote high efficiency tank water heaters as an alternative to standard efficiency equipment. A new rebate offering for large, condensing tank water heaters provides CenterPoint Arkansas with a new opportunity to influence the commercial market and increase the savings delivered through the program. As with the Space Heating Program, the Company plans to engage in targeted marketing strategies to improve the effectiveness of promotions. CenterPoint Arkansas must also continue to work closely with trade allies to ensure they have the information and tools necessary to promote high-efficiency water heating equipment to the Company s customers. Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination. CenterPoint Arkansas s prescriptive Water Heating Rebates will continue as a component of the Natural Gas Equipment Program in The Company also added an additional rebate offering for large, condensing tank water heaters. Tank water heaters used in commercial applications are often significantly larger and more expensive than 21

22 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF those used in the residential market. Providing a separate, more appropriate rebate level for these applications will drive additional energy savings. Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget. As discussed, the Company s Space Heating and Water Heating rebates are no longer categorized as separate program budgets in For program years these rebate offerings have been combined and are included in the Natural Gas Equipment Program Commercial Boiler Program Program Description. The Commercial Boiler program is designed to promote efficient heating and/or water heating solutions to all commercial customer classes. Rebate incentives are offered to consumers to encourage the purchase and installation of new high efficiency natural gas boiler equipment. Program Highlights In 2016, CenterPoint Energy saw that boiler rebates are playing a larger role in the decisions of customers and their contractors to design buildings with high-efficiency boiler equipment. Boiler manufactures have become aware of rebate opportunities available in Arkansas, and CNP has expanded its trade ally network from primarily local trade allies, to larger organizations that have a multi-state footprint. This has enabled the Company to influence more boiler projects with equipment rebates and increase program participation. Program Budget, Savings & Participants. Commercial Boiler Cost Energy Savings (Therms) Demand Savings (Therms) Participants Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Actual % Program Year 2014 $ 551,651 $ 150,113 27% 340,660 21,213 6% % Program Year 2015 $ 259,477 $ 259, % 92,160 80,476 87% 0 1, % Program Year 2016 $ 232,857 $ 232, % 92,160 67,491 73% 0 1, % Program Events & Training. 22

23 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Individual training was provided to boiler manufacturer sales representatives, engineering and architecture firms and key customer accounts, and organizations such as Arkansas Association of Energy Engineers (AAEE). Energy efficiency staff also promoted the program through personal interaction, presentations, trade shows and industry events, such as boiler trainings conducted through the EEA program. CenterPoint Arkansas also focused on building and maintaining relationships with boiler manufacturer sales representatives Savings. CenterPoint Energy calculated energy savings according to Arkansas TRM 6.0., and yielded the following energy savings: Commercial Boiler Annual Net Energy Savings (Therms) 67,491 Lifetime Energy Savings (Therms) 1,349,828 Demand Savings (Therms) 1,075 Description of Participants. Participants in the Commercial Boiler Program are defined as the number of rebates provided to CenterPoint Arkansas customers. Challenges & Opportunities and 2016 were breakthrough years for the Commercial Boiler Program. Historically, it has been difficult to build robust participation and energy savings, but the Company s efforts to promote the program as well as expand and educate its trade ally network have provided more opportunities to influence purchase decisions for boiler equipment and capture energy savings through prescriptive rebates. Building relationships with both local and out of state trade allies, and influencing those trade allies to promote high efficiency boiler equipment remains the major opportunity, as well as the major challenge for program growth. Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination. 23

24 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF CenterPoint Arkansas is continuing the delivery of its Commercial Boiler Program in the CIP Portfolio. One modification made to the program is the availability of a trade ally incentive to accompany rebates for high-efficiency boiler equipment. While the Company has offered trade ally incentives for most of its prescriptive equipment rebates, no such incentive was available in years for the Commercial Boiler Program. Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget. The table below compares the program s 2016 budget to the budgets approved for years : Commercial Boiler Year Budget 2016 $ 251, $ 329, $ 329, $ 329, Commercial Food Service Program Program Description. The Commercial Food Service program is designed to promote the installation of highefficiency food service equipment. Rebate incentives are offered to food service operators to encourage the purchase and installation of new, qualifying natural gas food service equipment. Program Highlights. Two areas of focus that have benefited the Commercial Food Service Program are the targeting of multi-unit restaurateurs, and equipment retrofits in school cafeterias. Leveraging the program to influence a key decision maker for multiple restaurants increases the number of projects that can be captured, and building a relationship with one restaurateur can lead to multiple rebates in multiple facilities. Schools remain a major opportunity to capture savings through kitchen equipment retrofits, and CenterPoint Arkansas capitalized on this opportunity in The Company can 24

25 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF leverage other projects (such as water heating and space heating equipment rebates) to promote efficiency upgrades to existing foodservice equipment in these schools. CenterPoint Arkansas also promoted the Commercial Food Service Program through the following: o Continuous training and awareness with food service trade allies such as food service distributors, and direct promotions to customers. o Conducted direct mail promotions to customers. o Worked with the Arkansas Hospitality Association (AHA) and exhibited at the AHA annual trade show. Program Budget, Savings & Participants. Commercial Food Service Cost Energy Savings (Therms) Demand Savings (Therms) Participants Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Actual % Program Year 2014 $ 331,594 $ 182,608 55% 86,040 77,619 90% % Program Year 2015 $ 223,768 $ 152,286 68% 60,210 85, % % Program Year 2016 $ 208,436 $ 163,893 79% 60,210 66, % % Program Events & Training. CenterPoint Energy staff exhibited at the AHA Trade Show to educate customers on energy efficient natural gas food service equipment. Individual training sessions were also conducted for trade allies. Savings. CenterPoint Energy calculated energy savings according to Arkansas TRM 6.0. These savings were evaluated by ADM, and a 77% net-to-gross adjustment was applied The Commercial Food Service program yielded the following savings: Commercial Food Service Annual Net Energy Savings (Therms) 66,534 Lifetime Energy Savings (Therms) 798,409 Demand Savings (Therms)

26 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Description of Participants. Participants in the Commercial Food Service program are defined as the number of rebates provided to CenterPoint Arkansas customers. Challenges & Opportunities. The major challenge for the Commercial Food Service Program remains educating restaurateurs on the life-cycle cost of high-efficiency equipment. While the installation of efficient equipment provides value in the long-run, the initial cost of this equipment remains a barrier. CenterPoint Arkansas will continue its efforts to educate customers, and will also work with equipment dealers on selling the benefits of total life-cycle cost. Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination. CenterPoint Arkansas is continuing to deliver the Commercial Food Service Program in the CIP Portfolio. The Company believes that rebating high-efficiency food service equipment can produce cost effective savings, and has also made two modifications to increase program performance. For the Food Service Program, CenterPoint Arkansas has added griddles and steam cookers to its list of rebate eligible equipment, and has also increased rebate and trade ally incentive amounts for equipment. Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget. The table below compares the program s 2016 budget to the budgets approved for years : Commercial Food Service Year Budget 2016 $ 231, $ 222, $ 229, $ 232, Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Solutions Program 26

27 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Program Description. The C&I Solutions Program encourages C&I customers to use natural gas efficiently by installing cost-effective energy efficient equipment, adopting energy efficient designs and using energy efficient operations at their facilities. The program is implemented by CLEAResult and includes the direct installation of water saving measures that reduce natural gas water heating needs and custom projects. For custom measures, CLEAResult provides customers with technical assistance to identify energy efficiency projects and quantify energy savings, assists the customers through the incentive process and conducts the necessary EM&V work. Program Highlights. The C&I Solutions Program remains the largest contributor to overall net energy savings in CenterPoint Arkansas s CIP Portfolio was another successful year of implementation as the program produced savings of 1,273,739, resulting in a TRC of 4.91 and net benefits totaling $12,163, customers received energy and water savings equipment through the program s direct installation component, and 12 customers implemented custom energy efficiency projects. Program Budget, Savings & Participants. Commercial and Industrial Solutions Cost Energy Savings (Therms) Demand Savings (Therms) Participants Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Actual % Program Year 2014 $ 1,811,074 $ 1,788,563 99% 49,000 1,019, % 0 3,518-1, % Program Year 2015 $ 2,211,074 $ 2,194,216 99% 1,320,150 1,224,628 93% 0 6,611-1, % Program Year 2016 $ 1,990,104 $ 1,989, % 1,320,150 1,273,739 96% 0 3,273-1, % Program Events & Training. CenterPoint Arkansas and program implementer CLEAResult continuously pursue opportunities to promote the program to customers and trade allies through site visits, trade shows, and other industry events. CenterPoint Arkansas utilizes its Commercial and Industrial Transportation Sales Representatives to educate customers on the benefits of the program and identify opportunities for participation. The Company also develops case studies that highlight results of specific custom projects and show the value of the program to customers. In addition, CenterPoint Arkansas provided training to customers, industry professionals and financial institutions regarding the financial benefits of energy efficiency projects. These trainings showed stakeholders how they can leverage other opportunities, in addition to the C&I Solutions Program, to finance facility improvement with minimal capital investment. 27

28 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Savings. Custom energy efficiency projects and the direct installation of pre-rinse spray valves (PRSV), faucet aerators, low-flow showerheads, and weather stripping produced the energy savings delivered through the 2016 C&I Solutions Program. TRM 6.0 was utilized to calculate the savings for the direct install portion of program savings. The savings and the methodology for calculating the custom project savings were evaluated by ADM and are discussed in detail in ADM s report, which can be found in Appendix A. The C&I Solutions program yielded the following savings: Commercial & Industrial Solutions Annual Net Energy Savings (Therms) 1,273,739 Lifetime Energy Savings (Therms) 20,142,070 Demand Savings (Therms) 3,273 Description of Participants. Participants in the C&I Solutions program are defined as the number of custom commercial projects as well as facilities that have participated in the direct install component of the program provided to CenterPoint Arkansas customers. Challenges & Opportunities. The combination of direct-install equipment (which provides energy savings at no cost to customers), technical assistance, and rebates for a diverse mix of custom efficiency improvements, makes the C&I Solutions an excellent mechanism to deliver cost effective energy savings. CenterPoint Arkansas will build on past program success to capture savings through the program, but custom energy efficiency projects do present a unique set of challenges. Even custom projects that are well designed and should produce energy savings may encounter obstacles during implementation. This depends on factors such as the customer s expertise and comfort level with certain technology, equipment and processes. In these situations, a balance must be struck to develop projects that result in energy savings while also providing pragmatic solutions that meet customer needs. Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination. Per Order No. 85 in Docket No TF, the APSC has approved delivery of the C&I Solutions Program in the Company s CIP Portfolio. As the program has 28

29 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF consistently been a major driver of energy savings and remains one of the most costeffective offerings in the Company s CIP Portfolio, CenterPoint Arkansas has expanded the scale of the program in years While the Company will continue to identify high-value custom energy savings opportunities with large customers, in CenterPoint Arkansas will also focus on increasing the participation of smaller commercial customers who may not traditionally engage in custom projects that improve the efficiency of their facilities. Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget. The table below compares the program s 2016 budget to the budgets approved for years : Commercial & Industrial Solutions Year Budget 2016 $ 2,211, $ 2,688, $ 2,738, $ 2,744,123 29

30 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF 3.0 Supplemental Requirements 3.1 Staffing CenterPoint Energy has four staff members in Little Rock, Arkansas who deliver its comprehensive energy efficiency portfolio. A CIP Implementation Manager oversees the day-to-day activities of the CIP team and assures that the programs are compliant with regulatory requirements. Additionally, two Energy Efficiency Consultants and an Energy Efficiency Coordinator deliver the programs. The Energy Efficiency Consultants responsibilities are to implement energy efficiency programs that meet regulatory and legislative requirements and respond to customer needs. They manage productivity and build relationships with external vendors and trade allies to maximize the performance of programs and ensure those programs comply with CenterPoint Energy s corporate goals. The Energy Efficiency Coordinator manages the trade ally database, assists with trade ally outreach, processes rebates paid to commercial CenterPoint Energy rebate program participants, processes invoices for external vendors, verifies that all equipment rebated meets minimum requirements, manages the CIP tracking systems, and assists the Energy Efficiency Consultants. 3.2 Stakeholder Activities CenterPoint Energy actively participates in all stakeholder collaborative efforts and continues to be an active participant in the collaborative process established by the Commission (also known as the Parties Working Collaboratively or PWC). CenterPoint Energy has also been very active in local trade associations such as home builders associations, HVAC contractors associations, Arkansas Hospitality Associations, 30

31 2016 ANNUAL REPORT CENTERPOINT ARKANSAS, DOCKET NO TF Arkansas Association of Healthcare Engineering, Gas Food Equipment Network, Arkansas Education Association, and the local public housing authorities. Internally, CenterPoint Energy continues to train its Arkansas-based Marketing Consultants to work with local builders and trade allies, and also utilizes field employees to identify potential program participants throughout their day-to-day activities. In addition, CenterPoint Energy has trained Commercial and Industrial Transportation Sales Representatives that actively educate eligible transportation customers on the programs and make referrals to the C&I Solutions program. 3.3 Information Provided to Consumers to Promote EE. CenterPoint Energy uses a variety of tools to provide information to consumers about energy efficiency programs. These include: Printed factsheets for consumers Printed factsheets for trade allies Bill inserts Website s Advertisements on TV, radio and in print Retail point of purchase displays and promotions Select examples of each type of information can be found in Appendix B. 31

32 APPENDIX A EM&V CONTRACTOR REPORT

33 Evaluation of 2016 DSM Portfolio Submitted to: CenterPoint Energy Arkansas April 2017 Final ADM Associates, Inc. VuPoint Research

34 Prepared by: Adam Thomas Daniel Chapman, P.E. Jeremey Offenstein, Ph.D. Jennifer Shen Lily Forest Don Dohrmann, Ph.D. Corporate Headquarters: 3239 Ramos Circle Sacramento, CA Tel: (916) ADM Associates Inc. Energy Research & Evaluation Liberty St. Suite 425 Fremont, CA Tel: (510)

35 Acknowledgements We would like to thank the staff at CenterPoint Energy Arkansas for their time and effort in contributing to the EM&V of the 2016 programs. This evaluation was conducted with regular coordination with staff at CenterPoint, who provided quick feedback and turnaround to the requests of the evaluation team as well as open and forthright insights into the operations of their programs. Further, we would like to acknowledge our gratitude towards CenterPoint customers, implementation contractor staff, and trade allies. As with the staff at CenterPoint, their active participation allowed for the evaluation team to collect all needed data for this effort. In final, we would like to thank staff at the Independent Evaluation Monitor for their involvement in providing thorough answers and clarification to the evaluation team when higher-level questions arose over the course of the 2016 EM&V effort. Corporate Headquarters: 3239 Ramos Circle Sacramento, CA Tel: (916) ADM Associates Inc. Energy Research & Evaluation Liberty St. Suite 425 Fremont, CA Tel: (510)

36 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title... Page 1. Executive Summary General Methodology Portfolio-Level Findings Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Solutions Program Commercial Food Service CIP Home Energy Reports Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP HEAL Partnership Savings Home Program Recommendations for TRM Updates Appendix A: Site Reports i

37 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1 Gross Impact Summary Table 1-2 Net Impact Summary Table 1-3 CenterPoint 2016 DSM Portfolio Performance against Goals Table 3-1 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio 2016 EM&V Expenditures Table 3-2 Summary of Data Collection Efforts Table 3-3 Assessment of Customer Education by Program Table 3-4 Assessment of Trade Ally Training by Program Table 3-5 Assessment of Marketing & Outreach by Program Table 3-6 Assessment of Budgetary, Management, and Program Delivery Resources by Program Table 3-7 End-Uses Addressed by Program Table 3-8 Assessment of Project Comprehensiveness by Program Table 3-9 Assessment of Targeted Customer Sectors by Program Table 3-10 Assessment of Cost-Effectiveness Table 3-11 Assessment of Data & QA/QC Procedures by Program Table 4-1 Space Heating CIP Historical Performance against Goals Table 4-2 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 4-3 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 4-4 CenterPoint Space Heating CIP Data Collection Summary Table 4-5 Space Heating CIP Response to 2015 Recommendations Table 4-6 Organization s Decision-Making Table 4-7 Timeframe for Installation without the Program Table 4-8 Person/s Involved in Application Process Table 4-9 Clarity of Application Information Table 4-10 TRM V6.0 Annual Furnace Heating Load ii

38 Table 4-11 TRM V6.0 Annual Furnace Heating Load Table 4-12 Residential Furnace RUL Table 4-13 EFLH Values Table 4-14 Space Heating CIP Verified Therms Savings Table 4-15 Space Heating CIP Net Savings Summary Table 4-16 Space Heating CIP Summary of Issues & Recommendations Table 5-1 Water Heating CIP Historical Performance against Goals Table 5-2 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 5-3 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 5-4 CenterPoint Water Heating CIP Data Collection Summary Table 5-5 Water Heating CIP Response to 2015 Recommendations Table 5-6 Organization s Decision-Making Table 5-7 Timeframe for Installation without the Program Table 5-8 Person/s Involved in Application Process Table 5-9 Clarity of Application Information Table 5-10 Residential Water Heating Baseline Energy Factors Table 5-11 TRM V6.0 Estimated Annual Hot Water Use Table 5-12 Residential Water Heating Baseline Energy Factors Table 5-13 Hot Water Requirements by Facility Size Table 5-14 Hot Water Requirements by Unit or Person Table 5-15 Commercial Tankless Water Heater Sizing Equivalence Table 5-16 Water Heating CIP Verified Therms Savings Table 5-17 Water Heating Equipment Rebates Net Savings Summary Table 5-18 Summary of Recommendations for Water Heating CIP Table 6-1 Commercial Boiler CIP Historical Performance against Goals iii

39 Table 6-2 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 6-3 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 6-4 CenterPoint Commercial Boiler CIP Data Collection Summary Table 6-5 Commercial Boiler CIP Response to 2015 Recommendations Table 6-6 Organization s Decision-Making Table 6-7 Timeframe for Installation without the Program Table 6-8 Person/s Involved in Application Process Table 6-9 Clarity of Application Information Table 6-6 Commercial Boiler Minimum Efficiency Levels Table 6-7 Commercial EFLH Values Table 6-8 Commercial Boiler CIP Verified Therms Savings Table 6-9 Commercial Boiler CIP Net Savings Summary Table 7-1 C&I Solutions Program Historical Performance against Goals Table 7-2 Custom Project Participation Summary Table 7-3 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 7-4 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 7-5 CenterPoint C&I Solutions Data Collection Summary Table 7-7 DI Aerator Savings Calculation Parameters Table GPM Commercial Aerator Savings Table GPM Commercial Aerator Savings Table 7-10 Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Savings Calculation Parameters Table 7-10 DI Showerhead Savings Calculation Parameters Table 7-11 Daily Hot Water Reduction Table 7-12 DI Weather Stripping Savings Calculation Parameters Table 7-13 EFLH H By Weather Zone iv

40 Table 7-14 Deemed Annual Therm Savings per Linear Foot Table 7-15 Deemed Peak Therm Savings per Linear Foot Table 7-16 CenterPoint C&I Solutions Custom Project Summary Table 7-17 CenterPoint C&I Solutions Custom Project Free-Ridership Results Table 7-18 C&I Solutions Verified Therms Savings Table 7-19 C&I Solutions Net Savings Summary Table 7-20 C&I Solutions Net Non-Energy Benefits Summary Table 8-1 Commercial Food Service CIP Historical Performance against Goals Table 8-2 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 8-3 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 8-4 CenterPoint Commercial Food Service CIP Data Collection Summary Table 8-5 Commercial Food Service CIP Response to 2015 Recommendations Table 8-6 Organization s Decision-Making Table 8-7 Timeframe for Installation without the Program Table 8-8 Person/s Involved in Application Process Table 8-9 Clarity of Application Information Table 8-10 Analysis of CenterPoint Food Service Equipment Incentive Levels Table 8-11 Calculation Inputs for Convection Ovens Table 8-12 Calculation Inputs for Conveyor Ovens Table 8-13 Combi Oven Calculation Inputs Table 8-14 Calculation Inputs for Fryers Table 8-15 Commercial Food Service CIP Verified Therms Savings Table 8-16 Commercial Food Service CIP Net Savings Summary Table 9-1 Home Energy Reports Program Historical Performance against Goals Table 9-2 Home Energy Reports Recipient Attrition v

41 Table 9-3 Home Energy Reports Peak-to-Annual Multipliers Table 9-4 Regression Coefficients & Model Details Wave Table 9-5 Regression Coefficients & Model Details Wave Table 9-6 Regression Coefficients & Model Details Wave Table 10-1 Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP Historical Performance against Goals Table 10-2 Low Flow Kit Composition Table 10-3 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 10-4 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 10-5 Faucet Aerator Volume of Use Table 10-6 Water Main Temperatures by Weather Zone Table 10-7 Residential Aerator Gas Savings Values Table 10-8 Showerhead Volume of Use Table 10-9 Residential Showerhead Gas Savings Values Table Residential Faucet Aerator Electric Savings Values Table Residential Showerhead Electric Savings Values Table Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP Verified Gross Savings Table Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP Verified Net Savings Table Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP Net Non-Energy Benefits Summary Table 11-1 HEAL Partnership Historical Performance against Goals Table 12-1 SHP Historical Performance against Goals Table 12-2 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 12-3 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Table 12-4 CenterPoint SHP Data Collection Summary Table 12-6 QA Violation Definitions by Measure Table 12-6 HESP Sources of Program Awareness vi

42 Table 12-7 Energy Efficiency Knowledge Table 12-8 Participant Home Vintage Table 12-9 Participant Age Table SHP Ex Ante Summary Table SHP Verified Savings Summary Table SHP Net Savings Summary Table Saving Homes Program Net Non-Energy Benefits Summary vii

43 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Contribution to Portfolio Net Savings by Program 1-3 Figure 1-2 Residential Portfolio Savings Share by Measure 1-3 Figure 1-3 C&I Portfolio Savings Share by Measure 1-4 Figure 1-4 Summary of Goal Attainment & Budget Expenditure by Program 1-5 Figure 1-5 Summary of Status of 2015 Recommendations 1-9 Figure 3-1 Planned vs. Actual Acquisition Costs 3-6 Figure 4-1 Space Heating CIP Commercial Participation by Facility Type 4-3 Figure 4-2 Space Heating CIP Rebates by Month 4-4 Figure 4-3 Differences in Income between Participants and Non-Participants 4-8 Figure 4-4 Differences in Education between Participants and Non-Participants 4-9 Figure 4-5 Sources of Awareness 4-10 Figure 4-6 Customer Experience with CenterPoint Website 4-10 Figure 4-7 Thermostat Types installed by Residential Retrofit Participants 4-11 Figure 4-8 Customer Use of Thermostat Features 4-12 Figure 4-9 Residential Space Heating Reasons for Purchas of High Efficiency Furnaces 4-12 Figure 4-10 Customer Experience with Participating Contractors 4-13 Figure 4-11 Space Heating CIP Residential Participant Satisfaction 4-14 Figure 4-12 Participant Interest in Other Programs 4-15 Figure 4-13 Commercial Space Heating Participant Sources of Program Awareness 4-16 Figure 4-14 Feedback on Program Application Process 4-18 Figure 4-15 Participant Program Satisfaction 4-19 Figure 5-1 Water Heating CIP Commercial Participation Summary 5-3 Figure 5-2 Water Heating CIP Rebates by Month 5-4 Figure 5-3 Differences in Income between Participants & Non-Participants 5-8 viii

44 Figure 5-4 Differences in Education between Participants & Non-Participants 5-9 Figure 5-5 Differences in Home Age between Participants and Non-Participants 5-9 Figure 5-6 Water Heating CIP Residential Sources of Program Awareness 5-10 Figure 5-7 Customer Experience with CenterPoint Website 5-11 Figure 5-8 Customer Awareness of Higher Efficiency Levels 5-12 Figure 5-9 Customer Priorities in Participating 5-13 Figure 5-10 Contractor Experience Tankless Participants 5-13 Figure 5-11 Contractor Experience Storage Tank Participants 5-14 Figure 5-12 Participant Satisfaction Scores Tankless Participants 5-15 Figure 5-13 Participant Satisfaction Scores Storage Tank Participants 5-16 Figure 5-14 Participant Sources of Program Awareness 5-17 Figure 5-15 Feedback on Program Application Process 5-20 Figure 5-16 Participant Program Satisfaction 5-21 Figure 6-1 C&I Boiler Equipment Participation by Facility Type 6-2 Figure 6-2 Participant Sources of Program Awareness 6-6 Figure 6-3 Feedback on Program Application Process 6-9 Figure 6-4 Participant Program Satisfaction 6-9 Figure 7-1 C&I Solutions Direct Install Participant Summary 7-2 Figure 7-2 C&I Solutions Custom Savings by Facility Type 7-3 Figure 7-3 C&I Solutions Custom Savings by Measure Category 7-4 Figure 7-4 C&I Solutions Process Flow 7-11 Figure 7-5 C&I Solutions Custom Project Free-Ridership Diagram 7-27 Figure 8-1 Commercial Food Service CIP Participation by Facility Type 8-2 Figure 8-2 Participation by Measure Category 8-2 Figure 8-3 Participant Sources of Program Awareness 8-6 ix

45 Figure 8-4 Feedback on Program Application Process 8-8 Figure 8-5 Participant Program Satisfaction 8-9 Figure 9-1 Difference in Daily Consumption between Recipient & Control Group Wave Figure 9-2 Difference in Daily Consumption between Recipient & Control Group Wave Figure 9-3 Difference in Daily Consumption between Recipient & Control Group Wave Figure 9-4 Savings per Recipient by Year 9-10 Figure 12-1 Program Savings Share by Measure 12-2 Figure 12-2 SHP Premises by Month 12-3 Figure 12-3 Home Efficiency Meter Graphic 12-6 Figure 12-4 Measure Installation 12-8 Figure 12-5 Per-Home Measure Installation 12-9 Figure 12-6 Per-Home Therms Savings 12-9 Figure 12-7 SHP Reasons for Participating Figure 12-8 Difference in Expected and Evaluated Ex-Post Duct Sealing CFM Figure 12-9 Difference in Expected and Evaluated Ex-Post Air Sealing CFM x

46 1. Executive Summary This report is to provide a summary of the evaluation effort of the 2016 Demand Side Management (DSM) portfolio by the CenterPoint Energy Arkansas (CenterPoint). This evaluation was conducted by ADM Associates and VuPoint Research (the Evaluators). This report provides verified gross and net savings estimates for evaluated programs. 1.1 Summary of CenterPoint Demand Side Management Programs In 2016, the CenterPoint DSM portfolio contained the following programs: Heating Equipment CIP; Water Heating CIP; Commercial Boiler CIP; C&I Solutions; Commercial Food Service CIP; Home Energy Reports; Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP; and HEAL Partnership. 1.2 Evaluation Objectives The goals of the 2016 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 V6.0 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 CenterPoint 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 portfoliolevel recommendations for CenterPoint. 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. Executive Summary 1-1

47 1.3 Summary of Findings Impact Findings Table 1-1 and 1-2 present the gross and net impact by program. Program Table 1-1 Gross Impact Summary Annual Energy Savings (Therms) Lifetime Energy Savings (Therms) Peak Therms Gross Realization Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Rate Space Heating CIP 401, ,751 6,488,655 6,508, , , % Water Heating CIP 91,054 87,377 1,817,909 1,743, % Commercial Boiler CIP 84,070 84,070 1,681,400 1,681,400 1, , % C&I Solutions 1,202,048 1,239,463 19,369,318 19,972,208 3, , % Commercial Food Service CIP 62,047 86, ,564 1,034, % Home Energy Reports 857, , , ,576 12, , % Low Flow CIP 148, ,643 1,486,430 1,486, % HEAL Partnership N/A Saving Homes Program 149, ,253 2,497,202 2,485, % Total 2,996,904 3,041,317 34,942,945 35,740, , , % Table 1-2 Net Impact Summary Program Annual Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Net Peak Therms (Therms) (Therms) Realization NTGR Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Rate Space Heating CIP 350, ,045 5,646,527 5,612,181 87, , % % Water Heating CIP 75,774 72,391 1,512,812 1,444, % 95.54% Commercial Boiler CIP 67,491 67,491 1,349,828 1,349,828 1, , % % C&I Solutions 1,200,000 1,273,739 18,976,010 20,142,070 3, , % % Commercial Food Service CIP 47,900 66, , , % % Home Energy Reports 857, , , ,576 12, , % 96.63% Low Flow CIP 147, ,948 1,479,479 1,479, % % HEAL Partnership NA NA Saving Homes Program 145, ,741 2,405,738 2,361, % 98.17% Total 2,892,348 2,963,465 32,802,664 34,016, , , % % The contribution to portfolio savings by program is summarized in Figure 1-1. Executive Summary 1-2

48 Figure 1-1 Contribution to Portfolio Net Savings by Program Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3 summarize the share of savings by measure category for residential and non-residential segments, respectively. Figure 1-2 Residential Portfolio Savings Share by Measure Executive Summary 1-3

49 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 20.5% 12.2% 11.2% 10.4% 7.7% 6.3% 6.1% 6.0% 3.8% 3.7% 3.7% 2.5% 2.4% 1.3% 1.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% Figure 1-3 C&I Portfolio Savings Share by Measure Further, the Evaluators put the net savings into the context of CenterPoint s 2016 goal. Table 1-3 summarizes the performance against goals of programs evaluated in this report. Table 1-3 CenterPoint 2016 DSM Portfolio Performance against Goals Program 2016 Verified Net Therms 2016 Net Therms Goal % of Goal Attained Space Heating CIP 364, , % Water Heating CIP 72,391 86, % Commercial Boiler CIP 67,491 92, % C&I Solutions 1,273,739 1,320, % Commercial Food service CIP 66,534 60, % Home Energy Reports 828,576 1,000, % Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP 147, , % HEAL Partnership 0 26, % Saving Homes Program 142,741 87, % Total 2,963,465 3,161, % The CenterPoint portfolio reached 93.74% of the filed savings goal. Percent of goal attainted and budget spent by program is summarized in Figure 1-4. Executive Summary 1-4

50 Figure 1-4 Summary of Goal Attainment & Budget Expenditure by Program Process Findings Following a review of present program offerings and interviews with utility and third party implementation staff, the Evaluators found that: Portfolio Findings The programs are adequately staffed. CenterPoint has allocated sufficient resources to successfully promote and implement their program offerings. The staff is knowledgeable regarding energy efficiency technologies and the market opportunities in their service territory. For some programs, they have brought in personnel with past industry ties, allowing for improved marketing and outreach. Many recommendations from prior program years were addressed in CenterPoint s triennial filing that had not been addressed during the bridge years in between program cycles. CenterPoint QA/QC procedures were adequate for residential programs, in accordance with industry best practices. The portfolio formerly a gap in residential building envelope offerings, in that they were available only through the AWP and the HEAL Partnership. The Saving Homes Weatherization Program has improved CenterPoint s building envelope offerings markedly, and successfully applies this Consistent Weatherization Approach. Executive Summary 1-5

51 CenterPoint reallocated budget from the C&I Solutions Program to allow for increased participation in the Saving Homes Weatherization Program. This was due to high customer demand in its first year of operation. The reallocation was within CenterPoint s allowed 10% cap Space Heating CIP Much of the success of the Space Heating CIP was driven by customers needing to replace their air conditioner. HVAC contractors hired for this purpose successfully sold high efficiency furnaces using the program incentive, but in many instances the customer installed a standard efficiency air conditioner. There was significant early replacement in This is an extension of the activities of HVAC contractors in tacking on the sale of a high efficiency furnace during the replacement of a failed central air conditioner. CenterPoint has added an incentive for smart thermostats beginning in 2017, and a package incentive for installing a furnace and a tankless water heater Water Heating CIP The program has had a lack of commercial storage tank participation, and this is being addressed in 2017 with the addition of a scaled incentive based on input BTU for large storage tank water heaters. This will address a participation gap for facilities that often do not install tankless systems (such as hospitals). The Evaluators found significant differences in the customer decision-making process and customer experience for residential storage tank and tankless participants. Tankless participants are more affluent, more likely to have planned their replacement, make greater use of the CenterPoint website, and are more likely to have learned of the program from a contractor. Storage tank participants typically complete emergency replacements, and learn of the program from retailers or from bill inserts. Tankless participants indicated some dissatisfaction when they needed to speak with program staff about their application Commercial Boiler CIP CenterPoint has removed boiler controls from the program beginning in 2017 due to their being no participation in this channel since program inception Commercial Food Service CIP CenterPoint has incorporated Evaluator recommendations from past years in its 2017 program plan. This includes the development of scaling incentives (with examples including paying per-rack in a rack oven and having three size Executive Summary 1-6

52 categories for combi ovens based on number of pans) and increasing the incentive for fryers. The FSTC has produced savings values for broilers which should be considered for the TRM in the next update C&I Solutions The program fell slightly short of goal in 2016, but this is due in large part to a significant funds reallocation to expand the Saving Homes Weatherization Program. When adjusting for its reduced budget, the program successfully met goal. The program continues to leverage long term relationships with large industrial customers. In the custom channel, 32.6% of net savings were from customers that have participated in the program in prior years. The program has had significant success in developing multiple projects and long-term energy planning at the large industrial customers that have not opted out of the rider Home Energy Reports The Home Energy Reports Program is still provides a significant (but declining) portion of residential savings for CenterPoint. It s share of the residential portfolio declines from 64% to 58% from The program has had over 35% attrition in Wave 1, which is constituted of highusing customers and produces the most savings per customer. This decline may warrant new strategies on how CenterPoint approaches behavioral programs going foward Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP The program has continued the success seen in all prior program years and is providing consistent and reliable savings for CenterPoint. CenterPoint has added effective screening for electric water heating, reducing the rate of electric water heating found among program participants HEAL Partnership Similar to 2015, the program was defunded for 2016 and is no longer part of CenterPoint s portfolio in Saving Homes Weatherization Program The program successfully applied the Consistent Weatherization Approach and produced significant savings in its first year of operation for CenterPoint. This program will be expanded in the cycle. Executive Summary 1-7

53 The program got off to a quick start by using contractors already engaged in Entergy Arkansas Home Performance with Energy Star Program Recommendation Summary In 2015, 15 program or portfolio level recommendations were provide to CenterPoint as part of the EM&V of their portfolio. The Evaluators reviewed CenterPoint s response to recommendations from the 2015 EM&V report and categorized them as follows: 1) Adopted. This applied to recommendations that pertained to the correction of an issue (such as using an incorrect baseline methodology) or modifications in program outreach that do not require a filing. 2) Under consideration. This applies most typically to larger recommendations that would require APSC approval. This included the development of multiplemeasure bonus incentives and adding vendor incentives for boiler controls. 3) Rejected. This applies to recommendations which are reviewed by CenterPoint and rejected. This included recommendations such as dataset consolidation for the boiler and food service programs which were not needed due to low participation. 4) Not applicable. This would apply to recommendations which are no longer applicable to the CenterPoint portfolio. 5) Incomplete. This applies to recommendations which were included in the 2013 EM&V report but have either not yet been adopted or have been explicitly rejected by CenterPoint. This included the addition of points of contact for commercial customers for the Space Heating and Water Heating CIPs. The responses recommendations are summarized in Figure 1-5 Executive Summary 1-8

54 Figure 1-5 Summary of Status of 2015 Recommendations 1.4 Report Organization This report is organized with one chapter providing the full impact and process summary of a specified program. The report is organized as follows: Chapter 3 provides portfolio-level and cross-cutting findings; Chapter 4 provides results for the Space Heating Equipment CIP; Chapter 5 provides results for the Water Heating CIP; Chapter 6 provides results for the Commercial Boiler CIP; Chapter 7 provides results for the C&I Solutions Program; Chapter 8 provides results for the Commercial Food Service CIP; Chapter 9 provides results for the Home Energy Reports Program; Chapter 10 provides results for the Low Flow Showerheads & Faucet Aerators CIP; Chapter 11 provides the results for the HEAL Partnership; Chapter 12 provides the results for the Saving Homes Program; Chapter 13 provides a summary of recommendations for TRM updates; and Appendix A provides the site-level custom reports for the C&I Solutions Program. Executive Summary 1-9

55 2. General Methodology 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. 2.1 Glossary of Terminology A first step to detailing the evaluation methodologies, the Evaluators provide a glossary of terms to follow 1 : Ex Ante Forecasted savings used for program and portfolio planning purposes (from the Latin for beforehand Ex Post Savings estimates reported by an evaluator after the energy impact evaluation has been completed (From the Latin for From something done afterward ) Deemed Savings An estimate of an energy savings or 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) are applicable to the situation being evaluated. (e.g., assuming Therms savings for a low-flow showerhead) Gross Savings The change in energy consumption and/or demand that results directly from program-related actions taken by participants in an efficiency program, regardless of why they participated Gross Realization Rate Ratio of Ex Post Savings / Ex Ante Savings (e.g. If ADM verifies 15 Therms per showerhead, Gross Realization Rate = 15/17.36 = 86%) 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. 1 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 1, Pg General Methodology 2-1

56 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). Net Savings The total change in load that is attributable to an energy efficiency program. This change in load may include, implicitly or explicitly, the effects of free drivers, free riders, energy efficiency standards, changes in the level of energy service, and other causes of changes in energy consumption or demand. (e.g., if Free-Ridership for low-flow showerheads = 50%, net savings = 15 Therms x 50% = 7.5 Therms) Net-to-Gross-Ratio (NTGR) = (1 Free-Ridership % + Spillover %), also defined as Net Savings / Gross Savings Ex Ante Net Savings = Ex Ante Gross Savings x Ex Ante Free-Ridership Rate Ex Post Net Savings = Ex Post Gross Savings x Ex Post Free-Ridership Rate Net Realization Rate = Ex Post Net Savings / Ex Ante Net Savings Effective Useful Life (EUL) An estimate of the median number of years that the efficiency measures installed under a program are still in place and operable. Gross Lifetime Therms = Ex Post Gross Savings x EUL 2.2 Overview of Methodology The proposed methodology for the evaluation of the 2016 CenterPoint DSM 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 2016 evaluation is streamlined to focus on areas in needed of research and improvement. 2.3 Sampling Sampling is necessary to evaluate savings for the CenterPoint DSM portfolio insomuch as verification of a census of program participants is typically cost-prohibitive. As per evaluation requirements set forth by the Independent Evaluation Monitor (IEM), samples are drawn in order to ensure 90% confidence at the +/- 10% precision level. Programs are evaluated on one of three bases: General Methodology 2-2

57 Census of all participants Simple Random Sample Stratified Random Sample Census of Participants A census of participant data was used for select programs where such review is feasible. For example, the Home Energy Reports program s savings estimates are based on a regression model that incorporates billing data for a census of program recipients. Programs that received analysis of a census of participants include: Home Energy Reports; Commercial & Industrial Solutions Custom Component Simple Random Sampling For programs with relatively homogenous measures (largely in the residential portfolio), ADM 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: CV(x) = Standard Deviation (x) Mean(x) Where x is the average Therms 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: Where, CV n 0 = ( ) RP = 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. However, in some instances, programs did not have sufficient participation to make a sample of this size cost-effective. In instances of low participation, ADM then applied a finite population correction factor, defined as: Where n = n n 0 N 2 General Methodology 2-3

58 n 0 = Sample Required for Large Population N = Size of Population n = Corrected Sample For example, if a program were to have only 100 participants, the finite population correction would result in a final required sample size of 41. The Evaluators applied finite population correction factors in instances of low participation in determining samples required for surveying or onsite verification. Programs subject to Simple Random Sampling include: Space Heating CIP Residential; Water Heating CIP Residential; Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP; and Stratified Random Sampling For the CenterPoint Commercial & Industrial 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, we use a sample design for selecting projects for the M&V sample that takes such skewness into account. With this approach, we select a number of sites with large savings for the sample with certainty and take a random sample of the remaining sites. To further 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 according to 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. As a result of this methodology, the required sample for the C&I Industrial Solutions Program was reduced to 24 with one certainty stratum and five sample strata. Programs that were evaluated using stratified random sampling include: Space Heating CIP Non-Residential; Water Heating CIP Non-Residential; Commercial Boiler CIP; Commercial Food Service CIP; and General Methodology 2-4

59 Commercial & Industrial Solutions Direct Install Component Free-Ridership In determining ex post net savings for the CenterPoint DSM 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 TRM 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). 2 Given this definition, participants are defined as free-riders through a binary scoring mechanism, in being either 0% or 100% free-riders Prescriptive Free-Ridership The general methodology for evaluating free-ridership among prescriptive program participants involved examination of four factors: (1) Demonstrated financial ability to purchase high efficiency equipment absent the rebate (2) Importance of the rebate in the decision-making process (3) Prior planning to purchase high efficiency equipment (4) Importance of the contractor in influencing the decision-making process In this methodology, Part (1) 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. As such, if they could not have afforded the high efficiency equipment absent the rebate, free-ridership is scored at 0%. If they did have the financial capability, the Evaluators then examine the other three components. The respondent is determined to be a free-rider based upon a preponderance of evidence of these three factors; that is, if the respondent s answers indicate free-ridership in two or more of these three components, they are considered 2 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Pg. 49. General Methodology 2-5

60 free-riders. Specific questions and modifications to this general methodology are presented in the appropriate program chapters. For residential programs, free-ridership is calculated as the average score determined for the sample of participants surveyed. This value is then applied to the program-level savings to discount savings attributable to free-ridership Custom Free-Ridership For custom projects from the C&I Solutions program, free-ridership is assessed on a case-study basis, through which the Evaluators conduct an in-depth interview that includes a battery of questions addressing: The timing of learning of the program relative to the timing of the planning of the retrofit; The impact the program incentive has on measure payback relative to the stated payback requirements by the respondent; Whether the respondent learned of the energy efficiency measure from a program-funded audit; and Whether any influence the program had in modifying the project affected savings by greater than 50%. In the C&I Solutions chapter, the free-rider case studies are provided for every custom project. 2.4 Process Evaluation General Approach The Evaluators 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 TRM V6.0. In this review, the Evaluators determine what aspects of the program warrant a process evaluation (due to issues identified in the 2016 evaluations). Most CenterPoint programs over-performed, and as such most of the 2016 process evaluation activity was focused around identifying CenterPoint and implementer response to 2016 recommendations. The 2016 process overviews began with interviews of program staff. These interviews, along with guidance from IEM protocols, inform the establishment of goals for the process evaluation, provide background history of programs, and give an introduction to 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 in order to provide feedback for the program and provide an assessment of participant satisfaction. General Methodology 2-6

61 In-Depth Interviews. The Evaluators conducted in-depth interviews with highlevel program actors, including CenterPoint program staff, third-party implementation staff, and program Trade Allies. These interviews are semistructured, 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. General Methodology 2-7

62 3. Portfolio-Level Findings This chapter provides a summary of the portfolio-level findings and any cross-cutting evaluation activities that occurred over the course of the 2016 EM&V Effort. Specifically, this chapter includes: A summary of program and portfolio performance in 2016; A summary of EM&V activities and expenditures in 2016; High-level findings that cut across programs. 3.1 Summary of EM&V Effort Table 3-1 summarizes the EM&V expenditures by the Evaluators, total EM&V expenditures by all parties, and total program budgets. Table 3-1 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio 2016 EM&V Expenditures Total EM&V Evaluators Evaluators 2016 Program Expenditures EM&V EM&V as % of Expenditures Expenditures Budget 576, $183, $6,977, % All programs received a full process evaluation in 2012 and limited process reviews in 2013 and Table 3-2 summarizes the data collection efforts for the 2016 EM&V effort. Interviews should be distinguished from Surveys in that Interviews reflect semi-structured, in-depth discussions with high-level program actors (such as utility staff and third-party implementation staff) whereas surveys are fully-structured and typically conducted with program participants. Table 3-2 Summary of Data Collection Efforts Program # Site Visits # Surveys # Interviews Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP C&I Boiler CIP C&I Solutions Commercial Food Service CIP Home Energy Reports Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP HEAL Partnership Total 55 1, Tests of Portfolio Comprehensiveness The Arkansas Public Service Commission has in place a set of criteria in order to determine whether a DSM portfolio qualifies as Comprehensive. These criteria are: Portfolio-Level Findings 3-1

63 Factor 1: Whether the programs and/or portfolio provide, either directly or through identification and coordination, the education, training, marketing, or outreach needed to address market barriers to the adoption of cost-effective energy efficiency measures; Factor 2: Whether the programs and/or portfolio, have adequate budgetary, management, and program delivery resources to plan, design, implement, oversee and evaluate energy efficiency programs; Factor 3: Whether the programs and/or portfolio, reasonably address all major end-uses of electricity or natural gas, or electricity and natural gas, as appropriate; Factor 4: Whether the programs and/or portfolio, to the maximum extent reasonable, comprehensively address the needs of customers at one time, in order to avoid cream-skimming and lost opportunities Factor 5: Whether such programs take advantage of opportunities to address the comprehensive needs of targeted customer sectors (for example, schools, large retail stores, agricultural users, or restaurants) or to leverage non-utility program resources (for example, state or federal tax incentive, rebate, or lending programs) Factor 6: Whether the programs and/or portfolio enables the delivery of all achievable, cost-effective energy efficiency within a reasonable period of time and maximizes net benefits to customers and to the utility system; Factor 7: Whether the programs and/or portfolio, have evaluation, measurement, and verification ("EM&V") procedures adequate to support program management and improvement, calculation of energy, demand and revenue impacts, and resource planning decisions. The Evaluators reviewed the CenterPoint programs and portfolio in order to assess whether it was in compliance with the APSC Comprehensiveness Goals. In assessing these metrics, the Evaluators score them on numerous subcomponents. The scoring methodology is as follows: : Meets all requirements and is in full compliance with this performance indicator : Meets some requirements and is in partial compliance with this performance indicator : Is not in compliance with this performance indicator. NA: Performance indicator is not applicable to this program. The HEAL Partnership has been changed to N/A for all comprehensiveness factors, due to CCI ceasing implementation in Portfolio-Level Findings 3-2

64 3.2.1 Factor 1: Education, Training, Marketing, and Outreach Assessment of Education The Evaluators assessed the educational components of the CenterPoint programs, in order to identify whether the programs were providing potential participants with the needed information to guide their decision-making, and whether the channels used to reach the target markets are appropriate. The Evaluators found that: CenterPoint s programs used a range of channels to provide educational materials to their programs target markets. The educational materials included brochures, case studies, and presentations to trade & industry groups. CenterPoint program staff conducts outreach and education through a wide range of potential program partners, including contractors, retailers, home builders, and local governments. The breadth of educational materials by program is summarized in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 Assessment of Customer Education by Program Program Provides Educational Materials Outreach Through Multiple Channels Education Targeted to Specific Market Barriers Coordination of Education by Multiple Entities Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP Commercial Food Service CIP C&I Solutions Home Energy Reports NA NA Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP NA HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA Saving Homes Program Assessment of Training The Evaluators reviewed each CenterPoint program to assess whether: 1) Whether the program is trade ally-driven 2) If not, is it a program that could or should be trade ally-driven 3) The program provides training classes to support their program offerings 4) Whether the programs need trade ally certification Portfolio-Level Findings 3-3

65 Table 3-4 Assessment of Trade Ally Training by Program Program Trade Ally Training Offered Training Requirements Adhere to Best Practices Trade Allies Participate in Training Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP Commercial Food Service CIP NA C&I Solutions Home Energy Reports NA NA NA Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP NA NA NA HEAL Partnership NA NA NA Saving Homes Program The Commercial Food Service CIP has several categories marked as NA in that it is driven by equipment vendors, but that their training only constituted being informed on identifying qualifying equipment and instruction on the application process. Technical training was not provided (and was not needed). CenterPoint does not require trade ally registration to participate, except for in the Saving Homes Program. Their approach has been to allow all licensed dealers or contractors to apply for the appropriate equipment rebates. The Evaluators have concluded that this has not to-date affected the quality assurance of the programs Marketing & Outreach The Evaluators reviewed the marketing and outreach strategies associated with each of the CenterPoint programs. These strategies were reviewed to assess whether they adequately addressed the relevant participant barriers, the extent to which trade allies were actively marketing the program (where appropriate), and whether the materials were correctly targeted in marketing a comprehensive approach to energy efficiency. A summary of the Evaluators assessment of CenterPoint s marketing and outreach is presented in Table 3-5. Table 3-5 Assessment of Marketing & Outreach by Program Program Marketing Trade Marketing Marketing Portfolio-Level Findings 3-4

66 Addresses Specific Barriers Allies Promote Program Support Provided to Trade Allies Performed Through Diverse Channels Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP Commercial Food Service CIP C&I Solutions Home Energy Reports NA NA NA Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP NA NA HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA Saving Homes Program After reviewing the marketing and outreach materials, the Evaluators concluded that: Most programs have marketing materials that address specific barriers associated with the targeted segments or technologies. CenterPoint has initiated sector-specific marketing, including fact sheets for restaurants and food processing plants. The CenterPoint programs are marketed through a diverse range of channels, including mass-media advertising, online advertising, meetings and training sessions with professional organizations and trade groups, and partnered marketing with municipal governments. The Saving Homes Program intentionally had limited marketing in 2016 due to its low first-year budget and concerns that CenterPoint had about too much program interest at the outset. This will be resolved when the program s budget is expanded Factor 2: Budgetary, Management, and Program Delivery Resources Several performance indicators were assessed in reviewing the adequacy of budgetary, management, and program delivery resources. This included: Self-reports from program management staff Cost per Therm saved Review of trade ally resources dedicated to program promotion. Portfolio-Level Findings 3-5

67 Table 3-6 Assessment of Budgetary, Management, and Program Delivery Resources by Program Program Budget is Sufficient to Support Program Goals Cost per- Therm Aligns with Program Plan Program Has Sufficient Staffing Program Has Sufficient Trade Ally Support Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP Commercial Food Service CIP C&I Solutions Home Energy Reports NA NA Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP NA NA HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA Saving Homes Program From this review, the Evaluators concluded that the CenterPoint portfolio overall has the adequate budget and staff allocations. Programs were credited with full compliance if acquisition costs exceeded plan values by no more than 10%. Programs were credited with partial compliance if acquisition costs exceeded program plan values by no more than 20%. Figure 3-1 summarizes the planned and actual first-year savings acquisition costs. Figure 3-1 Planned vs. Actual Acquisition Costs The portfolio overall had acquisition costs that were 3.0% higher than the program plan. Portfolio-Level Findings 3-6

68 Three programs had costs that were at least 10% higher than planned: Water Heating CIP, Commercial Boiler CIP, and Home Energy Reports. Some programs had significantly lower acquisition costs than planned; the Commercial Food Service CIP acquisition costs were 36% lower than planned, and the new Saving Homes Program had costs that were 27% lower than planned. C&I Solutions has historically been among the lowest-cost programs offered by CenterPoint. In 2016, acquisition costs for the program reached an all-time low of $1.56/Therm Factor 3: Addressing Major End-Uses The Evaluators identified the end-uses served by each of the CenterPoint programs. Most CenterPoint programs are designed around a specific technology or end-use. Table 3-7 summarizes the end-uses addressed by each program. Program Table 3-7 End-Uses Addressed by Program HVAC Hot Water Food Service Building Envelope Industrial Process Behavioral Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP Commercial Food Service CIP C&I Solutions Home Energy Reports Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA NA NA Saving Homes Program Measure targeted Measure offered Measure not offered Presently, the CenterPoint portfolio covers all end-uses. In past Evaluations, it was found that CenterPoint was not adequately capturing the emergency replacement market for water heaters and was not providing an adequate offering for building envelope improvements. Both of these issues were resolved in 2016 and we have revised their comprehensiveness score to reflect this Factor 4: Comprehensively Addressing Customer Needs To assess Factor 4, the Evaluators reviewed CenterPoint programs to discern the extent of: Program-provided technical assistance; Incentives of comprehensive projects/measure suites; and Tiered incentives for higher efficiency levels. Portfolio-Level Findings 3-7

69 The CenterPoint portfolio has no specific requirements for installation of multiple measures. Customers can participate to an extent of their choice. This is a program best-practice in enabling customers to engage in energy efficiency in a manner in accordance with their budget constraints. Table 3-8 summarizes the comprehensiveness of offerings for each program. Table 3-8 Assessment of Project Comprehensiveness by Program Program Technical Assistance and/or Audits Information Provided Comprehensive for Efficiency Bundled Incentives for Multiple Measures Tiered Incentives for Premium Efficiency Trade Ally Incentives for Premium Efficiency Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP Commercial Food Service CIP C&I Solutions Home Energy Reports NA NA NA Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP NA NA NA HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA NA Saving Home Program Findings from the assessment of this factor included: Most CenterPoint prescriptive programs offer incentives to trade allies for installation of top-tier efficiency measures. This has included incentives for condensing furnaces, tankless water heaters, and high efficiency food service equipment. Trade ally incentives are not offered for the Commercial Boiler CIP, but could be potentially viable for boiler controls. The CenterPoint portfolio offers tiered incentives for premium efficiency across all of their rebate programs. This includes: - The incentives for the Space Heating CIP increase from $400 to $600 for units with 95% AFUE or greater. - Incentives in the Water Heating CIP range from $75 for storage tank water heaters to $500 for tankless water heaters - High efficiency boiler incentives are $1,400/MMBtuh for units < 92% efficient and $2,000/MMBtuh for units with 92% efficiency or greater. - The Commercial Food Service CIP does not differentiate between efficiency levels. For food service, the range of efficiency levels is not as wide as for other equipment types. However, this program could potentially benefit from tiered incentives for different equipment sizes (such as single vs. double-sized ovens). Portfolio-Level Findings 3-8

70 Residential Multifamily Mobile Home Small Commercial Large Commercial Industrial Agricultural Public Sector 2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report - The C&I Solutions program pays an incentive per verified Therm, and as a result projects with higher savings are by design paid a higher incentive. The CenterPoint portfolio has programs that bundle on-site technical assistance with direct installation. The range of technical assistance varies by program. The Space Heating, Water Heating, and Commercial Boiler CIPs offer technical assistance through program trade allies. The level of on-site technical assistance is lower for the Commercial Food Service CIP in that the market is driven by in-store contact with vendors rather than by on-site assessment. C&I Solutions provides on-site technical assistance that is directly funded by the program. The programs have procedures for following up with customers after their participation, which includes thank-you calls or s and verification inspection. Marketing materials typically make attempts at cross-promotion of programs Factor 5: Targeting Market Sectors & Leveraging Opportunities The Evaluators reviewed whether the CenterPoint portfolio offered a comprehensive range of energy efficiency opportunities to all major customer sectors. Table 3-9 summarizes the market sectors and what programs target or allow each sector. Table 3-9 Assessment of Targeted Customer Sectors by Program Program Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP Commercial Food Service CIP C&I Solutions Home Energy Reports Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Saving Homes Program Program targets this sector Sector is eligible for this program Sector is ineligible for this program Each sector has several programs for which they are eligible, and at least one program that targets them. Segments with fewer targeted outreach avenues include: Portfolio-Level Findings 3-9

71 Mobile/manufactured housing. This is often not targeted as there is a much higher prevalence of electric space and water heating. Further, this segment receives outreach from the Arkansas Weatherization Program. Agriculture and Industrial sectors are not specifically targeted by the Space Heating and Water Heating CIPs as the equipment used by these facilities generally requires custom calculations. Public Sector facilities are targeted with a wide range of programs. This has included residential programs that reach out to public housing authorities. In addition, the Evaluators reviewed the extent of collaboration and leveraging of available partnership opportunities by CenterPoint. Examples of cross-utility coordination included: Through a joint contract, the Evaluators provide EM&V to CenterPoint, Black Hills Energy, and Arkansas Oklahoma Gas. This allows for sharing of fixed EM&V costs (such as development of data collection instruments) and more seamless comparison of program offerings and lessons learned across the natural gas energy efficiency portfolio. This has reduced the overall cost of EM&V across all three natural gas utilities. CenterPoint has brought on a third-party implementer (CLEAResult) for their C&I Solutions Program. This implementer uses the same program design and incentive levels for Black Hills Energy and AOG. This has allowed for reduced program costs for C&I Solutions, which is the largest program in each of the three gas utility portfolios. CenterPoint engages in several joint-marketing efforts with the other gas utilities as well as with Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI). This has included jointimplementation of education and promotional opportunities when interests with the other gas utilities or EAI align. Examples of coordination with non-utility partners included: CenterPoint s programs are marketed through industry partners included professional organizations, trade groups, universities, and homeowners associations. CenterPoint works with a local technical college to help provide training opportunities to trade allies and students interested in careers related to energy efficiency Factor 6: Cost-Effectiveness of Energy Efficiency To assess this factor, the Evaluators reviewed whether: Portfolio-Level Findings 3-10

72 Programs met net savings goals; Whether the NTG ratios were in line with industry norms; and Whether programs passed cost-effectiveness (TRC) testing. Program Table 3-10 Assessment of Cost-Effectiveness NTGR NTGR Within Industry Norms Met Net Savings Goal Program TRC Space Heating CIP 87.35% Yes Yes 2.24 Water Heating CIP 82.83% Yes No 1.30 Commercial Boiler CIP 80.28% Yes No 2.27 C&I Solutions % Yes No 4.91 Commercial Food Service CIP 77.20% Yes Yes 1.51 Home Energy Reports % Yes No.81 Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP 99.53% Yes Yes HEAL Partnership N/A NA NA.00 Saving Homes Program 95.00% Yes Yes 6.04 The Home Energy Reports Program had a TRC less than The Evaluators attribute this to the aggregate 35% attrition in Wave 1; Wave 1 of the program was developed in 2011 and is comprised of CenterPoint s highest users, therefore producing the most savings per-recipient. Subsequent waves in the program have yielded significantly lower savings per-participant Factor 7: Adequacy of EM&V Procedures The Evaluators conducted a review of EM&V procedures by program as implemented by several parties: QA/QC and EM&V procedures by CenterPoint program staff; QA/QC and EM&V procedures by third-party implementation staff (where applicable) QA/QC and EM&V procedures by the Evaluators. The EM&V of the CenterPoint programs incorporated industry best practices and was conducted in an iterative process that incorporated feedback from CenterPoint and implementation contractors as well as the Independent Evaluation Monitor (IEM). The Evaluators developed EM&V plans that corresponded to protocols set out in the Arkansas TRM V6.0. However, over the course of the EM&V process, some activities deviated from the EM&V plans: Evaluation activities for the Space Heating CIP (including vendor interviewing) needed to be curtailed in order to allow for a furnace metering study. Portfolio-Level Findings 3-11

73 Survey samples for the Commercial Boiler and Commercial Food Service CIPs were scaled down based on lower participation levels. Finally, the Evaluators reviewed the quality of program tracking data in order to assess whether the data allowed for complete evaluation. Further, the Evaluators reviewed the extent to which individual savings calculations were performed using facility-specific inputs into the TRM V6.0 algorithms versus the use of simplifying assumptions 3. The results of the review are summarized in Table Table 3-11 Assessment of Data & QA/QC Procedures by Program Program Tracking Contains Necessary Fields Savings Calculations Performed and Reported Savings Calculations Based on Facility Data QA/QC Inspections by Program Staff Space Heating CIP Water Heating CIP Commercial Boiler CIP Commercial Food Service CIP C&I Solutions Home Energy Reports NA Low Flow Showerhead & Aerator CIP HEAL Partnership NA NA NA NA Saving Homes Program Findings of this review included: The Space Heating and Water Heating CIPs lacked contact names for most commercial projects. This added a significant amount of difficulty to the EM&V process. Home Energy Reports has savings calculations performed at the end of the program year. This is not tracked mid-year, though that might not be necessary given the program s existing verified performance. C&I Solutions tracking data contained all needed fields for evaluation and recreation of energy savings calculations. QA/QC inspections are in place for all programs other than Home Energy Reports (where it is not needed) and the Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP. For the Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP, postinspection of participant residences is not likely to add value, and savings calculations by CenterPoint already incorporate expected in-service rates. QA/QC is performed by the Evaluators via telephone survey. 3 Examples of this could include assuming average facility square footage for commercial water heating and using that as an input to the savings calculation, as opposed to collecting facility-specific square footage. Portfolio-Level Findings 3-12

74 4. Space Heating CIP The Space Heating Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) provides incentives to residential and business customers for high efficiency heating equipment. Eligible measures for this program include: $400 for Gas furnaces with 90%-94.9% AFUE; $600 for Gas furnaces with 95% or higher AFUE; $125 for Back-up gas furnaces with % AFUE; and $175 for Back-up gas furnaces with 90% or higher AFUE; The Space Heating CIP is targeted at residential and small commercial market sectors. Retrofit and new construction applications are both allowed utilizing the same 80% baseline AFUE. The marketing efforts for the Space Heating CIP were largely directed at HVAC contractors; their involvement is seen as crucial, as they are generally a primary source of information for end-use customers when deciding upon a replacement system. 4.1 Program Overview The Space Heating CIP began in The program is designed to incentivize the purchase of high efficiency non-central space heating equipment. This program originally included incentives for Direct Vent Heaters, but due to lack of interest (with no participants in 2010 or 2011 in this measure category) this measure was removed from the program. Presently, the program incentivizes high efficiency furnaces and hydronic heating systems. The Space Heating CIP had $1,657,299 in budget allocated for The history of program performance and expenditures is presented in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Space Heating CIP Historical Performance against Goals Program Year # Participants Budget Net Therms Actual Goal Spent Allocated Achieved Goal ,041 1,800 $537,274 $701, , , ,844 $510,998 $838,402 75, , ,074 2,095 $1,604,614 $1,646, , , ,189 2,094 $1,602,180 $1,657, , , ,837 2,074 $1,402,148 $1,657, , , ,389 2,074 $1,730,021 $1,657, , , ,394 2,014 $1,714,207 $1,657, , ,520 Space Heating CIP 4-1

75 4.1.1 Participation Summary Residential Participation Summary The 2016 Space Heating CIP had a total of 2,394 processed rebates. The participation comprised: 1,690 residential rebates at 1,378 premises; and 704 commercial rebates at 198 premises. 100 of the units rebated were in multifamily premises with submetered billing. At the equipment level, residential participation included: 10 back-up furnaces 1,680 primary furnaces, with: - 1,652 exceeding 95% AFUE; and - 28 between % AFUE. 79.1% of residential rebates issued were for retrofit projects. 20.9% were for new construction projects Commercial Participation Summary Commercial participation comprised: 692 furnaces with 95% or greater AFUE; and 57 with AUFE of %; 85.5% of commercial rebates were for retrofit projects. 14.5% were for new construction projects. Figure 4-1 summarizes the participation levels by facility type. Space Heating CIP 4-2

76 Figure 4-1 Space Heating CIP Commercial Participation by Facility Type The bulk of participation and savings was driven by educational and large office facilities. There were 171 units rebated in multifamily housing with master-metered billing Participation Timing Figure 4-2 summarizes the savings by month as determined by the date of rebate delivery. The two lines represent the total number of units installed in the specified month of Space Heating CIP 4-3

77 # Units Rebated 2016 CenterPoint DSM Portfolio Final Evaluation Report Commerical Residential Figure 4-2 Space Heating CIP Rebates by Month 4.2 Space Heating CIP Process Evaluation The Evaluators conducted a formal process evaluation of the Space Heating CIP in 2012 and al limited process review in 2013, and found that the program was successful in meeting participation, savings, and satisfaction goals. Table 4-2 and Table 4-3 summarize the Evaluators review of the Space Heating CIP in comparison to TRM V6.0 Protocol C for timing and conditions of conducting a process evaluation. Table 4-2 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component New and Innovative Components No Previous Process Evaluation New Vendor or Contractor Determination No. The program is designed in a manner consistent with similar programs elsewhere and applies deemed savings values from the TRM. No. The program received a comprehensive process evaluation in 2012 and a limited process review in 2013 and No. The program has been run internally by CenterPoint since program inception in Space Heating CIP 4-4

78 Table 4-3 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component Are program impacts lower or slower than expected? Are the educational or informational goals not meeting program goals? Are the participation rates lower or slower than expected? Are the program s operational or management structure slow to get up and running or not meeting program administrative needs? Is the program s cost-effectiveness less than expected? Do participants report problems with the programs or low rates of satisfaction? Is the program producing the intended market effects? Determination No. The program exceeded its savings goal in No. The programs have had successful consumer and contractor outreach & education. No. The program exceeded its participant goal in No. The 2012 and 2013 process evaluations found that operational and management structure to be up to speed and efficient in administering the program. No, the program s cost-effectiveness was within expected boundaries. No participant surveys found exceedingly high satisfaction levels. Yes. Interviews with participating contractors in 2013 found significant market transformation occurring. On this basis, the Evaluators concluded that process evaluation activities for 2016 would be limited to a review of prior-year recommendations Data Collection Activities The process evaluation of the Space Heating CIP included the following data collection activities: CenterPoint Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed staff at CenterPoint involved in the administration of the Space Heating CIP. These interviews were to collect information from program staff as to any changes or developments, as well as response to program recommendations. Participant Surveying. The Evaluators surveyed separate samples of residential and non-residential participants in the Space Heating CIP. In addition to their use in developing free-ridership and spillover estimates, these surveys informed the process evaluation of the Space Heating CIP. These surveys addressed issues including participant satisfaction with the program offerings, demographics and firmographics, and other contextual issues regarding the participation process. Further, the data from these surveys served to quantify the extent of early replacement. Table 4-4 summarizes the data collection for this process evaluation effort. This includes the titles, role, sample sizes, timeframe of data collection. Space Heating CIP 4-5

79 Table 4-4 CenterPoint Space Heating CIP Data Collection Summary Target Component Activity N Role CenterPoint Program Staff Program Participants Manager, Conservation Improvement Program Implementation Energy Efficiency Consultant Residential Retrofit Commercial Retrofit Process Results & Findings Interview 1 Interview 1 Survey 80 Survey 35 Overall administration of CenterPoint DSM programs. This manager is involved in the larger strategic decisions associated with the DSM portfolio, and is involved with the Space Heating CIP in the overall coordination of utility resources. The Energy Efficiency Consultant at CenterPoint is responsible for much of the day-to-day operation of the program on the part of CenterPoint. This individual s responsibilities include regular interaction with third party implementation staff and assisting in outreach and marketing efforts of the program. Residential retrofit respondents included those that replaced an existing furnace with a unit with 90 AFUE or greater. Commercial retrofit respondents included retrofit and new construction participants that received incentives for high efficiency furnaces rated at 90 AFUE or higher. This section will present the results and key findings from the data collection activities. These findings are based upon interviews with utility staff, implementation staff, and surveys with participants, and a thorough and in-depth literature review Response to Program Recommendations Table 4-5 summarizes the status of issues and recommendations identified in the 2015 process evaluation. Space Heating CIP 4-6

80 Table 4-5 Space Heating CIP Response to 2015 Recommendations Recommendation CenterPoint Response Status of Issue Provide a bonus incentive for trade allies to install smart thermostats, using a NTGR of 86.1% Establish separate forms for residential versus commercial applications. Update the residential application (or application section, should CenterPoint keep the two applications aggregated) to include check-off boxes for home vintage and conditioned square feet. Add fields in the residential application form to include an indicator as to whether the replaced unit was still functioning and to write in the unit s age. Add a point-of-contact field in the commercial tracking data This has been added to the program for 2017 The combined form has been retained The form has not been updated to collect this data The form has not been updated to collect this data The program tracking data does not contain this information Recommendation adopted Recommendation Rejected Recommendation rejected Recommendation rejected Issue persists Space Heating CIP 4-7

81 Program Data Collection The Evaluators reviewed the application forms for the residential and commercial components of the Space Heating CIP and found the following: The current application form is not collecting the data needed to comply with TRM V6.0 requirements. The form should add check-off boxes for construction date 4 and home square footage. The current application does not collect data to support residential early replacement calculations. The application would need to include fields to collect whether the replaced unit was functioning and to collect the age of the replaced unit (though those fields should be optional rather than mandatory for a rebate to be approved) Residential Survey Response The Evaluators completed 80 surveys with residential retrofit program participants in the Space Heating CIP. Further, the Evaluators collected demographic information on the respondents during the survey. These are summarized in Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4. Figure 4-3 Differences in Income between Participants and Non-Participants 4 According to the TRM V6.0 guidelines, these would be 1979 & earlier, , , and 2000-present. Space Heating CIP 4-8

82 Figure 4-4 Differences in Education between Participants and Non-Participants From these demographic questions, the Evaluators have found that the typical participant in the Space Heating CIP has a higher income and education level than average for the CenterPoint service territory. Sixty-eight percent of respondents reported having natural gas water heating Program Awareness CenterPoint s marketing of the Space Heating CIP is driven through multiple channels, including both customer-direct outreach and marketing through HVAC contractors. Thirty-three percent of residential respondents surveyed indicated having learned about the program through an HVAC contractor, while another 22.7% learned of the program from an equipment vendor, dealer or retailer. Other commonly indicated sources of program awareness included word of mouth from friends and relatives (14.7%), from a bill message from CenterPoint (9.3%), and through the CenterPoint website (4%). The sources of awareness for the Space Heating CIP are summarized in Figure 4-5. Space Heating CIP 4-9

83 Figure 4-5 Sources of Awareness For those that indicated learning about the program through other means outside of the utility website, they were asked several follow up questions pertaining to whether they have ever navigated the CenterPoint website. Their responses are summarized in Figure 4-6 Figure 4-6 Customer Experience with CenterPoint Website Fifty-five percent of respondents learned of the program through HVAC contractors, vendors, distributors, and/or retailers, who have been actively engaged by Space Heating CIP 4-10

84 CenterPoint in marketing the program. This is a decline from 2015, where 65% of respondents listed these sources. Forty-six percent of respondents indicated that their replacement was an emergency replacement due to failed equipment. Of the 53% that indicated having time to plan the replacement, 53.8% stated that they felt the furnace was close to failure. Overall, 46.2% of the total respondents indicated having replaced a furnace that was functional and not expected to soon fail Efficiency and Features of the Furnace Respondents were subsequently asked to identify what type of thermostat they use with their furnace. Their responses are summarized in Figure % 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% n= % 40.0% 13.8% Standard Thermostat Programmable Thermostat Smart Thermostat Figure 4-7 Thermostat Types installed by Residential Retrofit Participants As seen in Figure 4-7, 13.8% of respondents received a smart thermostat at the time of installation. This technology has been added to the TRM but is not currently implemented by CenterPoint. Based on the survey findings, the Evaluators conclude that smart thermostats are far from standard practice, even for homes installing condensing furnaces. There is an opportunity for program expansion in providing a bonus incentive to HVAC contractors for upgrading customer thermostats, and based on this survey data CNP could do so with a program-plan NTGR of 86%. Respondents were further asked to identify the extent to which they use their thermostat s functionality. Their responses are detailed in Figure 4-8. Space Heating CIP 4-11

85 80.0% Do you have programs established for tour furnace during the winter heating season? (n=43) 67.7% 72.7% Do you make use of your thermostat's internet connectivity? (n=11) 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 25.8% 27.3% No 27% Yes 73% 0.0% Programmable Thermostat Smart Thermostat (n=11) (n=31) Yes No Reasons for Participation Figure 4-8 Customer Use of Thermostat Features Participants were also asked about the importance of some of the motivating factors that helped in the decision-making process before purchasing the high efficiency space heating equipment, such as, saving money on their bills, improving home comfort, and getting the rebate. Figure 4-9 tabulates the results Figure 4-9 Residential Space Heating Reasons for Purchas of High Efficiency Furnaces More than half of the respondents indicated that the most important factor that contributed to their decision to purchase the energy efficient furnace was saving money Space Heating CIP 4-12

86 on energy bills (66.3%), followed by, improving the comfort of their home (26.3%), and obtaining the rebate (6.3%) Contractor Interactions Respondents were asked several questions regarding their interactions and experience with the contractors. Fifty percent of respondent s common source of finding a contractor was through word of mouth. The second most common source used a contractor that they had worked for them before to install the furnace (39%). Very few respondents found a contractor through an internet search (5%), a program representative (1.3%), and the utility website (1.3%). Participants were also asked to rate several statements regarding their experience with the contractor who installed the furnace on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning Strongly Disagree and 5 meaning Strongly Agree. Figure 4-10 tabulates those results. The contractor was courteous and professional(n=80,mean=4.87) The work was scheduled in a reasonable amount of time (n=80, mean=4.87) The work was completed in a reasonable amount of time (n=80, mean=4.92) 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree Figure 4-10 Customer Experience with Participating Contractors A majority of participants thought their contractors were courteous and professional and they took a reasonable about of time to schedule and complete the work Program Satisfaction Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning Very Dissatisfied and 5 meaning Very Satisfied on a range of items related to their program experience. Tabulates the satisfaction results of various program elements. Space Heating CIP 4-13

87 The first two elements rated were only asked to those participants who contact a program staff member. How long it took program staff to address your questions or concerns (n=19,mean=4.22) How thoroughly they addressed your questions of concerns (n=19,mean=4) Performance of the equiment you installed (n=80, mean=4.85) Energy savings on your utility bill resulting from installing the furnace (n=80, mean=4.42) The rebate amount (n=80, mean=4.75) Process for applying for the rebate (n=80, mean=4.75) Quality of the work performed by your contractor (n=80, mean=4.79) Time it took to receive the rebate (n=80, mean=4.54) Centerpoint as your gas service provider (n=80, mean=4.79) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very Dissatified Somewhat Dissatified Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Somewhat Satisfied Very Satisfied Figure 4-11 Space Heating CIP Residential Participant Satisfaction Overall satisfaction with the Space Heating CIP is high. Respondents indicated particularly high satisfaction with the quality of the work performed by the contractor, the performance of the equipment, and the rebate amount. Respondents also reported high satisfaction with CenterPoint as their gas service provider. On the operational side, customers indicated high satisfaction levels with incentive amounts and the application process, with mean scores of 4.75 and 4.75, respectively. Some respondents did indicate lower satisfaction towards the wait time to receive the rebate reporting that they had to make follow-up phone calls with the utility or contractor to ask why they had not received their rebate. For those respondents who contacted a program staff member, service from CenterPoint staff was rated moderately high; however, 89.5% of those that spoke to a program staff member reported that they were satisfied with the interactions. Respondents were asked to clarify why they were dissatisfied, and replied: It took a year to get the rebate and I could not get anyone to even call me back. I looked to see if there was a change in my cooling and I didn't see any difference. and I thought I had an energy efficient system. Space Heating CIP 4-14

88 Respondents were asked at the end of the survey whether or not their participation in CenterPoint s Space Heating program increased or decreased their satisfaction with the utility. Seventy-one percent of respondents said that their satisfaction had increased with CenterPoint after participating in the program, while 23% of respondents said that their participation did not affect their satisfaction with the utility Alternative Programs Respondents were asked about potential program offerings from the utility, and were asked to rate their interest in those programs on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means not at all interested and 5 means very interested. Figure 4-12 shows the results Commercial Survey Response Figure 4-12 Participant Interest in Other Programs A survey was conducted in 2016 to collect data about customer decision-making, preferences, and perspective of the Commercial Heating Efficiency Program. In total, 35 participants responded to the survey questionnaire Program Awareness As shown in Figure 4-13, the most common ways respondents first learned about the program was from a contractor, trade ally, vendor, or energy consultant (54%). Other common sources of awareness included, a program representative (14%), informational brochures (9%), and friends or colleagues (6%). Space Heating CIP 4-15

89 Figure 4-13 Commercial Space Heating Participant Sources of Program Awareness Decisions to Participate Participants were asked who initiated the discussion that led to the decision to participate in the program. The majority of respondents (57%) said their organization initiated the discussion. Other common responses to the question were, a CenterPoint representative (19%), or a vendor/contractor (14%). Table 4-6 Organization s Decision-Making Regarding your organization's decision to participate in the incentive program, who initiated the discussion about the incentive opportunity? Would you say Percent of Respondents (n = 37) Your organization initiated it 57% Your vendor or contractor initiated it 14% The idea arose in discussion between your organization and your vendor or contractor 5% An CNP representative initiated it 19% Some other way 3% Don't know 3% Seventy-eight percent of respondents said they had not previously installed a similar measure, while 22% said they had. About half of respondents (52%) said they had plans to install the equipment before participating in the program. Only 19% of respondents said their organization participated in prior energy efficiency programs with CenterPoint before this project. In addition, 65% of respondents said the program affected the level of efficiency of the installed equipment. Space Heating CIP 4-16

90 Forty-nine percent of respondents said they purchased the equipment earlier as a result of the program. These participants were then asked when they would have installed the equipment. As Table 4-7 shows, the majority of respondents would have installed within six months to two years later. Table 4-7 Timeframe for Installation without the Program Percent of When would you otherwise have installed the equipment? Respondents (n = 18) Less than 6 months later 0% 6-12 months later 28% 1-2 years later 50% 3-5 years later 6% More than 5 years later 0% Don't know 17% Participation Process As Table 4-8 shows, the respondent was involved in completing the application for program incentives 70% of the time. Other common responses were other members of the respondent s company, an equipment vendor, or a contractor. Table 4-8 Person/s Involved in Application Process Which of the following people worked on completing your application for program incentives (including gathering required documentation)? 5 Percent of Respondents (n = 35) Yourself 70% Another member of the company 30% A contractor 11% An equipment vendor 22% A designer or architect 0% Someone else 14% Don't know 5% Seventy-three percent of respondents said they had a clear sense of who to go for assistance with the application process, while 19% did not. In addition, 65% of respondents thought the information on how to complete the application were clear, while 8% thought it was not clear. 5 Respondents were able to select more than one response, so the total percentage may add up to over 100%. Space Heating CIP 4-17

91 Table 4-9 Clarity of Application Information Thinking back on the application process, please rate the clarity of information on how to complete the application Percent of Respondents (n = 35) 1 - Not at all clear 3% 2 5% 3 14% 4 24% 5 - Completely clear 41% Don't know 14% Finally, respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 different aspects of the application process, as shown in the figure below. Fourteen percent of respondents thought the effort required to provide documentation was unacceptable, though the majority (77%) found it acceptable. Other aspects of the application process scored even higher. Overall application process (n = 26) Effort required to provide documentation (n = 22) Time to approve the application (n = 23) Ease of finding forms on Exel's website (n = 7) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Completely Unacceptable (1) Completely Acceptable (5) Participant Satisfaction Figure 4-14 Feedback on Program Application Process Respondents, who had interactions with program staff, were asked to rank the knowledgeability of staff on a scale of 1 to 5. The average ranking for respondents was 4.7, which indicates respondents found staff to be very knowledgeable. Respondents were also asked to rank various aspects of the program on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied. Overall program satisfaction was very high, with 86% of respondents being satisfied or very satisfied. Respondents Space Heating CIP 4-18

92 were least satisfied with the range of equipment that qualifies for incentives and the amount of time to receive the rebate/incentive. Figure 4-15 Participant Program Satisfaction 4.3 Space Heating CIP Impact Evaluation The impact evaluation effort of the Space Heating CIP included the following: Desk Review of Residential Calculations. The Evaluators utilized TRM V6.0 values in assessing savings from residential furnaces. The updates to residential furnaces in TRM V6.0 did not require the collection of additional data. Commercial Verification. The Evaluators applied TRM V6.0 deemed savings parameters in assessing savings of the commercial component. Free-Ridership Estimation. The Evaluators applied 2015 free-ridership rates to 2016 program participants. Space Heating CIP 4-19

93 4.3.1 Residential Impact Evaluation Energy Savings Calculations According to Arkansas TRM V6.0, savings for residential furnaces are calculated as follows: 6 Where: Annual Therm Savings = Heat load ( 1 AFUE 1 base AFUE ) eff therms Heat load = site area site area year Site area = square footage of the project site. If site area is unknown, use installed capacity (btuh)/30 (btuh/ft 2 ). AFUE base = baseline efficiency of the furnace, 80% AFUE. AFUE eff = efficiency of the new furnace installed, in AFUE. Table 4-10 summarizes the heating load multipliers per square foot from the TRM V6.0 Table 4-10 TRM V6.0 Annual Furnace Heating Load Vintage Heating Load (Therms/Ft. 2 /Year Zone 9 Fayetteville Zone 8 Fort Smith Zone 7 Little Rock Zone 6 El Dorado 1979 & Earlier & Later Table 4-11 summarizes the heating load multipliers per square foot from the TRM V6.0. Table 4-11 TRM V6.0 Annual Furnace Heating Load Vintage Heating Load (Therms/Ft. 2 /Year Zone 9 Fayetteville Zone 8 Fort Smith Zone 7 Little Rock Zone 6 El Dorado 1979 & Earlier & Later Example savings calculations are as follows: Retrofit 90,000 Input BTU furnace, 95% AFUE Output BTU = 90,000 x.95 = 85,500 Proxy Square Feet = 85,500 / 30 = 2,850 6 Arkansas TRM V6.0 Volume 2, Page 32 Space Heating CIP 4-20

94 Location: Little Rock, Zone 7. Retrofit Therms Savings = 2,850ft Therms ft. 2 ( ) = Therms. 95 The same furnace in a new construction project would save: NC Therms Savings = 2,850ft Therms ft. 2 ( ) = Therms Impact of Early Replacement As per the TRM V6.0, and the procedures for calculating the impact of early replacement for residential furnaces, early retirement AFUE is calculated by a degradation factor of a 78 AFUE unit. This is calculated as: 7 Where: AFUE base_early = (Base AFUE) (1 M) age (1) Base AFUE = efficiency of the existing equipment when new, 78% AFUE. M 8 = maintenance factor, age = the age of the existing equipment, in years. Following this, lifetime savings are determined based on the Remaining Useful Life (RUL) of the old equipment. This is summarized in Table Table 4-12 Residential Furnace RUL Unit Age RUL Unit Age RUL This data was collected from 2016 participants as follows: 7 Arkansas TRM V6.0 Volume 2, Pg Maintenance factor of 0.01 is the average maintenance factor for gas furnaces taken from the October 2010 National Renewable Energy publication Building America House Simulation Protocols, table AR TRM V6.0, Volume 2, Pg. 56 Space Heating CIP 4-21

95 A random sample of retrofit participants was surveyed to provide an estimate of what percent of furnace retrofits were of functional units. In these interviews, respondents were also asked to provide an estimate of unit age. The results of this survey are then extrapolated to the population of retrofits in the residential component. For early retirements, the Evaluators applied the average unit age determined from participant surveying. Subsequent to this, the annual therms for all retrofit units are calculated based on a weighted average of normal and early retirement parameters. Overall, ADM found that 62.5% of furnaces replaced were functioning units. Respondents were asked to identify the age of their replaced unit. The mean age of replaced units: for functioning units for failed units Based on the degradation equation from TRM V6.0, this leads to an Early Retirement AFUE of: AFUE base_early = (. 78) (1.01) =.6585 Further, based on the values in Table 4-12, the RUL of the early replacement units is five years11. For years 6-20 of the unit EUL, the normal replacement baseline applies. The savings for each residential retrofit unit were calculated using both the normal and early replacement baselines, and final savings reflect a weighted average of these two values based on participant survey data findings. These values were then applied on a weighted basis to the residential retrofit units using weights of 62.5% early replacement and 37.5% normal replacement. The Evaluators applied this baseline to residential retrofits as well as to master-metered multifamily units Residential Free-Ridership The Evaluators addressed free-ridership for residential units in Program rebate levels and eligibility requirements did not change in 2016 and as a result the Evaluators elected not to repeat this analysis. 10 In determining the average age of functioning units, the Evaluators excluded six high outliers; these units were all over 30 years old and the Evaluators concluded that their inclusion in the Early Replacement population would be inappropriate. 11 Midpoint of 16 and 17 year-old furnaces is 5.5 and 4.5 years. The Evaluators opted to round to 5 years. Space Heating CIP 4-22

96 The free-ridership rates for the Heating Equipment Rebates residential component are as follows: Residential Retrofit: 12.35% Residential Retrofit Multifamily: 10.4% Residential New Construction (builder production homes): 8.3% Residential New Construction (custom homes): 51.3% New Construction Multifamily: 10.4%% Multifamily NTGR is based on the NTGR for the commercial component, detailed in Section Commercial Impact Evaluation Energy Savings Calculations Therms savings calculations for commercial furnaces apply more facility-specific information than the residential methodology. Savings were calculated as follows 12 : 1 1 BTU Capacity EFLH H ( ) Effic pre Effic post Therms Savings = 100,000 Therms/BTU The EFLH for a facility is a function of facility type and weather zone. The TRM V6.0 EFLH values are summarized in Table Table 4-13 EFLH Values 13 Building Type Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Assembly College/University Fast Food Restaurant Full Menu Restaurant Grocery Store Health Clinic Lodging Large Office (>30k Ft 2 ) 811 1,014 1,054 1,036 Small Office (<30k Ft 2 ) Religious Worship Retail 780 1,041 1,131 1,099 School 774 1,026 1,089 1,064 For example, if a Small Office in Little Rock (Zone 7) installed a 70,000 BTU 96% AFUE Furnace, the resulting Therms savings are calculated as: 12 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Pg Data pulled from Arkansas TRM V6.0 Volume 2, Table 459. Pg Space Heating CIP 4-23

97 1 70,000 BTU 538 EFLH ( Therms Savings = ) = Therms 100,000 BTU/Therm Commercial Field Inspection Findings The Evaluators conducted field inspections at 21 participating commercial facilities accounting for 136 rebated units. These field visits were scheduled and conducted by the Evaluators staff with multiple goals in mind: First, the fieldwork was intended to verify that equipment was installed and matched specifications listed in the program tracking data. This included verification of capacity (BTUH) and efficiency (AFUE), as well as that the unit usage matched program tracking data (i.e., that the facility type listed in tracking data appropriately matched the application). Second, field staff verified that the installations were done in a professional manner, ensuring proper functionality of the furnace. This primarily focused on verifying that condensate was being properly discharged without leakage. In the 21 field inspections completed, the Evaluators found that all equipment matched program tracking data and that the installations were done in a manner that allows for the full efficient functionality of the furnaces Space Heating CIP Commercial Free-Ridership The Evaluators applied the 2014 free-ridership estimate of 10.4% to the commercial segment Verified Savings Table 4-14 presents the gross savings results of the evaluation of the 2016 Space Heating CIP. Total gross savings summarizes the savings calculations performed by TRM protocols for Residential and Commercial furnaces. Facility Category Residential Table 4-14 Space Heating CIP Verified Therms Savings Measure Category Single-family Retrofit Expected Therm Savings Verified Therms Savings Lifetime Therms Savings Peak Therms 274, ,208 3,767,580 72, Single-family NC 19,650 19, ,274 5, Res & Nonresidential Retrofit & NC Multifamily 21,851 30, ,359 7, Non-Residential All 85,624 85,578 1,475,300 22, Total Gross Savings 401, ,751 6,508, , Net savings for the Space Heating CIP were calculated using residential and nonresidential free-ridership rates based on. The resulting net savings are presented in Table Space Heating CIP 4-24

98 Table 4-15 Space Heating CIP Net Savings Summary Facility Category Free-Ridership Rate Net Annual Savings Net Net Lifetime Net Peak Realization Therms Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Therms Rate Savings Single-family Retrofit 12.35% 12.35% 240, , % 3,302,284 63, Single-family NC 30.29% 30.10% 13,698 13, % 476,090 3, Multifamily Retrofit & NC 15.71% 10.4% 18,419 27, % 511,937 6, Non-Residential 10.56% 10.4% 76,584 76, % 1,321,869 19, Overall: 13.30% 12.90% 349, , % 5,612,181 94, Conclusions & Program Recommendations Space Heating CIP Conclusions The Evaluators conclusions for the Space Heating CIP are presented below. The Evaluators have found that: 1. Satisfaction with the program operation is very high. Satisfaction with the program operation includes customers interactions with CenterPoint, satisfaction with wait times, savings realized from program participation, and ease of the application process. Participants found the process to be very straightforward, with most participants facing little difficulty in completing the documentation needed to participate. The only instances of moderate satisfaction were from commercial participants in rating Information provided by CenterPoint staff, which was largely based on not having had any interactions with program`` staff. 2. The residential application is not collecting the data needed to support TRM V6.0 residential deemed savings calculations. The application needs to collect home vintage as well as square feet. The savings calculations are based on survey findings for average home vintage. The population of residential participants had an increased share of newer vintage homes in CenterPoint s early retirement calculations are based on prior-year home vintage mixes. The result of this was a 6% reduction in therms savings that would not have occurred if the data were collected on the program application. 3. The application is not collecting the data needed to support early replacement. The application will need fields to collect whether the replaced unit was functioning as well as the age of the replaced unit. 4. Commercial tracking data still has missing elements. The commercial component still lacks an entry for a project point of contact name Space Heating CIP Recommendations The Evaluators recommendations for the Space Heating CIP are as follows: Space Heating CIP 4-25

99 1. Add a bonus incentive for installation of smart thermostats. Only 15.9% of respondents indicated having a smart thermostat in their home. CenterPoint could obtain higher savings per home if a bonus incentive is provided for HVAC contractors to install new smart thermostats during furnace replacements. The Evaluators advise that this could be done with a planned NTGR of 86%, based on current saturation levels among likely participants in the program. This incentive could be directed either at the end-user or at the trade ally. 2. Update the residential application to collect required TRM V6.0 data fields. This includes home vintage and square feet of conditioned space. These fields should be highlighted as mandatory. 3. Update the residential application to collect data to support early replacement calculations. This would include a check-off box for whether the unit was functioning at the time of replacement as well as a section to write in the exact unit age. These fields should be non-mandatory. 4. Add a Primary Point of Contact field for commercial applications. Many of the commercial participants lacked a point-of-contact name (only the business name was included). This slowed EM&V efforts as the Evaluators found it necessary to either request names on an ad hoc basis from CenterPoint or to ask for decision-makers by title during surveying or attempts to schedule site visits. This should be collected in the project application and added as a spate field in the tracking data exports. This recommendation is reiterated from the 2012 evaluation. 5. Focus cross-promotion on other high-cost programs. The residential participants have higher incomes than the average for CenterPoint s service area. When asked to rate their interest in other programs (based on a description of the program offering), they indicated the highest interest in the Water Heating CIP and second highest in the Saving Homes Program. The issues and recommendations are summarized in Table Space Heating CIP 4-26

100 Table 4-16 Space Heating CIP Summary of Issues & Recommendations Recommendation Basis for Recommendation Provide a bonus incentive for trade allies to install smart thermostats, using a NTGR of 86.1% Establish separate forms for residential versus commercial applications. Update the residential application (or application section, should CenterPoint keep the two applications aggregated) to include check-off boxes for home vintage and conditioned square feet. Add fields in the residential application form to include an indicator as to whether the replaced unit was still functioning and to write in the unit s age. Add a point-of-contact field in the commercial tracking data Focus cross-promotion on other programs that have a higher upfront cost. Survey findings with program participants pertaining to thermostat installation and use. Review of TRM V6.0 data collection needs & examination of current CenterPoint application forms. Review of TRM V6.0 deemed savings requirements for residential furnaces Review of TRM V63.0 Early Replacement guidelines for residential furnaces Evaluation best practices Survey responses indicating participants are affluent and their stated interest levels in the Water Heating CIP and Saving Homes Program. Space Heating CIP 4-27

101 5. Water Heating CIP The Water Heating Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) provides incentives to residential and business customers for high efficiency water heating equipment. Eligible measures for this program include: $75 for storage tank water heaters with 40 gallons or greater capacity with an EF of.62 or greater; $75 for storage tank water heaters with less than 40 gallons of capacity and an EF of.64 or greater; and $500 for tankless water heaters with an EF of.80 or greater. The Water Heating CIP is targeted at Residential and Small Commercial market sectors. Retrofit and New Construction applications are both allowed, utilizing the same baseline Energy Factors as determined through equipment capacity. The marketing efforts for the Water Heating CIP were largely directed at plumbing and HVAC contractors; their involvement is seen as crucial, as they are generally a primary source of information for end-use customers when deciding upon a replacement system. 5.1 Program Overview The Water Heating CIP began in The Water Heating CIP had $792,864 in budget allocated for The history of program performance and expenditures is presented in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 Water Heating CIP Historical Performance against Goals Program Year # Participants Budget Net Therms Actual Goal Spent Allocated Achieved Goal ,800 $245,751 $499,264 18,934 48, ,847 $272,061 $621,374 21,268 54, ,095 $666,939 $1,287, ,201 75, ,095 $614,157 $1,292,864 47,972 93, ,919 $598,167 $792,864 68,571 86, ,228 1,919 $711,657 $792,864 87,643 86, ,017 1,919 $996,800 $792,864 72,391 86,040 Water Heating CIP 5-1

102 5.1.1 Participation Summary Residential Participation Summary The 2016 Water Heating CIP had a total of 1,803 residential rebates at 1,675 premises. The residential participation included: 599 storage tank water heaters; and 1,204 tankless water heaters. Seventy-one percent of residential rebates issued were for retrofit projects. Twenty-nine percent were for new construction projects Commercial Participation Summary The 2016 Water Heating CIP had 214 commercial rebates at 79 premises. Commercial participation comprised: 9 high efficiency storage tank water heaters; and 205 tankless water heaters. Eighty percent of commercial rebates were for retrofit projects and 20% percent were for new construction projects. Figure 5-1 summarizes the participation by facility type, denominated both in terms of percent of units rebated and percent of savings. Water Heating CIP 5-2

103 Figure 5-1 Water Heating CIP Commercial Participation Summary As seen in the figure above, much of the rebated units were in multi-family and dormitory, and the bulk of program savings was driven by restaurants, education, and medical facilities. Water Heating CIP 5-3

104 Participation Timing Figure 5-2 summarizes the savings by month as determined by the date of rebate delivery. The two lines represent the total number of units installed in the specified month of Figure 5-2 Water Heating CIP Rebates by Month 5.2 Water Heating CIP Process Evaluation The Evaluators conducted a formal process evaluation of the Water Heating CIP in 2012 and a light process overview in 2013, and found that the program was successful in meeting participation, savings, and satisfaction goals. Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 Water Heating CIP 5-4

105 summarize the Evaluators review of the Space Heating CIP in comparison to TRM V6.0 Protocol C for timing and conditions of conducting a process evaluation. Table 5-2 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component New and Innovative Components No Previous Process Evaluation New Vendor or Contractor Determination No. The program is designed in a manner consistent with similar programs elsewhere and applies deemed savings values from the TRM. No. The program received a comprehensive process evaluation in No. The program has been run internally by CenterPoint since program inception in Table 5-3 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component Are program impacts lower or slower than expected? Are the educational or informational goals not meeting program goals? Are the participation rates lower or slower than expected? Are the program s operational or management structure slow to get up and running or not meeting program administrative needs? Is the program s cost-effectiveness less than expected? Do participants report problems with the programs or low rates of satisfaction? Is the program producing the intended market effects? Determination No. The program met goal in No. The programs have had successful consumer and contractor outreach & education. No. The program met goal in No. Prior process evaluations found that operational and management structure to be up to speed and efficient in administering the program. No, the program s cost-effectiveness is within expectations. No participant surveys found exceedingly high satisfaction levels. Mixed. Interviews with participating contractors in 2012 found significant market transformation occurring. However, the Evaluators concluded that the program was not effectively reaching the storage tank market. On this basis, the Evaluators concluded that process evaluation activities for 2015 would be limited to a review of prior program recommendations, and that a process evaluation would take place in the next triennial implementation period Data Collection Activities The process evaluation of the Water Heating CIP included the following data collection activities: CenterPoint Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed staff at CenterPoint involved in the administration of the Water Heating CIP. These interviews captured any operational changes on CenterPoint s side, as well as informing the Evaluators as to any new developments in the program. Water Heating CIP 5-5

106 Participant Surveying. The Evaluators conducted surveys with 11 retrofit program participants. These interviews also captured demographic information. Table 5-4 summarizes the data collection for this process evaluation effort. This includes the titles, role, sample sizes, timeframe of data collection. Table 5-4 CenterPoint Water Heating CIP Data Collection Summary Target Component Activity N Role CenterPoint Program Staff Program Participants Manager, Conservation Improvement Program Implementation Energy Efficiency Consultant Interview 1 Interview 1 Commercial Survey 11 Residential Survey 140 Overall administration of CenterPoint DSM programs. This manager is involved in the larger strategic decisions associated with the DSM portfolio, and is involved with the Water Heating CIP in the overall coordination of utility resources. The Energy Efficiency Consultant at CenterPoint is responsible for much of the day-to-day operation of the program on the part of CenterPoint. This individual s responsibilities include regular interaction with third party implementation staff and assisting in outreach and marketing efforts of the program. This survey included 2016 commercial retrofit participants. This survey included 2016 commercial retrofit participants Process Results & Findings This section will present the results and key findings from the data collection activities. These findings are based upon interviews with utility staff, implementation staff, surveys with participants, and a thorough and in-depth literature review Response to Program Recommendations Table 5-5 summarizes the status of issues and recommendations identified in the 2015 process evaluation. Water Heating CIP 5-6

107 Table 5-5 Water Heating CIP Response to 2015 Recommendations Issue Consequences Recommendation CenterPoint Response Status of Issue Incorrect inputs used in commercial water heating calculations Data collection needs for residential and commercial components are beginning to have significant differences as the AR TRM is refined. No primary point-of-contact included in commercial projects Little participation in large commercial storage tank units Standby losses not tracked Overstatement of commercial savings. This could potentially result in a lengthy, cumbersome application form with numerous fields that are not relevant to an individual applicant. Added difficulty in EM&V efforts Lost opportunities for savings Lost opportunities for savings Review program calculators and ensure compliance with up-to-date TRM protocols. Establish separate forms for residential versus commercial applications. Add a point-of-contact field in the commercial tracking data Establish a separate incentive for large condensing storage tank units for commercial applications. Track standby losses for large commercial storage tank units and calculate savings from the standby loss reduction. There was increased QA on commercial water heating inputs. Revisions were much lower in magnitude in The multi-use form has been retained. This has not been added to tracking CenterPoint has added a scalable rebate for 88% thermal efficient tank water heaters This was a small portion of program savings and not tracked Recommendation adopted Recommendation rejected Issue persists Recommendation adopted Recommendation rejected Water Heating CIP 5-7

108 Residential Survey Response The Evaluators completed 140 surveys with residential retrofit program participants in the Water Heating CIP, comprised of 70 storage tank water heater percipients and 70 tankless water heater participants. The Evaluators collected demographic information on the respondents during the survey. Figure 5-3 through Figure 5-5 summarize the difference in applicable demographics. Figure 5-3 Differences in Income between Participants & Non-Participants Water Heating CIP 5-8

109 Figure 5-4 Differences in Education between Participants & Non-Participants Figure 5-5 Differences in Home Age between Participants and Non-Participants From these demographic questions, the Evaluators have found that the key demographic driver for selection of tankless water heaters is household income Program Awareness CenterPoint s marketing of the Water Heating CIP is driven through multiple channels, including both customer-direct outreach and marketing through plumbing contractors. Figure 5-6 summarizes the sources of program awareness for tankless and storage Water Heating CIP 5-9

110 tank respondents. Thirty-nine percent of tankless respondents indicated having learned of the program from a plumber or contractor, in comparison to 6% of storage tank respondents. Storage tank respondents were more likely to have learned of the program through a retailer, a CenterPoint bill insert, or a friend or relative. Figure 5-6 Water Heating CIP Residential Sources of Program Awareness For those that indicated learning about the program through other means outside of the utility website, they were asked several follow up questions pertaining to whether they have ever navigated the CenterPoint website. Their responses are summarized in Figure 5-7. Water Heating CIP 5-10

111 Figure 5-7 Customer Experience with CenterPoint Website Tankless water heater participants are significantly more likely to have visited the CenterPoint website, but of those who visit the website, respondents in either category are nearly equally as likely to have found the information they saw useful. Of those that visited the website, the information was found to be useful by: 77.8% of tankless respondents; and 73.1% of storage tank respondents. The decision-making surrounding the purchase is also significantly more constrained for storage tank participants; 71% of storage tank replacements were emergency replacements due to failure of a water heater. In comparison, 26% of tankless water heater replacements were emergency replacements. Sixty-nine percent of tankless respondents stated that their old water heater was still functioning at the time of replacement, and these water heaters had an average age of years. Thirty-five percent of the functioning water heaters that were replaced had been in use for less than 11 years (the EUL of storage tank systems), and would potentially qualify for early retirement savings. This was not calculated for the Water Heating CIP as there is not a mechanism for this in the AR TRM at this time Efficiency and Features of the Water Heater The storage tank water heater respondents were asked a series of questions around their knowledge of tankless water heaters and of CenterPoint s higher incentive for these units. If they were not aware of CenterPoint s offering, they are then asked to identify their likelihood of choosing the tankless equipment option had they been aware Water Heating CIP 5-11

112 of it when making their purchase. This was asked in order to identify causes of choosing the lower-cost option. Their responses are summarized in Figure 5-8. Were you aware that CenterPoint offers a rebate of $500 for tankless water heaters? If you had been aware of the higher incentive for tankless water hearters, how likely would you have been to purchase a unit that qualified for a higher rebate? No (n=35) [PERCEN TAGE] n=70 Refused (n=1) [PERCEN TAGE] Yes (n=34) 48.6% Definitley would have selected Probably would not have selected Definitley would not have selected n=35 Probably would have selected Don t know 5.7% 11.4% 22.9% 28.6% 28.6% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% Figure 5-8 Customer Awareness of Higher Efficiency Levels Of those that were not aware of CenterPoint s tankless rebate incentives, 40% stated that they probably would have or definitely would have installed a tankless unit if they had been aware of the rebate offering when making their purchase decision Reasons for Participation Participants were also asked about the importance of some of the motivating factors that helped in the decision-making process before purchasing the high efficiency water heating equipment. Per the chart below, participants indicated that the most important factor that contributed to their decision to purchase the energy efficient water heater was saving money on energy bills, 54% for those who opted for a storage tank water heater and 46% for those who purchased a tank less water heater. Forty-one percent of tank less water heater purchases noted that improved home comfort was their primary motivating factor in their decision-making process. Water Heating CIP 5-12

113 Contractor Interactions Figure 5-9 Customer Priorities in Participating Participants were also asked to rate several statements regarding their experience with the contractor who installed the water heater on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning Strongly Disagree and 5 meaning Strongly Agree. Figure 5-10 and Figure 5-11 tabulates those results for tankless and storage tank participants, respectively. Figure 5-10 Contractor Experience Tankless Participants Water Heating CIP 5-13

114 Figure 5-11 Contractor Experience Storage Tank Participants Both cohorts reported high satisfaction with their contractor experience, but ratings provide by tankless participants were marginally higher Program Satisfaction Participants were asked to rate their satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning Very Dissatisfied and 5 meaning Very Satisfied on a range of items related to their program experience. Figure 5-12 and Figure 5-13 tabulate the satisfaction results of various program elements for tankless and storage tank participants, respectively. The last two elements rated were only asked to those participants who contacted a program staff member. Water Heating CIP 5-14

115 Figure 5-12 Participant Satisfaction Scores Tankless Participants Water Heating CIP 5-15

116 Figure 5-13 Participant Satisfaction Scores Storage Tank Participants Overall, satisfaction with the program is quite high. The one area of lower satisfaction was in interactions with program staff by tankless participants. The respondents that had interactions with program staff rated how quickly their questions were addressed at 3.69 out of 5.00 and how thoroughly they were addressed at 3.87 out of This is a group that would be expected to provide lower ratings in that they would only speak to program staff if there were issues with their application or equipment selection, but the ratings provided by tankless respondents were significantly lower than those by storage tank respondents. These respondents were asked to identify the specific cause of their dissatisfaction. Comments from these respondents included: Well I filled out the info and they kept saying they needed something else from me. it took several months for me to apply for the rebate the woman kept saying she needed proof, it took way to long as a process. Water Heating CIP 5-16

117 It s because I would call to ask questions about it and would never receive another phone call back. I feel like that would be bad customer service. I just wanted to check the status of it and no one would get back to me. I submitted my form for the rebate and hadn't heard anything for months about it and so I called and I was told that I received an that I actually didn't receive and then I called again and heard nothing and no one called me back or took me seriously until I had threatened them that I was going to file a lawsuit. The fact was that we had to apply twice I don't know what happened to the first application. The lady that helped that helped me was perfect though Commercial Survey Response A survey was conducted in 2016 to collect data about customer decision-making, preferences, and perspective of the Commercial Water Heating Efficiency Program. In total, 11 participants responded to the survey questionnaire Program Awareness As shown in Figure 5-14, the most common ways respondents first learned about the program was from a contractor, trade ally, vendor, or energy consultant (64%). Other common sources of awareness included, a program representative (18%), and friends or colleagues (9%). From a trade ally/contractor/vendor/energy consultant 64% CenterPoint representative 18% Friends or colleagues 9% Don't know 9% n=11 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Figure 5-14 Participant Sources of Program Awareness Decisions to Participate Participants were asked who initiated the discussion that led to the decision to participate in the program. The majority of respondents (72%) said a vendor or contractor initiated the discussion or that the idea arose during a discussion between Water Heating CIP 5-17

118 the organization and a vendor or contractor. Other common responses to the question included the company/organization (9%), or a CenterPoint representative (9%). Table 5-6 Organization s Decision-Making Regarding your organization's decision to participate in the incentive program, who initiated the discussion about the incentive opportunity? Would you say Percent of Respondents (n = 11) Your organization initiated it 9% Your vendor or contractor initiated it 36% The idea arose in discussion between your organization and your vendor or contractor 36% A CenterPoint representative initiated it 9% Some other way 0% Don't know 9% Eighty-two percent of respondents said they had not previously installed a similar measure while 9% said they had. Over half of respondents (64%) said they had plans to install the equipment before participating in the program. None of the respondents said their organization participated in prior energy efficiency programs with CenterPoint before this project. Respondents were then asked the likelihood of them installing the equipment without the financial incentive. Those who responded they definitely would have installed without the incentive (45%), were then asked when they would otherwise have installed the equipment. As Table 5-7 shows, all of the respondents would have installed within one year. Table 5-7 Timeframe for Installation without the Program When would you otherwise have installed the equipment? Percent of Respondents (n = 5) Less than 6 months later 60% 6-12 months later 40% 1-2 years later 0% 3-5 years later 0% More than 5 years later 0% Don't know 0% Participation Process Participants were then asked who was involved in completing the application for program incentives. Respondents were able to select more than one response, so the Water Heating CIP 5-18

119 total percent may add to more than 100%. As Table 5-8 shows, the respondent was involved in completing the application for program incentives 36% of the time. Other common responses included other members of the respondent s company, an equipment vendor, or a contractor. Table 5-8 Person/s Involved in Application Process Which of the following people worked on completing your application for program incentives (including gathering required documentation)? (Select all that apply) Percent of Respondents (n = 11) Yourself 36% Another member of the company 36% A contractor 27% An equipment vendor 18% A designer or architect 0% Someone else 0% Don't know 0% Eighty-two percent of respondents said they had a clear sense of who to go for assistance with the application process, while 18% did not. In addition, 73% of respondents thought the information on how to complete the application was completely clear. Table 5-9 Clarity of Application Information Thinking back on the application process, please rate the clarity of information on how to complete the application Percent of Respondents (n = 11) 1 - Not at all clear 0% 2 0% 3 0% 4 0% 5 - Completely clear 73% Don't know 27% Finally, respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 different aspects of the application process, as shown in the figure above. All respondents thought the application process was completely acceptable, and none of the respondents found any part of the process unacceptable. Water Heating CIP 5-19

120 Overall application process (n = 4) Effort required to provide documentation (n = 4) Time to approve the application (n = 4) Ease of finding forms on CenterPoint's website (n = 2) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Completely Unacceptable (1) Completely Acceptable (5) Participant Satisfaction Figure 5-15 Feedback on Program Application Process Respondents who had interactions with program staff were asked to rank the knowledgeability of staff on a scale of 1 to 5. Five respondents had interactions with program staff, and 4 of the 5 reported staff were very knowledgeable, and one respondent reported they didn t know. Respondents were also asked to rank various aspects of the program on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied. Overall program satisfaction was very high, with 100% of respondents being satisfied or very satisfied, and no respondents reported being dissatisfied with any of the program elements. Water Heating CIP 5-20

121 The program overall (n = 11) The range of equipment that qualifies for incentives (n = 9) Amount of time to get rebate/incentive (n = 10) Steps required to get through the program (n = 11) How thorough staff addressed question/concerns (n = 3) Amount of time for staff to address question/concerns (n = 3) Amount of time to deliver and install equipment (n = 10) Quality of installation (n = 11) Equipment installed (n = 11) Figure 5-16 Participant Program Satisfaction 5.3 Water Heating CIP Impact Evaluation 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very dissatisfied (1) Very Satisfied (5) For the equipment rebates component, savings were calculated using methodologies detailed in Section 2.20 and 3.31 of the TRM Version 6.0 for residential and commercial applications, respectively. The impact evaluation effort of the Water Heating CIP included the following: Residential Desk Review. The Evaluators validated savings calculations for residential water heaters applying TRM V6.0 methodologies. The TRM V6.0 update includes adjustment to the new residential water heating federal code. However, this code took effect on April 15, 2015 and only bars the manufacturing of units under the old code. The old code was used for the 2015 program year, with CenterPoint and the other Arkansas gas utilities adopting the new code into program energy savings calculations starting on January 1, Commercial Verification. Savings for commercial projects were calculated using TRM V6.0 protocols. Water Heating CIP 5-21

122 5.3.1 Residential Impact Evaluation Energy Savings Calculations Energy savings values for storage tank water heaters were developed using installed Energy Factor ratings as determined by the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association Directory of Certified Water Heating Products. Tank sizing must follow AHRI standards. In TRM V6.0 Savings are calculated as: 14 Where: therm Savings = ρ = Water density, 8.33 lbs./gal. ρ C p V (T SetPoint T Supply ) ( 1 EF pre 1 EF post ) C p = Specific heat of water, 1 BTU/lb F Conversion Factor V = Estimated annual hot water use (gal per year) T SetPoint = Water heater set point, if unavailable, use 120 F T Supply = Average supply water temperature EF pre = Baseline value EF post = Energy Factor of new water heater Conversion Factor 100,000 BTU = 1 Therm Baseline energy factors are summarized in Table Table 5-10 Residential Water Heating Baseline Energy Factors Minimum Required Energy Factors by Size Gallon 40 Gallon 50 Gallon 75 Gallon 80 Gallon Volume estimates are provided in Table Table 5-11 TRM V6.0 Estimated Annual Hot Water Use Weather Tank Size (Gal) of Replaced Water Heater Zone ,401 20,911 25,093 30, ,331 20,831 24,997 29, ,267 20,758 24,910 29, ,815 20,245 24,293 29, Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg CFR Part 430 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Water Heaters; Final Rule Water Heating CIP 5-22

123 Supply water temperatures are presented in Table Table 5-12 Residential Water Heating Baseline Energy Factors Residential Free-Ridership Weather Zone Water Main Temperature 9 Fayetteville Fort Smith Little Rock El Dorado 70.1 The Evaluators the following free-ridership rates to the 2016 CenterPoint Water Heating Equipment Rebates Program residential component: Residential Retrofit: 15.0% CenterPoint evaluation. Residential New Construction (builder production homes): 8.3% CenterPoint evaluation Residential New Construction (custom homes): 48.7% CenterPoint evaluation 5.4 Commercial Impact Evaluation Commercial water heater savings calculations incorporate more facility-specific information than the residential methodology. Therms savings for commercial water heaters are calculated as: 16 Therms Savings = Ρ = Water Density, 8.33 lbs/gallon ρ C P V (T SetPoint T Supply ) ( 1 EF pre 1 EF post ) Days/Year C P = Specific Heat of Water, 1 BTU/Lb F V = Average daily hot water use (gallons) T setpoint = Water Heater setpoint, 140 deg F T supply = Supply water temperature, 58 deg F 100,000 BTU/Therm EF pre = Energy factor of existing water heater ( V) EF post = Energy factor of installed water heater Days/Year = Days per year of operation The required facility-specific inputs are volume and days/year. Volume can be calculated on the basis of square footage of the facility or from units served. Table Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg Water Heating CIP 5-23

124 presents the volume and days of usage values for a facility by square footage. 17 Table 5-14 presents the volume and days of usage values by unit produced or person served. Table 5-13 Hot Water Requirements by Facility Size Building Type Daily Demand Units / 1,000 Applicable Gallons / 1,000 (Gallons / Unit Unit Sq. Feet Days / Year Sq. Feet / Day / Day) Small Office 1 Person Large Office 1 Person Fast Food Rest..7 Meal/Day Sit-down Rest. 2.4 Meal/Day Retail 2 Employee Grocery 2 Employee Warehouse 2 Employee Elementary School.6 Person Jr. High/High School 1.8 Person Health 90 Patient Motel 20 Unit (Room) Hotel 14 Unit (Room) Other 1 Employee Table 5-14 Hot Water Requirements by Unit or Person Building Type Size Factor Average Daily Demand Dormitories Men 13.1 Gal. per Man Women 12.3 Gal. per Woman Hospitals Per Bed 90.0 Gal. per Patient Hotels Single Room with Bath 50.0 Gal. per Unit Double Room with Bath 80.0 Gal. per Unit # Units: Motels Up to Gal. per Unit 21 to Gal. per Unit 101 and Up 10.0 Gal. per Unit Restaurants Full Meal Type 2.4 Gal. per Meal Dive-in Snack Type 0.7 Gal. per Meal Schools Elementary 0.6 Gal. Per Student Secondary and High School 1.8 Gal. Per Student Table 5-15 summarizes the resulting sizing equivalences and baseline EF for commercial tankless units. 17 Ibid Water Heating CIP 5-24

125 Table 5-15 Commercial Tankless Water Heater Sizing Equivalence Tankless Capacity (BTUh) Equivalent Storage Tank Gallons Baseline EF 180, , , , < 160, This resulted in 100% gross realization for residential water heaters Commercial Desk Review Findings The Evaluators conducted desk reviews for all commercial water heating projects. Numerous corrections were made, including: Revising some facilities from Casual Dining to Fast Food. To make this determination, the Evaluators would determine whether the restaurant uses disposable plates and utensils, as this is the key driver for the increased DHW load for casual dining facilities. This was done to a doughnut restaurant and reduced savings 14,000 Therms. One corporate chain fast food facility had a zero entered for savings. Program staff indicated that they could not get an estimate of meal count for this facility and they had doubts about the square foot value in the TRM being a reasonable estimate due to producing a savings estimate too large for the staff to find plausible. The Evaluators developed an entry for this based on average meal volume for the corporate chain, which was available through secondary research as the company is publicly traded. Severall K-12 educational facilities used the per-student method of developing DHW load. However, these were multiplied by the Other entry (.7 gallons/unit/day) instead of the Per-Student entry (1.8 gallons/unit/day). This resulted in 95.7% gross realization for commercial water heating Commercial Water Heating CIP Free-Ridership The Evaluators applied the 2013 NTGR of 92.0% for commercial water hating Verified Savings Table 5-16 presents the gross savings results of the evaluation of the 2016 Water Heating CIP. Total gross savings summarizes the savings calculations performed by TRM protocols for Residential and Commercial water heaters. Water Heating CIP 5-25

126 Table 5-16 Water Heating CIP Verified Therms Savings Expected Verified Lifetime Peak Facility Category Measure Category Therms Therms EUL Therms Therms Savings Savings Savings Retrofit 32,138 32, , Residential New Construction 24,720 24, , Non-Residential - 34,196 30, , Total Gross Savings 91,054 87, ,743, Net savings for the Water Heating CIP program were calculated using residential and non-residential free-ridership rates based on participant and vendor surveys and the addition of calculated spillover savings and estimates of participant spillover. The resulting net savings are presented in Table Table 5-17 Water Heating Equipment Rebates Net Savings Summary Measure Category Free-Ridership Rate Net Annual Savings Net Net Lifetime Net Peak Realization Therms Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Therms Rate Savings Retrofit 15.00% 15.00% 27,317 27, % 543, New Construction 31.25% 31.25% 16,996 16, % 339, Non-Residential 8.00% 8.00% 31,461 28, % 560, Overall: 14.61% 15.53% 75,774 72, % 1,444, Conclusions & Recommendations Conclusions Based on the Evaluators review of the Water Heating CIP, we have concluded the following: 1. Commercial calculations had some input errors. These errors included incorrectly categorizing a fast food restaurant as a casual dining facility, and erroneously using Other instead of Per-student values in K-12 facilities. However, the incidence of calculation errors is reduced significantly from Commercial tracking data still has missing elements. The commercial component still lacks an entry for a project point of contact name. Commercial component has incorrect structure type for several inputs. 3. The has added a mechanism for commercial storage tank water heaters for CenterPoint s program has had much lower participation in large commercial storage tank water heaters than other gas utilities in Arkansas due to them being limited to a $75 incentive. With the new scalable incentive becoming 18 Weighted average of EUL for tankless units (20 years) and storage tank units (11 years) Water Heating CIP 5-26

127 available in 2017, there will be an enhanced offering for this market segment that is more in line with its high savings potential. 4. Though overall program satisfaction is high, notable dissatisfaction was found for residential tankless participants that had issues with their application. Tankless program participants noted lower satisfaction levels when having communications with program staff about their application. This included issues with slow communications, not understanding program requirements, and lost communications Recommendations 1. Correct commercial savings calculations to reflect the most-up-to date TRM. Numerous sources of calculation error were identified in the commercial project desk review. 2. Add a primary point of contact for commercial participants. This has been lacking in program tracking data adds barriers to conducting an effective evaluation. 3. Use washable versus disposable plates/utensils to define casual dining or fast food. This is a key driver of savings and may result in a large change in savings estimates. 4. Report incalculable facilities to the Evaluators. There was a fast food restaurant that program staff listed as no savings due to lack of responsiveness on the part of the participant to provide an estimate of number of meals. The Evaluators commend program staff for their interest in taking a conservative approach, but it is recommended that such exceptional cases be forwarded to the Evaluators earlier in the process so potential alternative approaches may be assessed. 5. Include Read Receipts on s to program participants. This ensures that participants are having their question addressed through or whether they require a follow-up telephone call. 6. Review customer service procedures for tankless applications. Program staff should conduct a review of tankless applications that required program staff assistance to identify areas for program improvement. These issues and recommendations are summarized in Table Water Heating CIP 5-27

128 Table 5-18 Summary of Recommendations for Water Heating CIP Recommendation Basis for Recommendation Review program calculators and ensure compliance with upto-date TRM protocols. Add a point-of-contact field in the commercial tracking data Use washable versus disposable plates/utensils to define casual dining or fast food Report incalculable facilities to the Evaluators Review customer service procedures for tankless application questions, and include Read Receipts on communications for these issues commercial project desk review. Evaluation best practices 14,000 Therms savings revision for one project in 2016 Finding a blank entry that when corrected added 3,800 Therms to the program. Lower satisfaction scores among tankless survey respondents that had had interactions with program staff about their application. Water Heating CIP 5-28

129 6. Commercial Boiler CIP The Commercial Boiler Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) provides incentives for boilers and boiler controls used in HVAC applications. Eligible measures include: $1,400/MMBtuh input for boilers that are 85% % efficient; $2,000/MMBtuh input for boilers that are 92% efficient or greater; $1,000/MMBtuh for Burner replacement 6 step modulation or fully modulating; $150 for Boiler reset controls; $150 for Boiler cut out controls; and $250 for Boiler vent dampers. The Commercial Boiler CIP is targeted at large commercial facilities using boilers in HVAC applications. Boilers serving process loads are required to enter the custom component of the Commercial Boiler CIP. 6.1 Program Overview The Commercial Boiler CIP began in The program is designed to incentivize the purchase of high efficiency HVAC boiler equipment. This program originally included boilers serving process loads, but with the development of the Arkansas TRM, HVAC boilers were set as prescriptive measures while process boilers require custom calculation. Given this, CenterPoint developed a separate custom program to cover non-hvac loads. The Commercial Boiler CIP had $251,650 in budget allocated for The history of program performance and expenditures is presented in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 Commercial Boiler CIP Historical Performance against Goals Program Year # Participants Budget Net Therms Actual Goal Spent Allocated Achieved Goal $334,785 $380,074 16, , $220,321 $377,967 24, , $221,585 $464, , , $184,937 $551,650 65, , $150,113 $551,661 21,213 92, $259,477 $251,650 80,476 92, $232,857 $251,650 67,491 92,160 Commercial Boiler CIP 6-1

130 Participation Summary In 2016, the Commercial Boiler CIP had 19 participants receive rebates for 41 boilers. Figure 6-1 summarizes the Commercial Boiler CIP participation by facility type. Figure 6-1 C&I Boiler Equipment Participation by Facility Type 6.2 Commercial Boiler CIP Process Evaluation The Evaluators conducted a formal process evaluation of the Commercial Boiler CIP in 2012, and found that the program was not successful in meeting participation, savings, and satisfaction goals. Table 6-2 and Table 6-3 summarize the Evaluators review of the Commercial Boiler CIP in comparison to TRM V6.0 Protocol C for timing and conditions of conducting a process evaluation. Table 6-2 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component New and Innovative Components No Previous Process Evaluation New Vendor or Contractor Determination No. The program is designed in a manner consistent with similar programs elsewhere and applies deemed savings values from the TRM. No. The program received a comprehensive process evaluation in 2012 and 2013, and a process overview in No. The program has been run internally by CenterPoint since program inception in Commercial Boiler CIP 6-2

131 Table 6-3 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component Are program impacts lower or slower than expected? Are the educational or informational goals not meeting program goals? Are the participation rates lower or slower than expected? Are the program s operational or management structure slow to get up and running or not meeting program administrative needs? Is the program s cost-effectiveness less than expected? Do participants report problems with the programs or low rates of satisfaction? Is the program producing the intended market effects? Determination Yes. The program fell far short of savings goals in Yes. There has been no uptake of boiler controls measures. Yes. The program fell far short of participant goals in No. Prior process evaluations found that operational and management structure to be up to speed and efficient in administering the program. No, the program s cost-effectiveness was within expected boundaries. No participant surveys found exceedingly high satisfaction levels. No. There are several areas of this market not reached by the program. In response to prior evaluation findings, CenterPoint curtailed the program budget and goal (shifting funds towards C&I Solutions). The Evaluators limited process evaluation activities to assessing the effects of this shift on the program Data Collection Activities The process evaluation of the Commercial Boiler CIP included the following data collection activities: CenterPoint Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed staff at CenterPoint involved in the administration of the Commercial Boiler CIP. These interviews were to collect information from program staff as to any changes or developments, as well as response to program recommendations. Vendor Interviewing. The Evaluators interviewed participating vendors for the Commercial Boiler CIP to address issues pertaining to volume of participation and their experience with the program. Table 6-4 summarizes the data collection for this process evaluation effort. This includes the titles, role, sample sizes, timeframe of data collection. Commercial Boiler CIP 6-3

132 Table 6-4 CenterPoint Commercial Boiler CIP Data Collection Summary Target Component Activity N Role CenterPoint Program Staff Program Participants Manager, Conservation Improvement Program Implementation Energy Efficiency Consultant Interview 1 Interview 1 Commercial Survey Process Results & Findings Overall administration of CenterPoint DSM programs. This manager is involved in the larger strategic decisions associated with the DSM portfolio, and is involved with the Commercial Boiler CIP in the overall coordination of utility resources. The Energy Efficiency Consultant at CenterPoint is responsible for much of the day-to-day operation of the program on the part of CenterPoint. This individual s responsibilities include regular interaction with third party implementation staff and assisting in outreach and marketing efforts of the program. This survey included 2016 commercial retrofit participants. This section will present the results and key findings from the data collection activities. These findings are based upon interviews with utility staff, implementation staff, and surveys with participants, and a thorough and in-depth literature review Response to Program Recommendations Table 6-5 summarizes the status of issues and recommendations identified in the 2015 process evaluation. Commercial Boiler CIP 6-4

133 Table 6-5 Commercial Boiler CIP Response to 2015 Recommendations Issue Consequences Recommendation CenterPoint Response Status of Issue No uptake of boiler controls Goals may be too large for available market Lost opportunities for savings Consistent underperformance, suboptimal allocation of program funds Add a trade ally incentive for prescriptive boiler controls. Increase boiler controls incentives for end-users Review the available market size and adjust program budget accordingly. Boiler controls have been removed from the program CenterPoint has reallocated budget away from this program to expand C&I Solutions Recommendation not applicable Recommendation adopted Commercial Boiler CIP 6-5

134 Survey Response A survey was conducted in 2016 to collect data about customer decision-making, preferences, and perspective of the Commercial Boiler Efficiency Program. In total, five of the 11 participant decision-makers responded to the survey questionnaire Program Awareness As shown in Figure 4-13, the most common way respondents first learned about the program was from a program representative (40%). Other common sources of awareness included, a trade ally or contractor (20%), a CenterPoint representative (20%), or CenterPoint s website (20%). Figure 6-2 Participant Sources of Program Awareness Decisions to Participate Participants were asked who initiated the discussion that led to the decision to participate in the program. The majority of respondents (40%) said the organization initiated the discussion. Commercial Boiler CIP 6-6

135 Table 6-6 Organization s Decision-Making Regarding your organization's decision to participate in the incentive program, who initiated the discussion about the incentive opportunity? Would you say Percent of Respondents (n = 5) Your organization initiated it 40% Your vendor or contractor initiated it 20% The idea arose in discussion between your organization and your vendor or contractor 20% A CenterPoint representative initiated it 0% Some other way 0% Don't know 20% Sixty percent of respondents said they had not previously installed a similar measure, while 20% said they had. Eighty percent of respondents said they had plans to install the equipment before participating in the program. Lastly, only 20% of respondents said their organization participated in prior energy efficiency programs with CenterPoint before this project. Respondents were then asked the likelihood of them installing the equipment without the financial incentive. Those who responded they definitely would have installed without the incentive (60%), were then asked when they would otherwise have installed the equipment. As Table 4-7 shows, all of these respondents would have installed within six months. Table 6-7 Timeframe for Installation without the Program When would you otherwise have installed the equipment? Percent of Respondents (n = 3) Less than 6 months later 100% 6-12 months later 0% 1-2 years later 0% 3-5 years later 0% More than 5 years later 0% Don't know 0% Participation Process Participants were then asked who was involved in completing the application for program incentives. Respondents were able to select more than one response, so the total percent may add to more than 100%. As Table 6-8 shows, the respondent was involved in completing the application for program incentives 40% of the time and another member of the company 40% of the time. Commercial Boiler CIP 6-7

136 Table 6-8 Person/s Involved in Application Process Which of the following people worked on completing your application for program incentives (including gathering required documentation)? (Select all that apply) Percent of Respondents (n = 5) Yourself 40% Another member of the company 40% A contractor 0% An equipment vendor 20% A designer or architect 0% Someone else 0% Don't know 0% Eighty percent of respondents said they had a clear sense of who to go for assistance with the application process, while 20% did not. In addition, 60% of respondents thought the information on how to complete the application was clear or completely clear. Table 6-9 Clarity of Application Information Thinking back on the application process, please rate the clarity of information on how to complete the application Percent of Respondents (n = 5) 1 - Not at all clear 0% 2 0% 3 20% 4 20% 5 - Completely clear 40% Don't know 20% Finally, respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 different aspects of the application process, as shown in the figure above. All respondents thought the application process was acceptable or completely acceptable, and none of the respondents found any part of the process unacceptable. Commercial Boiler CIP 6-8

137 Participant Satisfaction Figure 6-3 Feedback on Program Application Process Respondents, who had interactions with program staff, were asked to rank the knowledgeability of staff on a scale of 1 to 5. Only 3 respondents had interactions with program staff, and all reported staff was very knowledgeable. Respondents were also asked to rank various aspects of the program on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied. Overall program satisfaction was very high, with 100% of respondents being satisfied or very satisfied. No respondents reported being dissatisfied with any of the program elements. Figure 6-4 Participant Program Satisfaction Commercial Boiler CIP 6-9

138 Tracking Data Review CenterPoint provides three separate exports, one with the full calculations for space heating boilers, one with calculations for boilers serving domestic hot water loads, and one with full contact information. The Evaluators would recommend reconciling these into one export, ensuring consistent tracking. 6.3 Commercial Boiler CIP Impact Evaluation Savings were calculated using methodologies detailed in Section and of the TRM Version 6.0. The Evaluators conducted on-site verification at 4 facilities and 16 units. Savings calculations were reviewed to validate compliance with TRM V6.0 protocols Commercial Boiler CIP Energy Savings Calculations Therms savings calculations for commercial boilers require facility type, weather zone, and baseline efficiency. Baseline efficiency for boilers is detailed in Table Table 6-10 Commercial Boiler Minimum Efficiency Levels Project Type Size Category Subcategory Replace-on-Burnout Early Retirement < 300,000 BTUh >300,000 BTUh and < 2,500,000 BTUh >2,500,000 BTUh < 300,000 BTUh >300,000 BTUh and < 2,500,000 BTUh >2,500,000 BTUh Savings for commercial boilers are calculated as 20 : Hot Water Steam Hot Water Steam Hot Water Steam Hot Water Steam Hot Water Steam Hot Water Steam Minimum Efficiency 82% AFUE 80% AFUE 80% E t 79% E t 82% Ec 79% E t 80% AFUE 75% AFUE 75% E t 75% E t 80% Ec 80% E t 1 1 BTU Capacity EFLH H ( ) Effic pre Effic post Therms Savings = 100,000 Therms/BTU The EFLH for a facility is a function of facility type and weather zone. The EFLH values from TRM V6.0 are summarized in Table Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg Ibid Commercial Boiler CIP 6-10

139 Table 6-11 Commercial EFLH Values Building Type Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Assembly College/University Fast Food Restaurant Full Menu Restaurant Grocery Store Health Clinic Lodging Large Office (>30k Ft 2 ) 811 1,014 1,054 1,036 Small Office (<30k Ft 2 ) Religious Worship Retail 780 1,041 1,131 1,099 For example, if a Grocery Store in Little Rock (Zone 7) installed an 800,000 BTU 96% efficient hot water boiler that was a replacement on burnout, the resulting Therms savings are calculated as: 1 800,000 BTU 935 EFLH ( Therms Saving = ) = 1,558 Therms 100,000 BTU/Therm CenterPoint correctly calculated energy savings in accordance with TRM V6.0 protocols Commercial Boiler CIP Commercial Free-Ridership There were no significant changes in program delivery in 2016, and as a result the Evaluators opted to apply the ex ante NTGR of 80.28%, as estimated in the 2013 evaluation Verified Savings Table 6- presents the gross savings results of the evaluation of the 2016 Commercial Boiler CIP. Total gross savings summarizes the savings calculations performed by TRM V6.0 protocols for boilers and boiler components. Table 6-12 Commercial Boiler CIP Verified Therms Savings Expected Verified Lifetime Peak Therms Therms EUL Therms Therms Savings Savings Savings 84,070 84, ,681,400 1, Table 6-13 Commercial Boiler CIP Net Savings Summary Free-Ridership Rate Net Annual Savings Net Net Lifetime Net Peak Realization Therms Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Therms Rate Savings 19.72% 19.72% 67,491 67, % 1,349,828 1, Commercial Boiler CIP 6-11

140 6.4 Conclusions & Recommendations Conclusions 1. The program has removed boiler controls. There has been no uptake of boiler controls since program inception in 2011, and CenterPoint has opted to remove these from the program. 2. Much of the participation has been driven by direct contact from CenterPoint staff. The program management staff has engaged in outreach with appropriate end-user market segments, and has generated a significant portion of the program savings in this manner Recommendations The Evaluators have no recommendations for this program at this time. Commercial Boiler CIP 6-12

141 7. Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Solutions Program The C&I Solutions program is directed at developing and incenting custom energy efficiency projects for which deemed values are not applicable or feasible. It is implemented by CLEAResult Consulting on behalf of CenterPoint. CLEAResult handles program administration, marketing and outreach, direct install of water conservation measures, and technical review of custom efficiency projects. Program participants are provided: (1) No-cost direct installation of low flow faucet aerators, showerheads, door air infiltration and pre-rinse spray valves (PRSVs), if they have gas water heating; and (2) $.80 per therm for custom projects. 7.1 C&I Solutions Program Overview The C&I Solutions program began in September The program is designed to provide no-cost direct installation of water saving measures, energy audits, and incentives for custom projects to large C&I. The C&I Solutions program s historical performance is summarized in Table 7-1. Table 7-1 C&I Solutions Program Historical Performance against Goals Program Year # Participants Budget Net Therms Actual Goal Spent Allocated Achieved Goal $1,047,763 $1,152, , , ,077 1,102,780 $1,257, , , ,016 $1,643,311 $1,811,073 1,220,261 1,020, ,016 $1,788,563 $1,811,074 1,019,296 1,020, ,016 $2,194,215? $2,211,074 1,224,628 1,320, ,016 $1,989,847 $2,211,074 1,273,739 1,320,150 The C&I Solutions program participants fall into one of three categories: Direct install; Custom audit recipients; and Closed custom projects. In 2016, custom projects accounted for 83.6% of program savings and direct install accounted for 16.4%. These participants are detailed in the subsections to follow. C&I Solutions 7-1

142 Direct Install Participation Summary In 2016, 211 facilities participated in the direct install component of C&I Solutions. Figure 7-1 summarizes the participation by facility type, quantified in percent of participating facilities as well as percent of total savings. Figure 7-1 C&I Solutions Direct Install Participant Summary The bulk of program savings was from schools, hospitality, and commercial. These groups accounted for 71.1% of program savings Closed Custom Project Participation Summary Table 7-2 summarizes the completed custom projects for the 2016 C&I Solutions program. C&I Solutions 7-2

143 Table 7-2 Custom Project Participation Summary Facility Type Project ID Measure Transportation CNP-CIS Proceco Controls Manufacturing CNP-CIS Steam Generator Commercial Laundry CNP-CIS Steam Trap Replacement Food Processing CNP-CIS Steam Trap Replacement Food Processing CNP-CIS Continuous Cooker Food Processing CNP-CIS Condensate Return Manufacturing CNP-CIS Steam Trap Insulation Steam Trap Replacement Food Processing CNP-CIS Steam Generator & Controls Medical CNP-CIS Steam Trap Replacement Food Processing CNP-CIS Condensate Return Food Processing CNP-CIS Steam Trap Replacement (Spillover) Steam Leak (Spillover) Medical CNP-CIS Steam Trap Replacement Manufacturing CNP-CIS Oven Waste Heat Capture (Spillover) Waste Processing CNP-CIS Insulation Manufacturing CNP-CIS Boiler Retrofit Insulation Food Processing CNP-CIS Insulation Savings within the custom component are presented by facility type and measure category in Figure 7-2 and Figure 7-3, respectively. Figure 7-2 C&I Solutions Custom Savings by Facility Type C&I Solutions 7-3

144 Figure 7-3 C&I Solutions Custom Savings by Measure Category 7.2 C&I Solutions Process Evaluation The Evaluators conducted a formal process evaluation of the C&I Solutions Program in 2014, and found that the program was successful in meeting participation, savings, and satisfaction goals. Table 7-3 and Table 7-4 summarize the Evaluators review of the C&I Solutions Program in comparison to TRM V6.0 Protocol C for timing and conditions of conducting a process evaluation. Table 7-3 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component New and Innovative Components No Previous Process Evaluation Determination No. The program is unchanged from No. The program received a comprehensive process evaluation in 2012 and supplementary evaluation in New Vendor or Contractor No. The program has been implemented by CLEAResult since Table 7-4 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component Determination Are program impacts lower or slower than expected? No. The program met savings goals in Are the educational or informational goals not meeting program goals? Yes. The program has developed a trade ally network that promotes program offerings. Are the participation rates lower or No. The program met participant goals in C&I Solutions 7-4

145 slower than expected? Are the program s operational or management structure slow to get up and running or not meeting program administrative needs? Is the program s cost-effectiveness less than expected? Do participants report problems with the programs or low rates of satisfaction? Is the program producing the intended market effects? No. Prior process evaluations found that operational and management structure to be up to speed and efficient in administering the program. No, the program s cost-effectiveness vastly exceeded expectations. No participant surveys found exceedingly high satisfaction levels. Yes. The program has produced significant market transformation in specific technologies including low flow devices, steam line insulation, and steam trap replacement. On this basis, 2016 activities were limited to reviewing program staff response to prior recommendations Data Collection Activities The process evaluation of the C&I Solutions Program included the following data collection activities: Program Actor In-Depth Interviews. The Evaluators conducted in-depth interviews with a series of program actors. These interviews covered a range of topics, including marketing efforts, feedback on program delivery, an assessment of barriers to program implementation and success, and recommendations for program improvement. Program Actors interviewed include: - CenterPoint Program Staff. The Evaluators interviewed staff at CenterPoint involved in the administration of the C&I Solutions Program. These interviews built upon interviews conducted in 2015, keeping apprised of CenterPoint s involvement as the C&I Solutions Program develops. - Third Party Implementation Staff Interviews. The Evaluators conducted interviews with CLEAResult involved with the C&I Solutions Program. These interviews addressed the development of the program over the 2015 program year as well as CLEAResult s perspective on a variety of implementation issues, including conversion of audits to completed projects and the process flow for direct install and custom projects. Participant Surveying. A census of custom participants and a sample of direct install participants were surveyed for this evaluation effort. These surveys included net-to-gross and process issues. The surveys provided valuable data for this process evaluation effort, providing participant feedback as to their program participation, recommendations for program improvement, and insight into the decision-making process of CenterPoint s commercial and industrial customers. C&I Solutions 7-5

146 Table 7-5 summarizes the data collection for this process evaluation effort. This includes the titles, role, sample sizes, timeframe of data collection. CenterPoint Program Staff Table 7-5 CenterPoint C&I Solutions Data Collection Summary Target Component Activity N Role Manager, Conservation Improvement Interview 1 Program Implementation CLEAResult Staff Program Participants Energy Efficiency Consultant Senior Program Manager Program Coordinator Interview 1 Interview 1 Interview 1 Custom Participants Survey 14 Overall administration of CenterPoint DSM programs. This manager is involved in the larger strategic decisions associated with the DSM portfolio, and is involved with the CIS Program in the overall coordination of utility resources. The Energy Efficiency Consultant at CenterPoint is responsible for much of the day-to-day operation of the program on the part of CenterPoint. This individual s responsibilities include regular interaction with third party implementation staff and assisting in outreach and marketing efforts of the program. The Senior Program Manager oversees the program implementation for CenterPoint, Black Hills Energy, and AOG, handling cross-cutting issues as well as the largest projects associated with each of the three utilities programs The Program Coordinator handles day-to-day operations, including tracking of outreach and implementation activities, payments for direct installation, and interfacing with Evaluation staff. Custom participants received a semi-structured interview at the beginning of a project and a structured survey at the close. The Evaluators interviewed a census of participants Process Results & Findings This section will present the results and key findings from the data collection activities. These findings are based upon interviews with utility staff, implementation staff and surveys with participants Response to Program Recommendations The Evaluators did not make program recommendations in C&I Solutions 7-6

147 Program Theory & Design The C&I Solutions Program was designed to provide outreach in hard-to-reach sectors of the C&I markets. The main bullets below list program activities and their expected outcomes as determined through prior process evaluations. Direct installation of high-return measures. The C&I Solutions program provides no-cost direct installation of door sweeps, low flow faucet aerators, prerinse spray valves, and showerheads. These measures have a high return of savings relative to their cost and as such can be provided free-of-charge and remain cost-effective. The provided savings are unlikely to occur absent the program; generally, if a respondent does not already have the equipment in place, the direct install activities induce an action that was not planned. It is also the intention that these activities will serve as an introductory teaser to energy efficiency for the recipients, and that they will then be further interested in participating in the custom component of the program. Energy audits to medium and large customers. These audits are conducted by CLEAResult staff, providing recommendations for energy efficiency improvements and an audit report. These audits are intended to generate the bulk of the program savings, yielding high-return custom projects. Incentives for custom measures. The C&I Solutions Program provides incentives of $0.80 per Therm for verified savings from custom projects completed by large commercial and industrial customers. Incentives for small businesses receive $0.90 per Therm. These projects may be driven by a program-funded audit, generated by a trade ally, or be customer-directed. Incentives for prescriptive measures. C&I Boiler Equipment Rebates and Commercial Cooking Equipment Rebates were folded into C&I Solutions in the past two years. Prescriptive rebates for qualifying equipment are still advertised in the same manner and customer-facing material has not changed. Referral to CenterPoint prescriptive programs. There are instances where the CLEAResult audit identifies energy savings opportunities that qualify for a prescriptive incentive from one of the above-mentioned programs. In these instances, the project is referred to the appropriate program and savings are not credited to the C&I Solutions Program Program Administration The C&I Solutions program is overseen by an Energy Efficiency consultant at CenterPoint. This manager s responsibilities primarily include interfacing with CLEAResult, who directly implement the program. Other activities by this manager include providing updated customer lists to CLEAResult to better facilitate their C&I Solutions 7-7

148 implementation, review of custom applications, and at times assisting CLEAResult in customer interactions. This manager also oversees CenterPoint s Commercial Boiler and Commercial Food Service CIPs. Internally, this manager is supported by Energy Efficiency Engineers from CenterPoint s Minnesota office. These engineers are responsible for custom program implementation in Minnesota and assist the Arkansas team by providing separate review of custom project M&V plans. The program is further supported by rebate processing staff at CenterPoint who handles incentive payments to CLEAResult for completed direct install work and provide the rebate checks to custom participants at the close of the projects. At CLEAResult s end, the program overall is led by the Senior Program Manager, who oversees the implementation of the C&I Solutions Program for all three AR natural gas utilities. This manager handles high-level issues across the programs, including regulatory compliance and reporting, as well as some level of intervention on the larger projects. Much of the day-to-day activity is handled by the Program Coordinator. The Program Coordinator reviews direct-install and audit activity, handles billing and administration with CenterPoint, and coordinates with the Evaluators in facilitating EM&V activities. Direct install and audit activities are run by Energy Engineers and Field Engineers. These engineers oversee crews that perform direct installation and conduct the energy audits. After this, their responsibilities include development of the audit report and recommendations, and following up with the customer to gauge interest in completing a project Program Implementation and Delivery Throughout the program year, CLEAResult would provide the Evaluators with updates regarding their pipeline of custom projects. The Evaluators were provided with monthly updates, listing the full scope of facility audits, expected savings with associated recommended measures, and what stage the project was in. These stages are: Pipeline. Projects listed as Pipeline are in the first phase of involvement in the Commercial & Industrial Solutions Program. These participants are customers that have discussed the possibility of a facility audit and indicated systems of interest to CLEAResult. These facilities will receive a Pre-Inspection at a later date. Pre-Inspected. Projects listed as Pre-Inspected are in the phase where CLEAResult has just completed a facility audit. During these audits, CLEAResult conducts a comprehensive review of the facility s systems and operation practices. On this basis, CLEAResult then formulates initial recommendations for energy efficiency improvements. These are discussed with facility staff during the C&I Solutions 7-8

149 audit, in order to address the viability of recommended measures. Measures that are stated to be viable by the customer are then noted and focused upon in the next steps of the audit process. Pre-Installation Calculation. At this phase, CLEAResult is compiling high-level data needed to provide an initial estimate of energy savings. This step of the process compiles the information collected in the site audit, which are then used in the development of an Audit Report. Audit Report Complete. In this phase, viable measures from the Pre-Inspection are compiled into a formal audit report, providing the participant with further detail as to the scope of the project, initial savings estimates, associated incentives, expected project cost, and the payback period of the measure. Additionally, should the measure provide operational benefits to the facility (such as improved comfort or product reliability), these are indicated as well in order to provide the customer with a full scope of the benefits of the project. Project Agreement. At this point, the customer has informed CLEAResult and CenterPoint that they intend to install a program-recommended measure. When this occurs, CLEAResult then involves the Evaluators. CLEAResult provides the Evaluators with an M&V plan for the facility, detailing the project scope and proposed data collection and analysis. The Evaluators engineering staff then reviews the M&V plan and makes recommendations for any changes needed. If this revises the savings amount, the Reserved Incentive in the application is revised. A project agreement is then signed, in which the reserved incentive amount is detailed and reflects edits made by the Evaluators. Post-Inspection. This phase marks the completion of post-inspection for an installed measure. CLEAResult has at this point post-inspected a measure and revised savings accordingly if the installed project differs from the proposed project. At this point, 40% of the reserved incentive is paid to the customer. M&V. M&V marks the phase when post-installation data is collected for an installed project in order to allow for calculation of a final savings estimate, from which the remaining incentive to the customer is determined. There are some measures that do not need post-retrofit data; for such measures, the M&V phase is short and requires completion of calculations based upon inputs verified in the Post-Inspection. For facilities that require post-installation data, the data collection period can range from 30 days to 6 months. Complete. Facilities marked as Complete have received their full incentive. As stated prior, 60% of the reserved funds for the incentive are available to pay the remaining incentive amount owed to the customer. If the verified savings are below the Project Agreement savings, the customer s incentive is reduced C&I Solutions 7-9

150 accordingly, so as to keep incentive levels at $.80/Therm. If the verified savings are higher than the Project Agreement amount, CLEAResult and CenterPoint then see if there are available incentive funds left for the program year. If the program has available funds, the customer receives a total incentive higher than the initial agreement. If the funds are not available, the customer s incentive is capped at the Project Agreement amount. The process flow for the C&I Solutions Program is displayed in Figure 7-4. C&I Solutions 7-10

151 CenterPoint Provides Customer List CLEAResult Implements Prescriptive C&I programs Refers to Eligible for prescriptive incentive? Project closed as prescriptive incentive C&I Solutions Implements Prescriptive projects identified? Pay remaining incentive based on M&V results Marketing and Outreach Conduct M&V Large C&I Customers Agrees to audit? Custom projects identified? Audit report completed Pay 40% of incentive ESCOs & Engineering firms Small C&I Customers Markets to Direct install identified? Project agreement signed M&V plan drafted M&V plan reviewed by CenterPoint engineering Yes Lengthy M&V required? No Project installed M&V project, then pay in full Direct install measures implemented M&V plans reviewed by ADM Incentive reserved Figure 7-4 C&I Solutions Process Flow C&I Solutions 7-11

152 7.2.3 Custom Project Survey Response The Evaluators conducted interviews with the 12 decision-makers responsible for the completed custom projects in the C&I Solutions program in Given the small number of interviews, reporting data in terms of percent response by question does not adequately present the participant response to the program. The Evaluators opted to present the results in terms of individual case studies, rather than aggregated survey responses. CNP-CIS : The facility is a rail yard and train maintenance & repair facility which received an audit through the C&I Solutions Program. This audit identified the power washing equipment used by the facility was pressurized and heated 24/7, despite the equipment only being in use during regular Monday-Friday business hours. In 2015, The respondent was contacted for a partial-participant interview and during this they indicated to the Evaluators that they had completed installation of several recommended improvements. These projects were then post-inspected and received M&V as a normal custom project. The respondent indicated that they had forwarded the audit results to various department heads at the facility, and that some of them were a bit enthusiastic to get started, I couldn t keep track of what they d done once they saw the numbers. Some real no-brainers in the report. The Evaluators credited this project to the program as audit-induced spillover. In 2016, a second round of these same projects were then processed in the C&I Solutions Program as a rebated project. CNP-CIS : The participant is an industrial facility that received incentives for installation of a high efficiency steam generator. The facility representative indicated that no plant in their company had ever installed a steam generator, and that subsequent to the C&I Solutions Audit it took a lot of convincing to get corporate on board with something new. The facility had a planned replacement of their boiler and the plans prior to the program were for a center-fire boiler. The preexisting boiler was 600 HP. The project included installation a header capable of accommodating 500 HP of steam generators, though this installation only included a 250 HP steam generator. A second steam generator is to be installed in Though the overall system retrofit will be downsized, for Phase 1 the Evaluators did not credit any downsizing savings. The first generator installed is run at full capacity, and the plant is at a lower production level while preparing to install the second steam generator. The first steam generator was compared against 250 HP baseline equipment, while Phase 2 (if it goes through) would be credited with extra savings form a 100 HP downsizing. CNP-CIS : The participant is a laundry facility that received incentives for a steam trap replacement. The project was initiated by a program trade ally. The facility is a smaller business that stated that they do not typically pay close attention to the C&I Solutions 7-12

153 system maintenance and that they did not know how high the potential savings from steam trap maintenance were until being engaged by the trade ally. The trade ally was initially brought into the facility to conduct other repairs. CNP-CIS , 012: The participant is a food processing facility that completed two projects in the program, steam trap replacement and condensate return. The facility first participated in the C&I Solutions Program in 2012, when they installed linkless controls for their boiler. They have been in continuous contact with program staff subsequent to that, and named a staff person at CLEAResult that specifically assisted in developing a condensate return project. They stated that the last time steam traps were replaced was well over five years ago and that it was suggested for completion on a similar timeline as the condensate return improvement for cost-efficiency. CNP-CIS : The participant is a food processing plant that received incentives for a continuous cooker and for capturing waste steam to heat plant water. The preexisting equipment was 12 batch cookers; the batch cookers would require that product enter the cooker, go through the cooking process, and then be removed. The continuous cooker runs product through on an ongoing basis, with reduced waste due to having no down-time in between batches. For the second project, steam had been released through a pipe on the roof. This project entailed installing piping to capture this steam and use it to heat hot water held ins a storage tank that would then be used for maintenance and process demand. The continuous cooker equipment had already been purchased by the participant before they became involved in the program. However, the Evaluators concluded that it was still a viable project because the equipment sat at the plant uninstalled for over four years prior to their engaging with the program. The facility staff indicated that once the equipment was purchased, they could not secure funding to actually complete the installation; the installation was much costlier and required more downtime that initially anticipated and as a result the facility was instructed to keep using the old batch cookers. The Evaluators instructed CLEAResult to use the marginal costs of the installation when determining a rebate cap (if any), rather than the full equipment cost, as those costs were already incurred. The waste steam capture portion of the project was then developed over the course of CLEAResult s work with the facility, as it was found that with the other re-piping work that was to be completed to install the continuous cooker, the marginal cost of the waste steam capture was very low. CNP-CIS : The participant is a food processing plant that received incentives for installing a condensate return system. The facility was discharging all condensate to the sewer. The facility staff stated that they needed the support from the program to C&I Solutions 7-13

154 show hard numbers for savings in order for the project to be seen as viable from the facility owners. CNP-CIS : The participant is a manufacturing facility that received incentives for steam trap replacement and steam trap insulation. The respondent stated that they were not aware of the problems with their steam trap system until it was identified in the program audit, and that the program incentives allowed for the project to complete without having to go through the capital request process. CNP-CIS : The participant is a food processing facility that installed steam trap replacement and completed steam leak repairs. The facility participated in the program and received an audit where the steam trap issues were identified and they were referred to a trade ally. When they were followed-up with by CLEAResult it was found that they had already completed the project. The facility staff indicated in an interview with the Evaluators that they appreciated the issues that were identified but they acted quickly out of safety concerns with the steam leaks and did not want any delays that may occur in the program application process to slow down the project. The Evaluators credited this project as partial participant spillover. CNP-CIS : The participant is a medical facility that completed a steam trap replacement project. In a past program year, this facility had participated in the p4rogram for a linkless controls boiler retrofit. The respondent indicated that their ongoing communications with CLEAResult subsequent to the linkless controls project led to discussion of steam trap assessment and replacement, and resulted in CLEAResult referring a steam trap trade ally to conduct a detailed survey. CNP-CIS : The participant is an industrial facility that installed a waste heat recovery system. The facility received an audit in 2014 that identified the opportunity to capture oven waste heat and use it to provide space heating for the plan. When CLEAResult followed up with them in 2016 it was found that they completed the project. The respondent indicated that they did not understand the application process; they had participated in Entergy programs to a significant extent and in their experiences with that program their primary interactions were with a trade ally who then handled their application process. They were not aware of the different program rules that they would need to adhere to for this project. The Evaluators credited this project as partial participant spillover. CNP-CIS : The participant is a waste processing facility that received incentives for insulation of their steam and condensate system. The pipe sections were outdoors and uninsulated, and estimates of energy savings and available rebates were developed in the program audit. The facility respondents stated that when the audit revealed the amount they could save and get in incentives, they cancelled plans to C&I Solutions 7-14

155 direct connect to the interstate pipeline so they could take advantage of the opportunity to improve their facility and attain rebates. CNP-CIS : The participant is a manufacturing facility that received incentives for a boiler replacement. This facility has participated in the program in past years for steam trap replacement. The respondent stated that the project was such a success that they were instructed by the facility parent company to pursue other opportunities to reduce energy use. The result of this was specification of a high efficiency boiler to replace their old system. The facility is an active participant in the program and has in the past served as a case study in program marketing materials. CNP-CIS : The participant is a food processing facility that received incentives for insulation of steam pipes and hot water tanks. It is a large plant than when under prior owner had opted out of energy efficiency. When under new ownership, the plant was contacted by CLEAResult to go over potential options for energy efficiency improvements as they returned to operability. This lead to an audit report identifying significant opportunities for energy reduction, and based on this the new plant ownership worked to opt back into the energy efficiency programs. 7.3 C&I Solutions Impact Evaluation The impact evaluation of the C&I Solutions Program included the following: Custom Project M&V. The Evaluators conducted project-specific M&V on a 18 of 18 custom projects completed through the C&I Solutions program (accounting for 100% of program custom savings). Each project included an M&V plan and project-specific report. The reports are provided in Appendix A. Direct Install Verification. The Evaluators conducted verification inspection for direct-install Faucet Aerators, Pre-Rinse Spray Valves (PRSVs), and Low Flow Showerheads. This was conducted at a stratified random sample of participating facilities. The realization rate was developed at the stratum level based upon the rate of verification during on-site inspection. This realization rate was then extrapolated to other facilities within the same stratum. Free-Ridership Estimation. A free-ridership rate for custom participants was estimated through participant surveying. The Evaluators applied the 2014 freeridership rate for direct install measures to 2016 projects. Participant Spillover. Spillover was addressed for two customer classes: Participants and Partial Participants. Participants were surveyed for free ridership and process evaluation, and over the course of that survey are asked a series of questions addressing whether the C&I Solutions Program induced them to install other energy efficient equipment without program incentive. Additionally, the Evaluators asked these customers for an estimate of savings that they expect C&I Solutions 7-15

156 from these measures. This was supplemented with Partial Participant Surveying. Partial Participants are defined as those which received a facility audit and measure recommendations (with associated savings estimates). Samples of these participants were interviewed, and over the course of these interviews were asked if they installed any measures recommended through the program without having singed a Project Application or receiving an incentive. Partial Participant Spillover. The Evaluators define Partial Participants as those that received a facility audit but did not complete any projects through the C&I Solutions Program. Further, they must be considered cold leads by CLEAResult; there are many participants who receive an audit that have not installed measures, but are still in regular contact with CLEAResult. Such participants were not contacted for this interview effort in that the Evaluators did not want to interfere with what are considered by implementation staff to be ongoing projects. The cold leads interviewed were asked a variety of questions regarding their reason for not following through with any of the recommended measures. Additionally, they were asked if they did in fact install any of the recommended measures from their audit without having participated. If the customer indicated having learned of the measure from their audit, the installation was then credited to the program as spillover. 7.4 C&I Solutions Direct Install Impact Evaluation Energy Savings Calculations The TRM Version 6.0 includes commercial faucet aerators and pre-rinse spray valves, and the evaluation of the C&I Solutions program incorporated these deemed values. They are detailed in the subsections to follow. Faucet Aerators Deemed savings calculations for direct install faucet aerators were based upon: Rated flow of installed aerators; Usage by facility type; and Water temperature setting by facility type. Savings are calculated as follows 21 : Annual Therms = [(F B U B ) (F P U P ) Days (T H T C ) C H C G /Eff G ] Peak Therms = P [(F B U B ) (F P U P ) (T H T C ) C H C G /Eff G ] The inputs for this equation are defined in Table Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg C&I Solutions 7-16

157 Table 7-6 DI Aerator Savings Calculation Parameters Parameter Description Value F B Baseline Flow Rate (GPM) 2.2 F P Post Flow Rate (GPM) 1.5 Annual operating days for the facility 22 Prison 365 Hospital, Nursing Home 365 Days Dormitory 274 Multifamily 365 Lodging 365 Commercial 250 School 200 T C Average supply (cold) water temperature (deg. F) Zone 9: 65.6 Zone 8: 66.1 Zone 7: 67.8 Zone 6: 70.1 T H Average mixed hot water temperature (deg. F) 105 Baseline water Usage Duration Prison 30 min/day/unit Hospital, Nursing Home 3 min/day/unit U B Dormitory 30 min/day/unit Multifamily 3 min/day/unit Lodging 3 min/day/unit Commercial 30 min/day/unit School 30 min/day/unit U P Post Water Usage Duration (assumed) = U B C H Unit Conversion: 8.33 BTU/Gallons/deg. F 8.33 C G Unit Conversion: 1 Therm/100,000 BTU 1/100,00 Eff G Efficiency of Gas Water Heater.8 Hourly Peak Demand as a percent of Daily Demand for the following applications Prison.04 Hospital, Nursing Home.03 P Dormitory.04 Multifamily.03 Lodging.02 Commercial.08 School.05 These values translate into per-faucet savings values by facility type, detailed in Table 7-7 and Table 7-8 for 1.0 and 0.5 GPM aerators, respectively For facilities that operate year round: conservatively assume operating days of 360/year; For schools open weekdays except summer: 360 x (5/7) x (9/12) = 193 For dormitories with few occupants in the summer: 360 x (9/12) = 270 For normal commercial buildings: 360 x (5/7) = Table values interpolated based on data in Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg C&I Solutions 7-17

158 Facility Type Prison Hospital / Nursing Home Dormitory Multifamily Lodging Commercial School Facility Type Prison Hospital / Nursing Home Dormitory Multifamily Lodging Commercial School Table GPM Commercial Aerator Savings Savings Fayetteville Fort Smith Little Rock El Dorado (Zone 9) (Zone 8) (Zone 7) (Zone 6) Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Table GPM Commercial Aerator Savings Savings Fayetteville Fort Smith Little Rock El Dorado (Zone 9) (Zone 8) (Zone 7) (Zone 6) Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Annual Peak Direct Install Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Low-flow pre-rinse spray valves PRSVs were also direct-installed at a wide range of facility types with food service applications. The savings per unit for these were calculated as follows 24 : Annual Therms = [(F B U B ) (F P U P )] Days (T H T C ) C H C G Eff G Peak Therms = P [(F B U B ) (F P U P )] (T H T C ) C H C G Eff G 24 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg C&I Solutions 7-18

159 Table 7-9 presents the definition of these parameters 25. Table 7-9 Pre-Rinse Spray Valves Savings Calculation Parameters Parameter Description Value F B Baseline Flow Rate (GPM) 2.25 F P Post Flow Rate (GPM) 1.28 Annual operating days for the facility Fast Food Restaurant 365 Days Casual Dining Restaurant 365 Institutional 365 Higher Education 274 School / K T C Average supply (cold) water temperature (deg. F) Zone 9: 65.6 Zone 8: 66.1 Zone 7: 67.8 Zone 6: 70.1 T H Average mixed hot water temperature (deg. F) 120 Baseline water Usage Duration Fast Food Restaurant 45 min/day/unit U B Casual Dining Restaurant 105 min/day/unit Institutional 210 min/day/unit Higher Education 210 min/day/unit School / K min/day/unit U P Post Water Usage Duration (assumed) = U B C H Unit Conversion: 8.33 BTU/Gallons/deg. F 8.33 C G Unit Conversion: 1 Therm/100,000 BTU 1/100,000 Eff G Efficiency of Gas Water Heater.8 P Hourly Peak Demand as a percent of Daily Demand for the following applications Fast Food Restaurant.05 Casual Dining Restaurant.04 Institutional.03 Higher Education.04 School / K Ninety-three PRSVs were installed through the C&I Solutions Program in In prior years, CLEAResult staff conducted on-site measurement for on PRSVs but this was not completed in 2016, so savings for PRSVs were calculated using TRM V6.0 values. Low Flow Showerheads Low flow showerheads were added to the TRM V6.0. Deemed savings calculations for these showerheads were based upon: Rated flow of installed showerheads; Usage by facility type; and 25 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg C&I Solutions 7-19

160 Water temperature setting by facility type. Savings are calculated as follows 26 : 8.33 C p V (T HW T Suppy ) ( 1 E ) Annual therms = t 100,000 BTU therm days year 8.33 C p V (T HW T Suppy ) ( 1 E ) Peak therms = t P 100,000 BTU therm In this formula, V is calculated as follows: Where V = U N (Q b Q p ) F HW U = average shower duration (7.8 minutes) N = Number of showers per showerhead per day Q b = Baseline flow rate (2.5 GPM); Q p = Installed flow rate (in GPM); and F HW = Hot Water Fraction (share of water which is from the water heater) The inputs for this equation are defined in Table Table 7-10 DI Showerhead Savings Calculation Parameters Parameter Description Value F B Baseline Flow Rate (GPM) 2.2 F P Post Flow Rate (GPM) 1.5 Annual operating days for the facility Hospital, Nursing Home 365 Days Lodging 365 Commercial Hour Fitness Center 365 School 200 T C Average supply (cold) water temperature (deg. F) Zone 9: 65.6 Zone 8: 66.1 Zone 7: 67.8 Zone 6: 70.1 T H Average mixed hot water temperature (deg. F) 120 U P Post Water Usage Duration (assumed) = U B C G Unit Conversion: 1 Therm/100,000 BTU 1/100,00 E T Efficiency of Gas Water Heater.8 P Hourly Peak Demand as a percent of Daily 26 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg C&I Solutions 7-20

161 Installed Flow Rate 2.0 GPM 1.75 GPM 1.5 GPM Weather Stripping Demand for the following applications Hospital, Nursing Home.03 Lodging.02 Commercial Hour Fitness Center.08 School.05 Table 7-11 Daily Hot Water Reduction Weather Hospital / Commercial 24 Fitness Lodging Zone Nursing Shower Center Schools Weather stripping was added to the TRM V6.0. Deemed savings calculations for weather stripping were based upon: Air infiltration; Cooling and heating equivalent full-load hours; and Change in temperature between interior and exterior spaces. Savings are calculated as follows 27 : Annual therms = (CFM pre,day Hours day + CFM pre,night Hours night ) (CFM reduction 1.08 T 1.0kW ton ) 80% AFUE 100,000Btu therm Peak therms = Annual therms ELFH H 27 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg C&I Solutions 7-21

162 The inputs for this equation are defined in Table 7-12 Table 7-12 DI Weather Stripping Savings Calculation Parameters Parameter Description Value CFM pre Calculated pre-retrofit air infiltration rate (ft 3 /min) CFMreduction Average infiltration reduction 79% ΔT Change in temperature across gap barrier Hours day 12 hour cycles per day, per month 4,380 hours Hours night 12 hour cycles per day, per month 4,380 hours EFLH H Average heating equilvalent full-load hours Table 7-13 Table 7-13 EFLH H By Weather Zone Building Type Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Assembly College/University Fast Food Restaurant Full Menu Restaurant Grocery Store Health Clinic Lodging Large Office (>30k SqFt) 811 1,014 1,054 1,036 Small Office ( 30k SqFt) Religious Worship Retail 780 1,041 1,131 1,099 School 774 1,026 1,089 1,064 These values translate into per linear foot savings values by weather zone, detailed in Table 7-14 and Table 7-15 for annual Therm saving and peak Therm savings, respectively 28. Table 7-14 Deemed Annual Therm Savings per Linear Foot Weather Zone Gap Width (inches) 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 Zone Zone Zone Zone Table 7-15 Deemed Peak Therm Savings per Linear Foot Weather Gap Width (inches) 28 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg. 357 C&I Solutions 7-22

163 Direct Install Verification Rates Zone 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 Zone Zone Zone Zone The Evaluators completed verification of direct install measures at 13 participating facilities. This sample included: 123 faucet aerators; 2 pre-rinse spray valves; and 110 low flow showerheads. 2,441 liner feet of weather stripping All listed equipment was verified on-site Direct-Install Free-Ridership The Evaluators applied the 2014 NTGR of 96.4% for C&I Solutions Direct Install C&I Solutions Custom Project Impact Evaluation The Evaluators opted for a census of custom projects in order to capture the full variability associated with these projects; the measures are often unique with idiosyncratic issues, and as such extrapolation from the M&V of other projects would be inappropriate. Table 7-16 summarizes the custom projects completed and evaluated in In this table, Reserved Savings are the savings used to determine the amount of incentive funds reserved for the project at the time of signing a Project Agreement. 40% of this amount is paid at the time of verification of installation, with the remaining held in reserve until the M&V of the project is complete. Expected Savings is the value calculated by CLEAResult after M&V. Verified Savings is the savings calculation completed by the Evaluators. Table 7-16 CenterPoint C&I Solutions Custom Project Summary Facility Type Project ID Measure Reserved Expected Verified M&V Savings Savings Savings Protocol Transportation CNP-CIS2016- Proceco 001 Controls 67,215 12,836 12,231 OptionA Manufacturing CNP-CIS2016- Steam 003 Generator 35,663 55,521 55,521 Option A Commercial CNP-CIS2016- Steam Trap Laundry 004 Replacement N/A 3,974 3,974 Deemed Food CNP-CIS2016- Steam Trap Processing 005 Replacement 39,397 15,745 15,745 Deemed Food CNP-CIS2016- Continuous 530, , ,486 Option B C&I Solutions 7-23

164 Processing 006 Cooker Food Processing CNP-CIS Condensate Return Steam Trap CNP-CIS2016- Manufacturing Insulation 009 Manufacturing Steam Trap Replacement Steam Food CNP-CIS2016- Generator & Processing 010 Controls Medical CNP-CIS2016- Steam Trap Food Processing Food Processing Medical Manufacturing 011 CNP-CIS CNP-CIS CNP-CIS CNP-CIS Replacement Condensate Return Steam Trap Replacement (Spillover) Steam Leak (Spillover) Steam Trap Replacement Oven Waste Heat Capture (Spillover) 14,537 10,252 10,249 Option A N/A 3,819 3,795 Option A N/A 57,384 57,384 Deemed 112,435 15,849 0 Option A - 26,058 26,058 Deemed 41,764 12,723 64,556 Option A N/A N/A 11,170 Deemed N/A N/A 10,248 Option A 16,086 21,946 21,946 Deemed N/A N/A 20,736 Option A Waste CNP-CIS2016- Processing 016 Insulation 17,036 86,146 86,149 Option A Manufacturing CNP-CIS2016- Boiler 018 Retrofit 76,839 94,398 94,398 Option B Manufacturing Insulation N/A 4,735 4,735 Option A Food CNP-CIS2016- Processing 019 Insulation 163, , ,402 Option A Individual site reports detailing these analyses are provided in Appendix A. All custom projects were post-inspected with M&V as described the site-level analyses Custom Project Free-Ridership Methodology The custom project free-ridership methodology is more complicated than that of the DI participants, owing to the more complex nature of the projects and the effects of the facility audit and project incentive. The methodology used by the Evaluators in determining the free-ridership rates for custom projects examined the following factors: Knowledge gained from program outreach. If the project originated from program outreach (which may include program-sponsored training courses or facility audits), the respondent is asked if they had prior knowledge of the energy-saving opportunity recommended and eventually installed. If the respondent learned of the measure through the program audit or program sponsored training, then they C&I Solutions 7-24

165 FI-1 are considered to not have been free-riders, in that in the absence of the program, the likelihood of the facility receiving a similarly detailed audit are low. Questions used in evaluating this criteria include: Prior to participating in the C&I Solutions Program, did your organization install any equipment similar to [EQUIPMENT/MEASURE] at your facility without financial incentives or rebates? Yes No FI-1a Did you learn of this measure through your participation in the Commercial & Industrial Solutions Program? Yes [IF YES, ASK FI-1b] Do you recall how you learned of the measure? No Prior plans for a similar measure. This component is examined in instances where the respondent knew of the measure prior to receiving and technical assistance through the C&I Solutions Program. Respondents are asked a series of questions related to whether they had plans for installing this equipment prior to having learned of the available financial incentives from the C&I Solutions program. Questions used in this component include: FI-1 FI-2 Prior to participating in the C&I Solutions Program, did your organization install any equipment similar to [EQUIPMENT/MEASURE] at your facility without financial incentives or rebates? Yes No Did you have plans to install the [EQUIPMENT/MEASURE] that was upgraded through C&I Solutions before participating in the program? Yes No If Yes: FI-2a Would you have gone ahead with this planned installation without the program rebates? Yes No FI-2b Would this installation have included the same equipment without the program rebates? Yes No Analysis of measure payback. Respondents are asked to indicate what their require payback period is for energy efficiency improvements. This value is compared against the measure payback with and without the program incentive. If the financial incentive brings the project from over the threshold to under the threshold, then the project is considered to have been sufficiently influenced by the program incentive. This includes the following questions: C&I Solutions 7-25

166 DM-5 Does your organization require a specific payback period in order to implement energy efficiency improvements? Yes [ASK DM-5A] No [SKIP TO DM-6] Don't know [DON T READ] DM-5a What payback length of time do you normally require in order to consider an energy investment cost effective? Years Don't know The stated payback requirement by the respondent is then compared against the payback of the recommended project with and without the program incentive. Modification of the project. Respondents are asked a series of questions addressing whether they modified the project as a result of their program participation. This includes changes in equipment quantity and/or efficiency level (where appropriate for the measure) and a change in project timing. Questions used to analyze this component include: FI-5 If the C&I Solutions through C&I Solutions Program were not available, would you have installed the Same quantity of energy efficient equipment, A lower quantity, or No energy efficient equipment at all? [IF FI-5 = Lower Quantity ]: FI-5a: By percentage, how much lower? FI-6 If the C&I Solutions program were not available, would you have installed The same equipment with the same efficiency level, The same equipment with a lower energy efficiency level, but still above minimum code, or standard efficiency equipment? [IF FI-6 = Lower efficiency level, but still above minimum code ]: FI-6a: By percentage, how much lower? FI-7 Did the C&I Solutions rebate allow you to install [EQUIPMENT/MESURE] sooner than you otherwise would have? Yes IF YES: FI-7a When would you otherwise have installed the equipment? (READ IF NEEDED) In less than 6 months later In 6-12 months later In 1-2 years later In 3-5 years later In more than 5 years later No, did not affect timing of purchase and installation The scoring mechanism for custom projects is presented in Figure 7-5. C&I Solutions 7-26

167 Did respondent learn of measure from program technical assistance? No Did incentive move project below payback threshold? No or unknown Was project planned before applying for program? Yes No Yes Yes Project Modification Series: No Was installation in progress when respondent learned of program? Moved up timeline at least one year? No Changed efficiency and/or quantity? Yes Yes Yes No NTGR = 1 Yes Efficiency/Quantity changed affect savings by >50%? No NTGR = 0 Figure 7-5 C&I Solutions Custom Project Free-Ridership Diagram The resulting NTGRs by project are presented in Table Table 7-17 CenterPoint C&I Solutions Custom Project Free-Ridership Results Facility Type Project ID Measure Gross Net Net-to- Savings Savings Gross Ratio Transportation CNP-CIS Proceco Controls 12,231 12, % Manufacturing CNP-CIS Steam Generator 55,521 55, % Commercial Steam Trap CNP-CIS Laundry Replacement 3,974 3, % Food Steam Trap CNP-CIS Processing Replacement 15,745 15, % Food Continuous CNP-CIS Processing Cooker 425, , % Food Condensate CNP-CIS Processing Return 10,249 10, % Steam Trap Manufacturing CNP-CIS Insulation 3,795 3, % Steam Trap Replacement 57,384 57, % Food CNP-CIS Steam % C&I Solutions 7-27

168 Processing Medical Food Processing Food Processing Medical Manufacturing CNP-CIS CNP-CIS CNP-CIS CNP-CIS CNP-CIS Generator & Controls Steam Trap Replacement Condensate Return Steam Trap Replacement (Spillover) Steam Leak (Spillover) Steam Trap Replacement Oven Waste Heat Capture (Spillover) 26,058 26, % 64,556 64, % 0 11, % 0 10, % 21,946 21, % 20, % Waste Processing CNP-CIS Insulation 86,149 86, % Manufacturing CNP-CIS Boiler Retrofit 94,398 94, % Insulation 4,735 4, % Food Processing CNP-CIS Insulation 138, , % Total 1,020,629 1,062, % Given the small number of participants, the free-rider assessments were a series of case studies as opposed to an extrapolated survey. The individual free-rider assessments are contained within the survey narrative responses detailed in Section Participant Spillover Participant spillover is defined as savings from program participants that was not incentivized by the CenterPoint programs. During participant surveying, both DI and Custom participants are asked questions addressing whether their participation had led to the installation of equipment that was not rebated by CenterPoint. The estimated savings from these projects are tallied and added to the program savings as Participant Spillover. OS-3 Has your organization s participation in the C&I Solutions Program led you to buy any energy resulted in the installation of additional efficient equipment for which you did not apply for a financial incentive? Yes If Yes: OS-3a What type of equipment? No C&I Solutions 7-28

169 Don t know [DON T READ] No participant spillover was identified Partial-Participant Spillover Partial-participant spillover are savings coming from projects that were recommended to recipients of audits through the C&I Solutions program that were completed without filing for program incentives. Respondents are asked: Have you since implemented any of the recommendations from your facility audit? a. If Yes: Why didn t you install these measures through the available incentive program? It is then clarified as to whether the respondent installed the project as specified in the audit or made modifications to the project. This is combined in providing an estimate of non-incentivized savings, which constitutes the Partial Participant Spillover. Projects CNP-CIS and CNP-CIS were partial participant spillover Overall Program NTGR The overall program NTGR for the C&I Solutions Program is defined as: Program NTGR = Net DI Savings + Net Custom Sasvings + Particpant Spillover + PartialParticipant Spillover Gross DI Savings + Gross Custom Savings Based on this, the C&I Solutions Program NTGR is 102.8% Verified Savings Table 7-18 presents the gross savings results of the evaluation of the 2016 C&I Solutions Program. Total Gross Savings summarizes the savings calculations performed by TRM protocols and custom analyses. Table 7-18 C&I Solutions Verified Therms Savings Component Measure Expected Verified Lifetime Peak Therms Therms EUL Therms Therms Savings Savings Savings Faucet Aerators 48,107 43, , Direct Low Flow Showerheads 43,479 43, , Install Pre Rinse Spray Valves 18,936 12, , Weather Stripping 106, , ,318, Custom Varies 985,274 1,020, ,726,770 2, Total Gross Savings 1,202,048 1,239, ,972,208 3, Net savings for the C&I Solutions program were calculated using free-ridership rates based on participant surveys for the direct install and custom components. The resulting net savings are presented in Table C&I Solutions 7-29

170 Component Table 7-19 C&I Solutions Net Savings Summary Free-Ridership Rate Net Annual Savings Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Net Realization Rate Net Lifetime Therms Savings Net Peak Therms Direct Install 3.60% 3.60% 214, , % 2,100, Custom 0% 2.90% 985,274 1,020, % 17,726,770 5, Partial Part. Spillover NA NA 0 42, , Overall: 0.70% 3.00% 1,200,000 1,273, % 20,142,070 6, Table 7-20 summarizes the net non-energy benefits from the 2016 C&I Solutions Program. Table 7-20 C&I Solutions Net Non-Energy Benefits Summary Non-Energy Benefit First-year EUL 7.5 Conclusions & Recommendations Conclusions Water Savings (Gallons) 13,413, kwh 1, kw The Evaluators conclusions for the C&I Solutions Program are presented below. The Evaluators have found that: 1. The program continues to leverage long term relationships with large industrial customers. In the custom channel, 32.6% of net savings were from customers that have participated in the program in prior years. The program has had significant success in developing multiple projects and long-term energy planning at the large industrial customers that have not opted out of the rider. 2. Door air infiltration (weather stripping) has been a successful program addition. The C&I Solutions Program had 115,522 net therms from door air infiltration. C&I Solutions 7-30

171 8. Commercial Food Service CIP The Commercial Food Service CIP provides incentives for a range of food service measures. In 2016, eligible high efficiency measures include: Combi Ovens; Convection Ovens; Conveyor Ovens; Rotating Rack Ovens; and Fryers. Incentives range from $250 to $1,000 for eligible equipment, with an additional $50 dealer/installer incentive. The program s participation has largely been driven by internal CenterPoint staff that had preexisting networking channels through their prior work experience in the Commercial Food Service industry. 8.1 Program Overview The Commercial Food Service CIP is primarily a vendor-driven program, with the marketing targeted at food service equipment distributors. These distributors are generally a primary point of contact and source of information in food service equipment purchases, and are in a better position to influence the outcome of the transactions. The program had $231,595 allocated in Table 8-1 summarizes the historical performance of the Commercial Food Service CIP. Table 8-1 Commercial Food Service CIP Historical Performance against Goals Program # Participants Budget Net Therms Year Actual Goal Spent Allocated Achieved Goal $121,129 $294, , , $215,900 $275, , , $164,704 $293,854 54, , $180,476 $331,595 59, , $182,608 $331,594 77, , $152,485 $231,595 85,891 60, $163,893 $231,595 66,534 60, Participation Summary In 2016, the Commercial Food Service CIP had 65 facilities receive rebates for 138 units. Figure 8-1 summarizes the Commercial Food Service CIP participation by facility type. Commercial Food Service CIP 8-1

172 Figure 8-1 Commercial Food Service CIP Participation by Facility Type Figure 8-2 summarizes Commercial Food Service CIP participation by measure category. Figure 8-2 Participation by Measure Category Commercial Food Service CIP 8-2

173 8.2 Commercial Food Service CIP Process Evaluation The Evaluators conducted a formal process evaluation of the Commercial Food Service CIP in 2012 and process overviews in 2013 and 2014, and found that the program was falling short of participation and savings goals. Table 8-2 and Table 8-3 summarize the Evaluators review of the Commercial Food Service CIP in comparison to TRM V6.0 Protocol C for timing and conditions of conducting a process evaluation. Table 8-2 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component New and Innovative Components No Previous Process Evaluation New Vendor or Contractor Determination No. The program is designed in a manner consistent with similar programs elsewhere and applies deemed savings values from the TRM. No. The program received a comprehensive process evaluation in 2012 and a limited process overview in No. The program has been run internally by CenterPoint since program inception in Table 8-3 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component Are program impacts lower or slower than expected? Are the educational or informational goals not meeting program goals? Are the participation rates lower or slower than expected? Are the program s operational or management structure slow to get up and running or not meeting program administrative needs? Is the program s cost-effectiveness less than expected? Do participants report problems with the programs or low rates of satisfaction? Is the program producing the intended market effects? Determination No. The program met goal, in No. The programs have had successful consumer and contractor outreach & education. No. The program met goal, in No. Past process evaluations found that operational and management structure to be up to speed and efficient in administering the program. No, the program s cost-effectiveness was within expected range. No participant surveys found exceedingly high satisfaction levels. Yes. Interviews with participating vendors found that the program has caused a shift in their sales CenterPoint revised the program savings goal from 385,050 to 60,210. This is a threshold that is easily met by the program, and as such the Evaluators found that the program was not at risk of falling short of goal for As a result, process evaluation activities were limited to a review of prior recommendations Data Collection Activities The process evaluation of the Commercial Food Service CIP included the following data collection activities: Commercial Food Service CIP 8-3

174 Program Actor In-Depth Interviews. The Evaluators conducted in-depth interviews with a series of program actors. These interviews covered a range of topics, including marketing efforts, feedback on program delivery, an assessment of barriers to program implementation and success, and recommendations for program improvement. Program Actors interviewed include: - CenterPoint Program Staff. The Evaluators interviewed staff at CenterPoint involved in the administration of the Commercial Food Service CIP. These interviews built upon interviews conducted during the 2013 process evaluation, in which the Evaluators collected initial background information on program history and implementation. These interviews captured any operational changes on CenterPoint s side, as well as informing the Evaluators as to any new developments in the program. Table 8-4 summarizes the data collection for this process evaluation effort. This includes the titles, role, sample sizes, and timeframe of data collection. Table 8-4 CenterPoint Commercial Food Service CIP Data Collection Summary Source Activity N Role Manager, Conservation Improvement Program Implementation Energy Efficiency Consultant Interview 1 Interview 1 Program Participants Survey Process Results & Findings Overall administration of CenterPoint DSM programs. This manager is involved in the larger strategic decisions associated with the DSM portfolio, and is involved with the Commercial Food Service CIP in the overall coordination of utility resources. The Energy Efficiency Consultant at CenterPoint is responsible for much of the day-to-day operation of the program on the part of CenterPoint and for outreach and marketing efforts of the program. Decision-makers for program participants. Accounting for 55.4% of units rebated. This section will present the results and key findings from the data collection activities. These findings are based upon interviews with utility staff, implementation staff, and surveys with participants, and a thorough and in-depth literature review Response to Program Recommendations Table 8-5 summarizes the status of issues and recommendations identified in the 2015 process evaluation. Commercial Food Service CIP 8-4

175 Table 8-5 Commercial Food Service CIP Response to 2015 Recommendations Issue Consequences Recommendation CenterPoint Response Status of Issue Program does not cover full list of FSTC-approved measures Program savings goals do not correspond to participant goals Incentives do not always align with measure incremental costs and/or savings Lost opportunities for savings Inconsistent measurement of program performance, increased difficulty in planning and forecasting Lower uptake of higher-cost measures Incorporate steam cookers, griddles, and dishwashers into the program. Add half-sized gas convection ovens when they become FSTC-tested Scale participant goals to match historical savings Develop tiered incentive structure, increasing incentives for > 28 pan combi ovens and double sized rack ovens. Develop similar guidelines for steam cookers and dishwashers if they are added to the program, with higher incentives for steam cookers with 5 or more pans and tank conveyor dishwashers Increase the incentive for fryers Griddles and steam cookers have been added to the program for 2017 CenterPoint has scaled the participant goals accordingly. CenterPoint has added scaled incentives for Combi ovens, rack ovens, higher-efficient fryers, and steam cookers. Recommendation adopted Recommendation adopted Recommendation adopted Commercial Food Service CIP 8-5

176 Commercial Survey Response A survey was conducted in 2016 to collect data about customer decision-making, preferences, and perspective of the Commercial Food Service Efficiency Program. In total, 15 participants responded to the survey questionnaire Program Awareness As shown in Figure 4-3, the most common ways respondents first learned about the program was from a contractor, trade ally, vendor, or energy consultant (60%). Other common sources of awareness included, friends or colleagues, a CenterPoint representative, or CenterPoint s website. Overall these findings suggest that direct personal contact methods seem to be driving awareness of the program. Figure 8-3 Participant Sources of Program Awareness Decisions to Participate Participants were asked who initiated the discussion that led to the decision to participate in the program. Respondents most frequently said a vendor or contractor initiated the discussion (40%). Other common responses to the question included the company/organization (20%), a discussion with a vendor/contractor (13%), or a CenterPoint representative (13%). Commercial Food Service CIP 8-6

177 Table 8-6 Organization s Decision-Making Regarding your organization's decision to participate in the incentive program, who initiated the discussion about the incentive opportunity? Would you say Percent of Respondents (n = 15) Your organization initiated it 20% Your vendor or contractor initiated it 40% The idea arose in discussion between your organization and your vendor or contractor 13% A CenterPoint representative initiated it 13% Some other way 7% Don't know 7% Sixty-seven percent of respondents said they had not previously installed a similar measure, while 33% said they had. Eighty percent of respondents said they had plans to install the equipment before participating in the program. And 33% of respondents said their organization participated in prior energy efficiency programs with CenterPoint before this project. Respondents were then asked the likelihood of them installing the equipment without the financial incentive. Those who responded they definitely would have installed without the incentive (53%), were then asked when they would otherwise have installed the equipment. As Table 8-7 shows, all of these respondents would have installed within six months. Table 8-7 Timeframe for Installation without the Program When would you otherwise have installed the equipment? Percent of Respondents (n = 8) Less than 6 months later 100% 6-12 months later 0% 1-2 years later 0% 3-5 years later 0% More than 5 years later 0% Don't know 0% Participation Process Participants were then asked who was involved in completing the application for program incentives. Respondents were able to select more than one response, so the total percent may add to more than 100%. As Table 8-8 shows, the respondent or an equipment vendor was involved in completing the application for program incentives 47% of the time. Other common responses included other members of the respondent s company, or a contractor. Commercial Food Service CIP 8-7

178 Table 8-8 Person/s Involved in Application Process Which of the following people worked on completing your application for program incentives (including gathering required documentation)? (Select all that apply) Percent of Respondents (n = 15) Yourself 47% Another member of the company 27% A contractor 13% An equipment vendor 47% Don't know 0% Seventy-three percent of respondents said they had a clear sense of who to go for assistance with the application process, while 13% did not. In addition, 73% of respondents thought the information on how to complete the application was clear or completely clear. Table 8-9 Clarity of Application Information Thinking back on the application process, please rate the clarity of information on how to complete the application Percent of Respondents (n = 15) 1 - Not at all clear 0% 2 0% 3 0% 4 13% 5 - Completely clear 60% Don't know 27% Finally, respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1 to 5 different aspects of the application process, as shown in the figure above. All respondents thought the application process was acceptable or completely acceptable, and none of the respondents found any part of the process unacceptable. Figure 8-4 Feedback on Program Application Process Commercial Food Service CIP 8-8

179 Participant Satisfaction Respondents, who had interactions with program staff, were asked to rank the knowledgeability of staff on a scale of 1 to 5. Only three respondents had interactions with program staff, and all three reported that staff was knowledgeable or very knowledgeable. Respondents were also asked to rank various aspects of the program on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied. Overall program satisfaction was very high, with 100% of respondents being satisfied or very satisfied. One respondent reported being somewhat dissatisfied with the steps required to get through the program and with the amount of time to receive the rebate, while another respondent reported being somewhat dissatisfied with the amount of time to deliver and install the equipment. However, instances of dissatisfaction were very rare, and overall the program is being well received. Figure 8-5 Participant Program Satisfaction Program Modifications for 2017 CenterPoint has made several program modifications for the triennial cycle that incorporate evaluation recommendations from the last several years of EM&V for Commercial Food Service CIP 8-9

180 this program. Table 8-10 summarizes the program offerings and the update done for Table 8-10 Analysis of CenterPoint Food Service Equipment Incentive Levels Measure Current CenterPoint 2017 Rebate Rebate Convection Oven $500 $500 Conveyor Oven $750 $750 < 15 pan: $1,100 Combi Oven $1, pan: $1,450 > 28 pan: $2,400 Rotating Rack Oven $500 $500 per rack Up to 50% efficient: $500 Fryer $250 > 50% efficient: $750 Steamers None $1,000/compartment Griddles None $300 CenterPoint has developed several rebates that scale with equipment size, which will allow the program to keep a consistent acquisition cost and enable participants to cover a similar percent of incremental cost for larger models Other Program Offerings Gas Broilers: Broilers were removed from the TRM in the V2.0 update in 2012 due to their not having a reliable deemed savings source. This was a valid decision, in that the IEM and the PWC concluded that food service measures should have savings based either on Energy Star or Food Service Technology Center estimates. The result of this was the removal of broilers from CenterPoint Energy and Black Hills Energy Arkansas (at that time, SourceGas) programs. The FSTC has since provided calculation estimates for broilers, and the Evaluators recommend they be reentered into the TRM using these new values. The FSTC calculated the following savings for the typical energy efficient broiler model: o Conveyor Broiler: 1,661 Therms 29 o Underfire Charboiler: 1,055 Therms Commercial Food Service CIP Impact Evaluation The impact evaluation effort of the Commercial Food Service CIP included the following: Project Verification. The Evaluators conducted verification inspections at 8 participating facilities, representing 23 units. In these site visits, the Evaluators Commercial Food Service CIP 8-10

181 verified installation of the equipment listed and collected inputs needed for energy savings calculations, such as nameplate efficiency and hours of operation. Unit-Specific Savings Review. The deemed parameters listed in the TRM V6.0 include assumptions of cooking efficiency, preheat BTU, and capacity. The Evaluators developed a lookup table for key parameters for units rebated through CenterPoint s program, using specific unit characteristics in TRM V6.0 algorithms Savings Calculation Methodologies The Evaluators applied deemed savings algorithms from Section of TRM V6.0 in calculating savings for measures included in the Commercial Food Service CIP. The Evaluators conducted a review of the key parameters contributing to savings for equipment rebated in the Commercial Food Service CIP. From this, a table was developed allowing CenterPoint to update energy savings calculations using the characteristics of the equipment purchased. In the subsections to follow, the deemed savings tables will present: Baseline specifications from the TRM V6.0; Efficient specifications from the TRM V6.0; and Average verified specifications from the Evaluators review of units rebated in the program Convection Ovens Savings for convection ovens were calculated using the following series of equations 31 : Btu = Btu base Btu eff Therms = Btu 100,000 Btu (base or eff) = Btu cooking + Btu idle + Btu preheat Btu cooking = (LB E food CookEff ) Days LB Btu idle = IdleEnergy (Daily Hrs Capacity PreheatTime ) Days Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg. 475 Commercial Food Service CIP 8-11

182 Btu preheat = PreheatEnergy Days Table 8-11 summarizes the deemed inputs for these equations as specified in TRM V6.0. Table 8-11 Calculation Inputs for Convection Ovens Parameter Baseline Model Efficient Model Verified Equipment Input Preheat Energy (Btu/Day) 19,000 11,000 9,694 Idle Rate (Btu/h) 18,000 13,000 10,803.6 Cooking Efficiency (%) 30% 49% 49.1% Production Capacity (lbs./hr.) Lbs. of food Cooked/Day Efood (Btu/lb.) Hours/Day The verified equipment input values were calculated based on average values from the 9 different models of convection ovens rebated in the program in These parameter revisions resulted in gross realization of 138.7% for convection ovens Conveyor Ovens Savings for conveyor ovens are calculated as 32 : Where, Btu = Btu base Btu eff Therms = Btu 100,000 Btu (base or eff) = Btu cooking + Btu idle + Btu preheat Btu cooking = ( npizzas E food ) Days Cook Eff Btu idle = IdleEnergy (Daily Hrs npizzas Capacity Btu preheat = np PreheatEnergy Days E food = ASTM defined Energy to Food = 190 Btu/pizza Cook Eff = Heavy Load Cooking Efficiency np PreheatTime ) Days Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg. 477 Commercial Food Service CIP 8-12

183 Days = Operating Day per Year = 365 days/yr npizzas = Pizzas cooked/day = assume 250 Capacity = Number of pizzas/hour IdleEnergy = Idle Energy Rate (Btu/h) DailyHrs = Daily operating hours, deemed at 12 hours PreheatTime = Time to preheat (min) = 15 min PreheatEnergy = Energy to preheat conveyor oven np = Number of Preheats = assume 1 based on FSTC research Table 8-12 summarizes the deemed inputs for these equations as specified in TRM V6.0. Table 8-12 Calculation Inputs for Conveyor Ovens >25 Wide Parameter Verified Baseline Model Efficient Model Equipment Input Preheat Energy (Btu/Day) 35,000 18,000 24,790 Idle Rate (Btu/h) 70,000 57,000 44,456 Cooking Efficiency (%) 20% 42% 45.6% Production Capacity (pizzas/hr.) # Pizzas Cooked/Day Efood (Btu/pizza) Hours/Day The verified equipment input values were calculated based on average values from the 3 different models of conveyor ovens rebated in the program in These parameter revisions resulted in gross realization of 173.4% for conveyor ovens Combi Ovens Savings for conveyor ovens are calculated as 33 : Btu = Btu total,base Btu total,eff Therms = Btu 100,000 Btu (total,base or total,eff) = Btu oven + Btu steam + Btu preheat Btuoven or steam = Btucooking + Btuidle Btu cooking (oven or steam) = (LB E food CookEff ) Days 33 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg. 483 Commercial Food Service CIP 8-13

184 Btu idle(oven) = (1 %Steam) IdleEnergy LB np PreheatTime (Daily Hrs ) Days Capacity 60 Where, Btu preheat = np PreheatEnergy Days E food,oven = ASTM defined Energy to Food = 250 Btu/lb. E food,steam = ASTM defined Energy to Food = 105 Btu/lb. Cook Eff = Heavy Load Cooking Efficiency Days = Operating Day per Year = 365 days/yr %Steam =% time in steam mode = 50% IdleEnergy = Idle Energy Rate (Btu/h) DailyHrs = Daily operating hours, deemed at 12 hours PreheatTime = Time to preheat (min) = 15 min PreheatEnergy = Energy to preheat np = Number of Preheats = assume 1 based on FSTC research Table 8-13 Combi Oven Calculation Inputs Parameter Baseline Model Efficient Model Verified Equipment Input Preheat Energy (Btu/Day) 22,000 13,000 6,638 Convection Idle Rate (Btu/h) 11,874 Calculated 5,547 Steam Idle Rate (Btu/h) 31,828 Calculated 8,790 Convection Cooking Eff. (%) 44% 56% 59.5% Steam Cooking Eff. (%) 30% 41% 46% Convection Capacity (lbs./hr.) Steaming Capacity (lbs./hr.) Lbs. of food Cooked/Day Convection Efood (Btu/lb.) Steaming Efood (Btu/lb.) Hours/Day The verified equipment input values were calculated based on average values from the fouur different models of conveyor ovens rebated in the program in These parameter revisions resulted in gross realization of 82.1% for combi ovens. Commercial Food Service CIP 8-14

185 Fryer Savings Calculations Savings for high efficiency fryers were calculated using similar algorithms as detailed for convection ovens. Table 8-14 summarizes the inputs used in the savings algorithm 34. Table 8-14 Calculation Inputs for Fryers Parameter Baseline Model Efficient Model Verified Equipment Input Preheat Energy (Btu/Day) 16,000 15,500 11,181 Idle Rate (Btu/h) 14,000 9,000 6,568 Cooking Eff. (%) 35% 50% 55.9% Capacity (lbs./hr.) Lbs. of food Cooked/Day Efood (Btu/lb.) Hours/Day The verified equipment input values were calculated based on average values from the 12 different models of fryers rebated in the program in These parameter revisions resulted in gross realization of 125.9% for fryers Commercial Food Service CIP Field Inspection Findings The Evaluators conducted verification inspections at eight participating facilities, representing 23 units. In these site visits, the Evaluators verified installation of the equipment listed and collected inputs needed for energy savings calculations, such as nameplate efficiency and idle BTU Free-Ridership Program offerings in the Commercial Food Service CIP did not change in As a result, the Evaluators applied the 2013 free-ridership rate of 22.8% Verified Savings Table 8-15 presents the gross savings results of the evaluation of the 2013 Commercial Food Service CIP. Total Gross Savings summarizes the savings calculations performed by TRM protocols for food service equipment. Table 8-15 Commercial Food Service CIP Verified Therms Savings Measure Category Expected Therms Verified Therms Gross Realization EUL Lifetime Therms Peak Therms 34 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 3. Pg. 341 Commercial Food Service CIP 8-15

186 Savings Savings Rate Savings Convection Oven 23,868 33, % , Fryer 21,968 29, % , Combi Oven 4,719 3, % 12 46, Conveyor Oven 11,492 19, % , Total 62,047 86, % 12 1,034, Net savings for the Commercial Food Service CIP were calculated using free-ridership rates based on participant and vendor surveying. The resulting net savings are presented in Table Table 8-16 Commercial Food Service CIP Net Savings Summary Free-Ridership Net Net Annual Savings Net Lifetime Rate Realization Net Peak Therms Rate Therms Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Savings 22.8% 22.8% 47,900 66, % 798, Conclusions & Recommendations Conclusions Based on the Evaluators review of the Commercial Food Service CIP we have concluded the following: 1. CenterPoint has incorporated past evaluation recommendations for the next triennial cycle. This has entailed a comprehensive overhaul of the program offerings, including the addition of new FSTC measures (griddles, steamers) and the introduction of incentives that are tiered to equipment size (combi ovens, rack ovens). 2. Arkansas TRM default values consistently underestimate the efficiency of equipment in the market. In the last two program years, the Evaluators have recalculated unit energy savings using equipment-specific ratings for cooking efficiency, capacity, idle BTU, and preheat BTU. Across all program years and equipment categories, the equipment rebated in the Commercial Food Service CIP consistently outperforms TRM assumptions for an efficient unit by a significant margin Recommendations 1. Look to FSTC updates for new measures program. The FSTC has added broilers, and these could be considered for reintroduction to the program. They were removed in Commercial Food Service CIP 8-16

187 2. Establish tiered incentives for combi and rack ovens. The Evaluators reviewed the incentives offered by measure category in terms of percent of incremental cost and cost per therm. Combi ovens greater than 28 pans and double rack ovens both have markedly high incremental costs and savings, and having the incentive to increase for units this size would be appropriate. If CenterPoint were to add steam cookers and dishwashers to the program, tiered incentives would be applicable for these equipment categories as well. Commercial Food Service CIP 8-17

188 9. Home Energy Reports The Home Energy Reports Program is an educational program run by Oracle 35, a third party implementer for CenterPoint. The program provides educational materials to a sample of CenterPoint s residential customers, in which their usage is compared against similar households. The program is designed to encourage behavioral change and program participation on the part of the recipients of the Home Energy Report. 9.1 Program Overview The Home Energy Reports Program had $879,668 in budget allocated in Table 9-1 summarizes the Home Energy Reports historical performance against goals. Table 9-1 Home Energy Reports Program Historical Performance against Goals Program # Participants Budget Net Therms Year Actual Goal Spent Allocated Achieved Goal ,000 50,000 $225,417 $277,364 76, , ,846 50,000 $524,839 $524, , , , ,000 $860,810 $379,688 1,112, , , ,000 $871,505 $879,688 1,102,598 1,000, , ,000 $848,588 $879, ,376 1,000, , ,000 $861,766 $879, ,045 1,000, Participation Summary The Home Energy Reports Program began in September The program is designed to generate quantifiable behavioral savings that cannot be feasibly attained through standard DSM efforts. The comparison against their neighbors is intended to have a jarring effect; when informed that their usage is above average, the program theory would assert that they are then driven to engage in conservation behaviors. In 2011, a sample of 50,000 recipients and 50,000 non-recipients was developed. In November 2012, this was expanded, with a second wave of recipients brought in. In November 2012, the program added: 52,498 recipients; and 26,248 non-recipients. In November 2014, CenterPoint added a third wave to the program. This wave includes: 24,732 recipients; and 10,493 non-recipients. 35 Formerly known as Opower, who were acquired by Oracle. Home Energy Reports 9-1

189 Over time, the population of recipients faces attrition. This occurs mostly due to members of the recipient group moving to a new residence. Table 9-2 summarizes the attrition that has occurred in each wave 36. Table 9-2 Home Energy Reports Recipient Attrition Savings Calculation Methodologies Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Inception 50,000 52,498 24,732 Current 34,278 38,697 21,088 Attrition % 31.4% 26.3% 14.7% The Evaluators utilized a post-only model with pre-usage controls. Other model specifications were tested (including fixed effects), but the post-only model was found to provide the highest precision level in results. The model specification applied uses one year of pre-treatment data to construct control variables which capture the primary drivers of a household s energy use. The model specification is as follows: Usage it = α 0 + β treatment i +α 1 PreUsage i +α 2 PreSummer i +α 3 PreWinter i +γ mm t +δ 1 mm t PreUsage i +δ 2 mm t PreSummer i +δ 3 mm t PreWinter i Where +ε it i denotes the ith customer t denotes the first, second, third, etc. month of the post-treatment period Usage it is the average daily use for read t for household i during the posttreatment period 36 The participant total in Table 9-1 is based on average monthly participants. The values in Table 9-2 are based on the end-of-year values for Home Energy Reports 9-2

190 PreUsage i is the average daily usage across households i s available pretreatment billing reads. PreWinter i is the average daily usage over the months of December January, February, and March over household i s available pre-treatment meter reads. PreSummer i is the average daily usage over the months of June, July, August, and September over household i s available pre-treatment meter reads. mm t is a vector of month-year dummies And parameter definitions are: α 0 is an intercept term α 1, α 2, α 3 are effects of control variables PreUsage i, PreWinter i, PreSummer i on Usage it in the reference month. δ 1, δ 2, δ 3 are the effect of the control variables in each month-year (mm t ) of the post period. ε it is an error term. In this specification, savings are calculated by: Where, Savings = Treatment_Coeff * #Recipients * 365 Treatment_Coeff = Coefficient for treatment parameter (daily use is the dependent variable, a negative value for treatment reflects the difference in Therms/day used by the recipient group after report delivery) #Recipients = Total recipients in the Wave, after accounting for attrition 365 = days/year Home Energy Report Peak Savings To estimate peak Therms, the Evaluators split savings into two categories: Weather Sensitive; and Non-Weather Sensitive From this Evaluators used the ratio of peak to annual Therms for residential furnaces and water heaters for weather-sensitive and non-weather sensitive (respectively) from the TRM V6.0. These multipliers are defined in Table 9-3. Home Energy Reports 9-3

191 Table 9-3 Home Energy Reports Peak-to-Annual Multipliers Savings Type Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 Zone 9 Weather- Sensitive Non-Weather-Sensitive Home Energy Report Net Savings The HER program uses a randomized control trial, comparing recipients to nonrecipients. As a result, the savings estimates from the model are net savings estimates, and no further deduction of free-ridership is taken. Model Output Results Wave 1 Table 9-4 provides the model coefficients for the regression of customer billing data in the analysis of Wave 1. Table 9-4 Regression Coefficients & Model Details Wave 1 Variable Description Regression Coefficient Standard Error T-Stat PR > T INTERCEPT < TREATMENT < AVG_PREUSAGE < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER < FEB < MAR < APR < MAY < JUN < JUL < AUG < SEP < OCT < NOV < DEC < AVG_PREUSAGE:FEB < AVG_PREUSAGE:MAR < AVG_PREUSAGE:APR < AVG_PREUSAGE:MAY < AVG_PREUSAGE:JUN < AVG_PREUSAGE:JUL < Multipliers from Arkansas TRM V6.0 Volume 2, Page 59. Table 43: Gas Furnace Peak Heating Ratio 38 Multipliers from Arkansas TRM V6.0 Volume 2, Page 138. Equation 85: Peak Day Therm Savings Gas Storage Tank Water Heater Replacement Home Energy Reports 9-4

192 AVG_PREUSAGE:AUG < AVG_PREUSAGE:SEP < AVG_PREUSAGE:OCT AVG_PREUSAGE:NOV < AVG_PREUSAGE:DEC < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:FEB < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAR < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:APR < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAY < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUN < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUL < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:AUG < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:SEP < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:OCT < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:NOV AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:DEC AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:FEB < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAR < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:APR < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAY < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUN < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUL < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:AUG < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:SEP < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:OCT < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:NOV < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:DEC < Adjusted R-Square: The resulting annual savings are: Annual Savings = * 35,684 * 365 = 481,127 Therms 95% Confidence Interval: +/- 63,023 (13.3%) Wave 2 Table 9-5 provides the model coefficients for the regression of customer billing data in the analysis of Wave 2. Table 9-5 Regression Coefficients & Model Details Wave 2 Variable Description Regression Coefficient Standard Error T-Stat PR > T INTERCEPT < TREATMENT < AVG_PREUSAGE < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER < FEB < Home Energy Reports 9-5

193 MAR < APR < MAY < JUN < JUL < AUG < SEP < OCT < NOV < DEC < AVG_PREUSAGE:FEB < AVG_PREUSAGE:MAR < AVG_PREUSAGE:APR < AVG_PREUSAGE:MAY < AVG_PREUSAGE:JUN AVG_PREUSAGE:JUL < AVG_PREUSAGE:AUG < AVG_PREUSAGE:SEP AVG_PREUSAGE:OCT < AVG_PREUSAGE:NOV < AVG_PREUSAGE:DEC < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:FEB < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAR < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:APR AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAY < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUN < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUL < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:AUG < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:SEP < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:OCT < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:NOV < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:DEC < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:FEB < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAR < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:APR < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAY < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUN < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUL < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:AUG < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:SEP < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:OCT < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:NOV < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:DEC < Adjusted R-Square: The resulting annual savings are: Annual Savings = * 39,906 * 365 = 267,833 Therms Home Energy Reports 9-6

194 95% Confidence Interval: +/- 37,225 (13.9%) Wave 3 Table 9-6 provides the model coefficients for the regression of customer billing data in the analysis of Wave 3. Table 9-6 Regression Coefficients & Model Details Wave 3 Variable Description Regression Coefficient Standard Error T-Stat PR > T INTERCEPT < TREATMENT < AVG_PREUSAGE < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER < FEB < MAR < APR < MAY < JUN < JUL < AUG < SEP < OCT < NOV < DEC AVG_PREUSAGE:FEB < AVG_PREUSAGE:MAR < AVG_PREUSAGE:APR < AVG_PREUSAGE:MAY < AVG_PREUSAGE:JUN < AVG_PREUSAGE:JUL < AVG_PREUSAGE:AUG < AVG_PREUSAGE:SEP < AVG_PREUSAGE:OCT < AVG_PREUSAGE:NOV < AVG_PREUSAGE:DEC < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:FEB < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAR < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:APR < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:MAY < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUN < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:JUL < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:AUG < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:SEP < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:OCT < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:NOV < AVG_PREUSAGE_SUMMER:DEC < Home Energy Reports 9-7

195 AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:FEB < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAR < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:APR < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:MAY < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUN < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:JUL < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:AUG < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:SEP < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:OCT < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:NOV < AVG_PREUSAGE_WINTER:DEC Adjusted R-Square: The resulting annual savings are: Annual Savings = * 21,768 * 365 = 79,615 Therms 95% Confidence Interval: +/- 33,769 (42.4%) Group Comparison The difference in consumption between the two groups is observable when presented graphically. Figure 9-1 presents the monthly differences in consumption between the two groups. Reports were first delivered in October of 2011, and at that point the magnitude of difference in consumption increases. Further, the difference in use between the recipient and control group are shown to increase significantly in 2014 compared to 2012 and Similar representations for Wave 2 and Wave 3 are presented in Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3, respectively. The impact of the reports on Wave 2 and Wave 3 is significantly lower than Wave 1. Home Energy Reports 9-8

196 Figure 9-1 Difference in Daily Consumption between Recipient & Control Group Wave 1 Figure 9-2 Difference in Daily Consumption between Recipient & Control Group Wave 2 Home Energy Reports 9-9

197 Figure 9-3 Difference in Daily Consumption between Recipient & Control Group Wave Per-Customer Performance The change in annual savings per-recipient is summarized in Figure 9-4. Wave 1 shows a downward trend in per participant savings starting in 2014, while Wave 2 and 3 show an upward trend, although the differences from year to year are not significant at the 95% level. Figure 9-4 Savings per Recipient by Year Home Energy Reports 9-10

198 9.2.3 Double Counting Analysis Protocol J in TRM V6.0 specifies double counting as the difference in per-participant other-program savings When comparing all of the other-program-participation, the Evaluators found: Therms per participant for the recipient group; and Therms per participant for the control group. The difference was less than.01%, and as a result the Evaluators concluded no double county penalty was applicable Verified Savings With the model output results and double count analysis, the Home Energy Reports Program has: 828,576 annual Therms savings; and 12,346 peak Therms. When aggregating the savings and confidence intervals, the Evaluators found that the overall 95% confidence interval was ±16.28% of program savings. 9.3 Conclusions & Recommendations Conclusions 1. The Home Energy Reports Program is providing statistically significant behavioral change. The evaluators identified quantifiable savings at the 95% confidence level for the recipients of Home Energy Reports. When asked to name specific energy conservation behaviors, report recipients displayed statistically significant differences incidence of identifying thermostat. 2. The program has not generated statistically significant increase in rebate program participation. The evaluators found the savings to be behavioralbased. The double counting analysis for this program found little to no increase in other-program-participation when compared against the control group Recommendations Based on survey data findings, the Evaluators recommend the following: 1. Consider opt-in mechanisms for new higher-use customers. Wave 1 provides 58% of program savings despite being just 36.4% of the total recipients. Wave 1 is constituted of the highest-using customers in CenterPoint s service area. With this wave having reached 31.4% attrition, program staff should research alternative behavioral mechanisms to target high-use customers that are not currently involved with the program. Home Energy Reports 9-11

199 10. Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP The Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP provides no-cost mailer kits to CenterPoint residential customers. These kits may contain: Up to three 1.5 gallons per minute (GPM) low flow showerheads, available in chrome and ivory finish; and Up to three faucet aerators, with options including 1.5 GPM kitchen aerators (with a shutoff valve) and 1.0 GPM bathroom aerators (without a shutoff valve) Program Background The Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP began in The program is designed to provide no-cost kits containing low flow showerheads and faucet aerators to CenterPoint residential customers. These kits are then self-installed. The program has been markedly popular among CenterPoint customers, exceeding participation goals in each of the program years. The Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP had $415,227 in budget allocated for The history of program performance and expenditures is presented in Table Table 10-1 Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP Historical Performance against Goals Program Year # Participants Budget Net Therms Actual Goal Spent Allocated Achieved Goal ,708 10,000 $114,947 $181, , , ,772 4,827 $212,460 $167, , , ,181 4,000 $379,048 $379, , , ,654 4,000 $401,061 $165, , , ,430 4,000 $282,502 $415, , , ,094 4,000 $286,121 $415, , , ,519 4,000 $299,572 $415, , , Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP Participation Summary In 2016, CenterPoint distributed 7,519 kits to their residential customers. Table 10-2 presents a summary of the composition of the kits installed. The table is organized showing first the number of customers by showerhead, then how many aerators were ordered by customers that ordered that specified amount of showerheads. Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP 10-1

200 Table 10-2 Low Flow Kit Composition Showerheads Kitchen Aerators Bathroom Aerators Quantity % Selected Quantity % Selected Quantity % Selected % % 0 3.2% % % 2 9.5% % 3 7.1% 3 9.1% % % % % % 2 3.4% % 3 0.3% 3 1.0% % % % % % 2 3.7% % 3 0.5% 3 3.8% % 0 9.1% % % % % % 3 3.7% % 10.2 Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP Process Evaluation The Evaluators conducted a formal process evaluation of the Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP in 2012 and a limited process evaluation in 2013, and found that the program was successful in meeting participation, savings, and satisfaction goals. Table 10-3 and Table 10-4 summarize the Evaluators review of the Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP in comparison to TRM V6.0 Protocol C for timing and conditions of conducting a process evaluation. Table 10-3 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component New and Innovative Components No Previous Process Evaluation New Vendor or Contractor Determination No. The program is designed in a manner consistent with similar programs elsewhere and applies deemed savings values from the TRM. No. The program received a comprehensive process evaluation in No. The program has been run internally by CenterPoint with support from EFI since program inception in Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP 10-2

201 Table 10-4 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component Are program impacts lower or slower than expected? Are the educational or informational goals not meeting program goals? Are the participation rates lower or slower than expected? Are the program s operational or management structure slow to get up and running or not meeting program administrative needs? Is the program s cost-effectiveness less than expected? Do participants report problems with the programs or low rates of satisfaction? Is the program producing the intended market effects? Determination No. The program was within range of savings goal for No. The programs have had successful consumer and contractor outreach & education. No. The program vastly exceeded participant goals in No. The 2012 process evaluation found that operational and management structure to be up to speed and efficient in administering the program. No, the program s cost-effectiveness exceeded expectations. No and 2013 participant surveys found exceedingly high satisfaction levels. Yes. The program is generating transactions and installations that would not occur otherwise. There are no outstanding program recommendations and as such the Evaluators efforts in 2016 were limited to a desk review of program calculations Data Collection Activities The process evaluation of the Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP included the following data collection activities: CenterPoint Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed staff at CenterPoint involved in the administration of the Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP. This interview was used to validate that there were no program changes in 2015 to warrant process evaluation activities. Desk Review. The Evaluators reviewed calculations provided by CenterPoint to validate that they used prior-year M&V findings for in-service-rates (ISRs) and natural gas water heating rates Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP Impact Evaluation Energy Savings Calculations Savings from low flow showerheads are calculated by the following process: First, the Evaluators total the per-unit savings as determined by TRM V6.0 algorithms which incorporate weather-zone specific ground water temperatures, and an assumed mixed water temperature of deg. F for the water heater. Further, based upon 2016 survey results, these values are scaled down by the verified In-Service Rate. This is the percent of distributed equipment installed. Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP 10-3

202 This is determined separately for each item in the kit (showerheads, kitchen aerators, and bathroom aerators). The Evaluators then parse out the savings on the basis of the percent of electric vs. gas water heating as determined through the participant surveys. This serves to provide a weighted average value of energy savings based upon the electric and natural gas savings algorithms for each measure as indicated in TRM V Unit Energy Savings Faucet Aerators Savings from faucet aerators are based upon TRM V6.0 values. Savings for faucet aerators are calculated as follows: 39 Where Energy Savings = ρ C P V (T Mixed T Supply ) ( 1 RE ) Conversion Factor ρ = Water density, 8.33 lbs./gal. C P = Specific heat of water, 1 BTU/lb F V = DHW gallons saved / yr. / faucet V = gallons of hot water saved per year per faucet = 533 (2.2 gpm) where gpm is the flow rate of the new aerator. This formula is a linear extrapolation of values in. T SetPoint = Mixed water temperature (default value F) T Supply = Average supply water temperature RE = Recovery efficiency of water heater, excluding standby losses (.98 electric / 0.79 Gas). Conversion Factor = 3,412 BTU/kWh for electric water heating or 100,000 BTU/therm for gas water heating 39 Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP 10-4

203 Table 10-5 Faucet Aerator Volume of Use Parameter Value Faucet use gallons/person/day (baseline) 9.7 Faucet use gallons/person/day (1.5 GPM) 8.2 Faucet use gallons/person/day (1.0 GPM) 7.2 Occupants per home 2.69 Faucets per home 3.86 Gal./yr./faucet (Baseline) 2,467 Gal./yr./faucet (1.5 GPM) 2,094 Gal./yr./faucet (1.0 GPM) 1,828 Mixed Water Temperature 103 F DHW gallons saved/yr./faucet for 1.5 GPM (V) 381 DHW gallons saved/yr./faucet for 1.0 GPM (V) 636 Table 10-6 Water Main Temperatures by Weather Zone Fayetteville Fort Smith Little Rock El Dorado (Zone 9) (Zone 8) (Zone 7) (Zone 6) 65.6 F 66.1 F 67.8 F 70.1 F The resulting savings per unit are summarized in Table 10-7 Measure 1.5 GPM Aerator 1.0 GPM Aerator Low Flow Showerheads Table 10-7 Residential Aerator Gas Savings Values Savings Fayetteville Fort Smith Little Rock El Dorado (Zone 9) (Zone 8) (Zone 7) (Zone 6) Annual Peak Annual Peak Savings for low flow showerheads are detailed in Section of the TRM Version 6.0. They are calculated in the same manner as faucet aerators, differing only in the volume of use estimates Arkansas TRM V6.0, Volume 2. Pg Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP 10-5

204 Table 10-8 Showerhead Volume of Use Parameter Value Average Shower Duration (minutes) GPM (baseline GPM GPM 12.4 Showers/person/day (baseline).69 Showers/person/day(post).72 Occupants per home 2.69 Showers/home/day (baseline) 1.88 Showers/home/day(post) 1.93 Showerheads per home 1.62 Showers per showerhead per day (baseline) 1.16 Showers per showerhead per day (post) GPM (baseline) 8, GPM 5,411 Mixed Water Temperature F 1.5 GPM showerhead DHW gallons saved/yr. (V) 3,246 The resulting savings for low flow showerheads are summarized in Table Measure 1.5 GPM Showerhead Table 10-9 Residential Showerhead Gas Savings Values Savings Fayetteville Fort Smith Little Rock El Dorado (Zone 9) (Zone 8) (Zone 7) (Zone 6) Annual Peak In addition, to account for the customers with electric water heating, the Evaluators incorporated the TRM V6.0 values for low flow showerheads and faucet aerators. These values are presented in Table and Table Measure 1.5 GPM Aerator 1.0 GPM Aerator Table Residential Faucet Aerator Electric Savings Values Measure 1.5 GPM Showerhead Savings Fayetteville Fort Smith Little Rock El Dorado (Zone 9) (Zone 8) (Zone 7) (Zone 6) Annual Peak Annual Peak Table Residential Showerhead Electric Savings Values Savings Fayetteville Fort Smith Little Rock El Dorado (Zone 9) (Zone 8) (Zone 7) (Zone 6) Annual Peak Ibid. Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP 10-6

205 In-Service Rates The Evaluators applied in-service rates developed in 2014 participant surveying. They are: Showerhead: 65.8% Kitchen aerator 66.2% Bathroom aerator: 57.6% Net-to-Gross The Evaluators applied free-ridership and spillover rates developed in 2014 participant surveying. These are: Free-ridership: 3.7% Spillover: Therms per customer (3.3% overall) 10.4 Verified Savings Table summarizes the total gross savings for the Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP. Table Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP Verified Gross Savings Annual Therms Peak Therm Gross Measure Lifetime Therms Savings Savings EUL Savings Realization Category Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Rate Faucet Aerators 22,796 22, , , % Showerheads 125, , ,258,470 1,258, % Total Gross Savings 148, , ,486,430 1,486, % Table Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP Verified Net Savings Measure Category Free Ridership Rate Annual Therms Savings EUL Lifetime Therms Savings Peak Therm Savings Ex Ex Ex Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Ante Post Ante Ex Post Kit Savings 3.7% 3.7% 143, , ,431,432 1,431, Spillover Savings: - - 4,805 4, ,046 48, Total Net Savings 147, ,948 1,479,479 1,479, Table summarizes the net non-energy benefits from the 2016 Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP. Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP 10-7

206 Table Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP Net Non-Energy Benefits Summary Non-Energy Benefit First-year EUL Water Savings (Gallons) 37,251, Conclusions & Program Recommendations Conclusions The Evaluators conclusions for the Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP are presented below. The Evaluators have found that: 1. CenterPoint correctly applied prior-year impact parameters to 2015 data. The Evaluators found that CenterPoint correctly used all impact parameters (ISRs, free-ridership, spillover) and no revisions were made to savings calculations Recommendations The Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP has provided consistent performance for CenterPoint. CenterPoint has integrated all program recommendations other than those pertaining to cross-fuel coordination of the program with electric utilities. The evaluators at this time do not have further recommendations for this program. Low Flow Showerhead & Faucet Aerator CIP 10-8

207 11. HEAL Partnership The Home Energy Assistance Loan (HEAL) program encourages energy efficiency through two channels: Large businesses receive a free audit and information regarding energy efficiency improvements, for which they can then receive federal funds for implementing; large businesses in CenterPoint s territory are eligible for CenterPoint s C&I programs, including the C&I Solutions program. As a condition of receiving these funds, the employer must set aside a fund available to employees to provide loans for home efficiency improvements. Eligible improvements include ceiling insulation, duct repair, and air sealing. The program was defuned in 2015 and this was repeated in The funds were disbursed to other programs and the HEAL Partnership is no longer in the CenterPoint portfolio as of Program Background The HEAL Partnership began in It is partnership where CenterPoint provides funding to the CCI to continue their outreach activities with large employers to engage their employees in home retrofits. The HEAL Partnership had $146,646 in budget allocated for 2016, but this budget was fully reallocated to the Saving Homes Program. Historical program performance and expenditures is presented in Table Table 11-1 HEAL Partnership Historical Performance against Goals Program Year # Participants Budget Net Therms Actual Goal Spent Allocated Achieved Goal $25,523 $129,620 4,113 17, $65,871 $141,431 19,636 24, $199,532 $154,509 54,773 26, $25,988 $154,509 9,013 26, $0 $154, , $0 $154, ,860 HEAL Partnership 11-1

208 12. Savings Home Program The Savings Home is a weatherization program launched by CenterPoint Energy in The program is designed to train contractors and home energy consultants to analyze the energy use for single and multifamily homes and identify specific energy efficiency improvements which may be undertaken by the customer. The program corresponds to the Consistent Weatherization Approach and provides two tiers of energy assessments, along with direct installation of low-cost measures and pre-qualification for building envelope improvements. Direct install measures include: Faucet aerators; Low flow showerheads; Water heater pipe insulation; and Water heater wrap. Eligible coupon measures include: Air sealing; Duct sealing; and Ceiling insulation. The program is implemented by CLEAResult Program Background The Savings Home Program (SHP) is intended to be primarily vendor-driven program, with the marketing targeted at contractors in the CenterPoint Energy service territory. In 2016, the program had $503,910 in budget allocated. Table 12-1 summarizes the historical performance of the Savings Homes Program. Program Table 12-1 SHP Historical Performance against Goals # Participants Budget Net Therms Year Actual Goal Spent Allocated Achieved Goal $598,379 $503, ,741 87, Participation Summary The SHP had 406 participants in Of these, 327 participants installed a total of 756 eenergy efficiency improvements while 79 had an assessment completed but did not complete subsequent projects. Saving Homes Program 12-1

209 Figure 12-1 summarizes the share of program savings contributed by each measure. Most savings came from duct sealing, air sealing, and ceiling insulation. Figure 12-1 Program Savings Share by Measure In addition, incentives were provided for 381 Assessments Contractor Participation In 2016, the SHP had 6 registered trade allies. This trade ally list was published on the program website, along with a summary of services provided and regions served. All trade allies were active in the program in The top three performing trade allies were responsible for 75.2% of projects completed and 80.1% of program net savings Participation Timing Figure 12-2 summarizes the premises by month as determined by the date of rebate delivery as well as the cumulative savings from the program. Saving Homes Program 12-2

210 12.3 SHP Process Evaluation Figure 12-2 SHP Premises by Month This is the first year of operation for the SHP. Table 12-2 and Table 12-3 summarize the Evaluators review of the Savings Home Program in comparison to TRM V6.0 Protocol C for timing and conditions of conducting a process evaluation. Table 12-2 Determining Appropriate Timing to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component New and Innovative Components No Previous Process Evaluation Determination No. The program is designed in a manner consistent with similar programs elsewhere and applies deemed savings values from the TRM. Yes. This is a new program for CenterPoint New Vendor or Contractor Yes. This is a new program for CenterPoint. Saving Homes Program 12-3

211 Table 12-3 Determining Appropriate Conditions to Conduct a Process Evaluation Component Are program impacts lower or slower than expected? Are the educational or informational goals not meeting program goals? Are the participation rates lower or slower than expected? Are the program s operational or management structure slow to get up and running or not meeting program administrative needs? Is the program s cost-effectiveness less than expected? Do participants report problems with the programs or low rates of satisfaction? Is the program producing the intended market effects? Determination Not applicable. This is a new program for CenterPoint. Not applicable. This is a new program for CenterPoint. Not applicable. This is a new program for CenterPoint. Not applicable. This is a new program for CenterPoint. Not applicable. This is a new program for CenterPoint. Not applicable. This is a new program for CenterPoint. Not applicable. This is a new program for CenterPoint. On this basis, the Evaluators concluded that the SHP required a process evaluation Data Collection Activities The process evaluation of Savings Home Program included the following activities: Program Actor In-Depth Interviews. The Evaluators conducted in-depth interviews with a series of program actors. These interviews covered a range of topics, including marketing efforts, feedback on program delivery, an assessment of barriers to program implementation and success, and recommendations for program improvement. Program Actors interviewed include: - CenterPoint Energy Program Staff. The Evaluators interviewed staff at CenterPoint involved in the administration of the Savings Home Program. - Third Party Implementation Staff Interviews. The Evaluators conducted interviews with CLEAResult involved with the Savings Home Program. - Participant Surveying. The Evaluators surveyed 70 owner-occupants participants in the SHP, collecting feedback on their experiences with the program. - Trade Ally Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed three participating trade allies. Table 12-4 summarizes the data collection for this process evaluation effort. This includes the titles, role, and sample sizes for data collection. Saving Homes Program 12-4

212 Table 12-4 CenterPoint SHP Data Collection Summary Target Component Activity n Role CenterPoint Energy Program Staff CLEAResult Staff Program Participants Manager of Energy Efficiency Program Coordinator Single Family Owner- Occupants Program Administration Interview 1 Interview 1 Survey 70 On-site inspection 18 Overall administration of CenterPoint DSM programs. This manager is involved in the larger strategic decisions associated with the DSM portfolio, and is involved with the SHP Program and in the overall coordination of utility resources. Handles day-to-day operations, including mass market outreach, application review, billing, and logistics This survey was conducted on a sample of single family owner-occupants which participated in the program. On-site testing for duct leakage, air infiltration, and inspection of ceiling insulation was completed at 18 residences, comprising 33 measures. The SHP is overseen by the Manager of Energy Efficiency at CenterPoint. This manager s responsibilities primarily include interfacing with CLEAResult, who directly implements the program. Other activities by this manager include providing updated customer lists to CLEAResult to better facilitate their implementation, participation in outreach events, and at times assisting CLEAResult in customer interactions. For CLEAResult, the roles and responsibilities of program staff are as follows: Program Manager. The Program Manager oversees day-to-day activities, supervises program staff, and handles complaints from customers or contractors. Senior Program Consultant. The Senior Program Consultant manages the contractor network, including recruiting, training, and quality assurance from participating trade allies. Program Consultant. The Program Consultant assists the Senior Program Consultant with outreach and relationship management with contractors. Program Coordinator/Specialist. This staff member coordinates tracking data, develops samples for quality assurance inspection, and supports reporting and invoicing requirements. Program Coordinator Scheduling. This staff member is responsible for scheduling QA appointments and assists with program outreach. QA Verification Specialist. The QA Verification Specialist conducts post inspections and communicates inspection results to contractors. Saving Homes Program 12-5

213 Program Implementation & Delivery There are two program channels for the SHP: Assessment and Install-only. The two channels are: Assessment. The Assessment is a comprehensive audit which includes conducting duct blast and blower door testing. This testing is needed to prequalify a home for duct sealing and air sealing improvements. Before a home may receive an Assessment, program trade allies are required to calculate the gas intensity of the residence. In this, the contractor must take the customer s highest winter natural gas bill and divide it by the heated square feet of the home. Figure 12-4 summarizes the calculation process. Figure 12-3 Home Efficiency Meter Graphic A home must have use above $0.05 per square foot during a winter season month to qualify for an Assessment. Install-only. Further, residential customers may opt to do directly through a contractor to install eligible measures without receiving an Assessment. This is allowed if the contractor is a registered trade ally with the program. The criteria of $0.05/square foot of use on a customer s highest bill is used to ensure that program funds go towards project which will produce enough savings to be costeffective. Further, all participating residences are required to have central natural gas space heating to receive an assessment and rebates for building envelope measures and natural gas water heating to be eligible for direct install measures. Saving Homes Program 12-6

214 Residential customers may enter into the program either by contacting the Energy Efficiency Solutions Center (EESC) to request an assessment or by working through a participating contractor who initiates the assessment and coupon process Marketing The SHP is marketed to trade allies and to end-use customers. CenterPoint partnered with Entergy and SWEPCO in marketing due to significant overlap in their service territories and the operation of a similar program by the electric utilities using CLEAResult as the implementer. The three utilities partnered in marketing collateral. CenterPoint kept the public-facing marketing to a minimum in 2016 as the program had a relatively low budget for their market size in its introductory year. As a result, CenterPoint s outreach for this program was focused on having trade allies from overlapping electric utilities target homes serviced by CenterPoint so that they could jointly incentivize projects with Entergy and SWEPCO Quality Assurance Staff at CLEAResult conducts post inspections at a minimum of 10% of the projects completed by each trade ally. Post inspections are conducted by a Quality Assurance Specialist. The post-inspection procedure includes designations of Major Violations and Minor Violations for each measure. Major Violations require immediate resolution which may include charging the contractor back for the coupon amount. Minor Violations may be resolved without coupon chargeback. The definition of Major and Minor violations by measure are summarized in Table Table 12-6 QA Violation Definitions by Measure Measure Direct Install Insulation Definitions Major violation examples: Verified devices installed does not match claimed devices installed. Device installed on an appliance of non-eligible fuel type Installation of direct install equipment results in damage or inoperability of existing equipment Minor violation examples: None Major violation examples: Stated existing R-value: error > 1 step difference in R-value range chart on the coupon. Stated finished R-value: error of > 10% in R-value Saving Homes Program 12-7

215 Duct Sealing/Air Sealing Stated square footage: error of >10% in square feet Minor violation examples: Improper installation of new insulation (such as varying depths) Bag count card not properly displayed Depth markers not properly displayed Major violation examples: Starting vs. finished air leakage rate: verification reveals discrepancy > 20% Minimum Ventilation Requirement (MVR): failure to identify correct MVR or take proper action in the event of the MVR not being met Duct sealing or air sealing materials: use of improper materials Combustion Safety Test (CST): not performing the CST or failing to take proper action on the results. Minor violation examples: None Impact of Home Assessments The Evaluators reviewed the measure installations energy savings for participants in the SHP. The Evaluators key findings from this review were: Conversion rates for Assessments are similar between single-family and multifamily participants. In 2016, the conversion rate was 78.3% 42. Figure 12-4 Measure Installation The differences in measure installation by participant class are presented in Figure There was no statistically significant difference in quantity of 42 Install Only is excluded from the conversion rate due to these homes having not received an Assessment. Saving Homes Program 12-8

216 measures installed between the Assessment & Install and the Install-only groups. Assessment & Install participants displayed lower savings than Installonly projects, as shown in Figure Figure 12-5 Per-Home Measure Installation Trade Ally Outreach Figure 12-6 Per-Home Therms Savings In 2016, the SHP had three registered trade allies. The Home Energy Consultant (HEC) trade allies are allowed to provide Assessments through the program, which Saving Homes Program 12-9

217 receive rebates of and $ from CenterPoint. When the home overlaps with a participating electric utility and has equipment that qualifies for both programs, the incentive cost is split equally. HECs must attend program training sessions held by CLEAResult in a classroom setting as well as in the field before being certified and allowed to perform Surveys and Assessments. Other requirements for HECs include: - Must have at least one employee with certification as either a Building Performance Institute Building Analyst (BPI-BA) or a RESNET Home Energy Rater (this rater is required to be present on all jobs in progress); - If the staff member with the appropriate certification leaves the company, the trade ally must hire a replacement or obtain a certification for another employee within 30 days (though this is extended if the needed courses are not available in that time frame). - Must own and maintain a Blower Door, Duct Blaster, combustion safety testing tools, energy modeling software (provided by the program), and all appropriate hand tools Trade Ally Interviews The Evaluators completed interviews with HES trade allies to gain insight into contractor perspectives on the HES Program. The goals of the interviews were to understand contractor perspectives on program design and implementation. Interview respondents were asked to provide information on their level of marketing effort, sources of customer awareness, the participation process, support provided by program staff, and overall satisfaction with the program. The Evaluators contacted all contractors for which contact information was available twice to complete an interview. In total, two contractors responded to the request and were interviewed. These contractors had each participated in between projects over the last program year Firm Characteristics Contractors were asked how many of their customers in the last year had had an audit completed for their home prior to the contractor s work. One contractor said that all customers had had this audit done while the other said that none of their customers received audits. The contractor who reported that customers had received audits stated that their organization was able to provide all of the audit s services. One contractor reported that their organization is planning to hire three full-time employees in response to the program. Both contractors stated that they plan to 43 The incentive is reduced to $150 if the home is 700 ft. 2 or less. Saving Homes Program 12-10

218 participate in the program next year. One contractor reported planning to be more active in the program in the upcoming year because this had been their pilot year of program involvement; the other did not know what their level of activity would be because their level of program activity would depend on the amount of money that CenterPoint devotes to the program Program Marketing and Customer Awareness Both contractors said the HES program helps them sell their products or services. One contractor identified CenterPoint s role as a passive promoter of their services, noting that customers recognize and CenterPoint name. The other contractor identified more active sales assistance, stating that their firm relies on the program s financial incentives to cover the cost of the labor related to the HES program. Both contractors said that customers had approached them specifically to ask about the HES program. One contractor said that approximately 90% of their customers had sought them out specifically for the CenterPoint program; this contractor said that nearly all of their customers have prior awareness of the program. The other contractor said that customers had asked them specifically about the HES program and that about 10% of customers have prior awareness of the program. This contractor also reported having to bring the program to customer s attention. When asked to identify how customers heard about their services, both contractors identified referrals from friends and family as a major source. Neither contractor directly markets the program; both believe that word-of-mouth is the most important source of program awareness. Both contractors said that there was likely room for improvement in CenterPoint s marketing efforts; one contractor suggested distributing program flyers in neighborhoods with high energy usage. This comes as a result of CenterPoint s intentional under-marketing of the program in its first year of operation due to limited budget. Both contractors said that incentives levels are adequate to encourage customers to implement the projects covered by the program Project Completion Process Contractors were asked to discuss the project completion process to identify any aspects that were ineffective or inefficient. Neither contractor reported any issues with the process of filling out paperwork in order to receive rebate coupons; neither proposed any changes to the coupon paperwork. Saving Homes Program 12-11

219 Neither contractor reported having had any difficulties meeting the three-coupon minimum per quarter outlined in the program rules. Neither contractor reported any issues in completing direct-install measures during inhome surveys. Both said that customers are generally satisfied with the equipment received during in-home surveys; one contractor said that they had never received any complaints from customers regarding these measures, the other said that customers are generally happy to receive anything that helps them save money and energy Staff Support The contractors reported questions included seeking advice about using the Open Tool, questions about project timelines, account verification, clarification of business size classification, and clarification of fixture eligibility. All contractors were pleased with the interactions that they had with program staff. All contractors said that program documentation provided sufficient information to answer common customer questions. One contractor reported having spoken to CenterPoint staff regarding the HES program. This contractor said that they called around the end of the year in order to ensure that they were on track to meet the program s year-end goals. Both contractors have spoken to CLEAResult staff members about the program. Both said that these calls went well. Both contractors reported having received training from either CenterPoint or CLEAResult related to the program. When asked to describe the type of training they received, one contractor said that they were taught how to conduct blower door and air sealing tests, how to fill out the program paperwork, and how to handle customer concerns. The other contractor said that were instructed in how to use the program s online portal Overall Satisfaction Contractors were asked a series of questions related to their overall experience with the program. They were first asked, one a scale of very satisfied to very dissatisfied, to rate their satisfaction with various program elements. Both contractors reported being very satisfied with the application process, the wait time to receive the rebate, the range of measures covered by the program, service from utility staff, and the program overall. They both said that they were somewhat satisfied with incentive levels. Neither had suggestions for energy efficiency improvements that they would like to see added to the program. When asked to provide any final thoughts they may have had about the program, both contractors were complementary, saying that the program runs smoothly and that staff are helpful and always able to answer questions. Saving Homes Program 12-12

220 Participant Survey Response The Evaluators surveyed 70 single-family participants in the HESP. These surveys were to collect data for net-to-gross calculations and for process evaluation activities Program Awareness Table 12-6 summarizes the sources of awareness by respondents. The vast majority of residential respondents surveyed (74%) indicated having learned of the program by word-of-mouth from friends, relatives or colleagues. Table 12-6 HESP Sources of Program Awareness Source of Awareness % of Respondents (n=70) Word of mouth from friends, relatives, others 74.29% Information that came in the mail 4.29% Contractor 2.86% Previous participant 2.86% Don t know 2.86% Newspaper or magazine article/ad 1.43% Utility bill message 1.43% Other website 1.43% 1.43% Other 8.57% Reasons for Participation Respondents were asked a series of questions addressing their reasons for participating in the program. Figure 12-7 summarizes the reasons given by residential survey respondents. The respondents were asked an open-ended question where they would list their reasons for participation, with the interviewers logging each reason indicated. The most commonly cited reasons for participation included saving energy (33%), reducing the monthly electric bill (30%), and the home needed improvements (20%). Saving Homes Program 12-13

221 Energy Savings Activities Figure 12-7 SHP Reasons for Participating Seventy-seven percent of respondents reported they performed energy-saving activities in their home prior to the assessment, while 23% said did not. The most common of activities performed included turning off lights (26%), adjusting thermostat settings (24%), and washing clothes in cold water (17%). Respondents were then asked if they now take additional action to save energy as a result of participating in the program. Sixty-six percent of respondents said they do take additional action, while 33% said they do not. As shown in Table 12-7, 71% of respondents said they are now somewhat more or much more knowledgeable about energy efficiency and energy efficient options for their home. Table 12-7 Energy Efficiency Knowledge As a result of your experience with the program, how much more knowledgeable would you say you are about energy efficiency and energy efficient options for your home? % of Respondents (n=70) Not more knowledgeable 10.00% Slightly more knowledgeable 17.14% Somewhat more knowledgeable 34.29% Much more knowledgeable 37.14% Don't know 1.43% Refused 0.00% Saving Homes Program 12-14

222 Participant Demographics Participants were asked a number of questions regarding themselves and their homes, which can serve to inform future decision making of program managers. Virtually all respondents said they live in a single family detached home (99%), and most respondents (97%) indicated that they own their home. As shown in Table 1-1, most participants live in a home built prior to 1990 (69%), and only 14% live a home built within the last 15 years. Table 12-8 Participant Home Vintage When was your home built? % of Respondents (n=70) Before 1970's 27.1% 1970's 22.9% 1980's 18.6% % % % 2006 or newer 5.7% Other 0.0% Don t know 2.9% Refused 1.4% As shown in Table 1-4, 50% of participants were 55 or older, and none were under the age of 25. In addition, the average number of people currently living in the home yearround was Table 12-9 Participant Age Which of the following categories includes your age? % of Respondents (N=70) Under % 25 to % 35 to % 45 to % 55 to % 65 or over 31.4% Refused 2.9% Saving Homes Program 12-15

223 Overall Program Satisfaction Participants were asked to provide open-ended feedback regarding the program, and the vast majority of respondents expressed a high level of satisfaction with the program. Four participants (5%) expressed dissatisfaction with the quality or completion of the work and their responses are shown below: Some of the stripping was not applied well and there are still drafts. I would like for them to come out and finish the attic insulation. No one ever followed up with the assessors findings or my concerns. They were nice but the work was horrible. Had to call someone else to fix it. However, most participants had positive things to say about the program, and some of their comments are shown below: I think it was a very good program, and I have recommended it to several friends. Very happy with the contractor and [the] program. Get the word out more. More advertisements. A lot of people don t look on the website. It s amazing. I have no way to express the gratitude of the program and so please with the health benefits of not breathing dust. Overall, the open-ended responses indicated a great deal of satisfaction with the program, as only 5% of respondents appeared to be dissatisfied with certain elements of the program SHP Impact Evaluation The evaluation effort of the SHP included the following: Desk Review of Residential Calculations. The Evaluators utilized TRM V6.0 values in assessing savings from measures included in the program. Field Verification. Field inspections were completed at a sample of 18 residences. Field inspections included duct blast and blower door testing when participants received duct sealing or air sealing (respectively) Tracking Review The impact evaluation began with a review of program tracking data. The tracking data included a separate row for each measure installed. Every premise in the program had a unique rebate identifier, and thus one premise would have multiple rows to reflect the different measures completed. Table summarizes ex ante savings by measure for the SHP. Saving Homes Program 12-16

224 Table SHP Ex Ante Summary Measure Ex Ante Therms Duct Sealing 109,330 Air Infiltration 30,048 Ceiling Insulation 9,651 Showerhead 487 Aerators 69 Water Heater Jacket 11 Pipe Insulation 1 Total 149,597 The tracking data provided measured values for duct pressurization testing and blower door tests, allowing for the recreation of ex ante calculations based on leakage reduction. Ceiling insulation included an indicator for baseline R-value. Program specifications are to bring the home s insulation level up to R-38 or R-49. The maximum allowed baseline insulation is R Field Verification Procedures The Evaluators conducted field verifications at 18 premises. The field verification sample included the following measures: 5 ceiling insulation retrofits; 12 duct sealings; 14 air sealings. For all measure types requiring on-site measurements, the square footage and heating and cooling types were verified. To verify ceiling insulation, the insulation type and measured depth were recorded. To measure duct leakage, the Evaluators field staff performed duct pressurization testing (using Duct Blasters ) on the ducting for central heating systems. System static pressure (SSP) on the duct system was first measured, where SSP is a measurement of static pressure at the supply side plenum of the duct system when the supply fan is on and operating with registers in their normal position. This pressure is unique for each system. The ducts were then pressurized by means of a Duct Blaster connected to the return side of the system. Total duct leakage was measured with the registers sealed and the Duct Blaster pressurizing the duct system. Total Duct leakage was then recorded. Finally, total home infiltration, measured in CFM, was calculated. One-time measurements of pressure differential between the conditioned and unconditioned space were taken to calculate a snap shot of total home infiltration, in CFM. Saving Homes Program 12-17

225 Duct Sealing Field Results The Evaluators found that 7 of 12 tested sites had post-retrofit leakage which differed from values listed in program tracking data by more than 20%. Figure summarizes the differences in field test values. The line in this figure presents the Evaluators tested post-retrofit CFM leakage minus the trade allies post-retrofit CFM leakage. The data is presented in ascending order, based on lowest ex ante postretrofit CFM to highest ex ante post-retrofit CFM. Figure 12-8 Difference in Expected and Evaluated Ex-Post Duct Sealing CFM Of the values that differed by more than 20%, six of the seven tested sites deviated in a manner which would potentially overstate savings. One tested site underestimated savings. The effects of this on overall program savings were limited, however. The Arkansas TRM V6.0 caps savings from duct sealing at a maximum pre-installation leakage rate of 40% of total fan flow. The data displays a general trend of there being greater differences at middle and high extremes for ex-ante post-retrofit CFM Air Sealing Field Results The Evaluators found that nine of the 14 tested homes had post-retrofit air leakage values that differed from program tracking data more than 20%. Four of nine of these values over state savings and five of nine understate savings. The field test differences are summarized in Figure Saving Homes Program 12-18

226 Figure 12-9 Difference in Expected and Evaluated Ex-Post Air Sealing CFM In aggregate, the Evaluators found that ex ante test values underestimated program savings. Based on the field results, the Evaluators found 110.9% realization Net Savings Estimates The Evaluators did not conduct a NTGR study for this program. The program uses the Consistent Weatherization Approach. The NTGR of 95% determined in the 2015 Black Hills Energy Arkansas evaluation was applied to the CenterPoint SHP Verified Savings Table presents the gross savings results of the evaluation of the 2016 Savings Home Program. Total Gross Savings summarizes the savings calculations performed by TRM protocols for program measures. Table SHP Verified Savings Summary Measure Ex Ante Ex Post Lifetime EUL Therms Therms Therms Peak Therms Duct Sealing 109, , ,920, Air Infiltration 30,048 33, , Ceiling Insulation 9,651 9, , Showerhead , Aerators Water Heater Jacket Pipe Insulation Total 149, , ,485, Saving Homes Program 12-19

227 Free-Ridership Rate Table SHP Net Savings Summary Net Annual Savings Ex Ante Ex Post Ex Ante Ex Post Net Realization Rate EUL Net Lifetime Therms Savings Net Peak Therms 2.80% 5.00% 145, , % ,361, In addition, the Evaluators calculated kwh savings for duct sealing, air sealing, and infiltration measures. This was only credited to CenterPoint s program if the residence was not listed as having been jointly incentivized by SWEPCO or EAI. There were also water savings from the low flow devices installed. These NEBs are summarized in Table Table Saving Homes Program Net Non-Energy Benefits Summary Non-Energy Benefit First-year EUL. This provided total net electric savings of: 100,665 kwh; and kw. Water Savings (Gallons) 128, kwh 100, kw Further, the low flow devices installed in the program saved 128,482 gallons of water Conclusions & Recommendations Conclusions The Evaluators conclusions for the Savings Home Program are presented below. The Evaluators have found that: The program was an effective use of funds and a positive reallocation from other areas of the CenterPoint portfolio. Specifically, 29% of the program budget came from the cancellation of the HEAL Partnership, and the addition of the SHP has significantly improved the comprehensiveness of CenterPoint s residential program offerings. Marketing was limited due to expected high demand. CenterPoint opted to limit public-facing marketing collateral and instead rely upon the efforts of the Entergy Arkansas trade allies. This was due to the low budget of the program int its first year of operation. Saving Homes Program 12-20

228 The program was able to launch quickly through the use of existing trade ally networks. All CenterPoint program trade allies were existing trade allies in Entergy Arkansas Home Performance with Energy Star program. This allowed for CenterPoint to get participation quickly and cost-effectively. The conversion rate of assessments to measure installations is lower than found in other gas utility programs that apply the Consistent Weatherization Approach. The SHP had an 80% conversion rate of assessments to measure installations. In contrast, the Black Hills Energy Arkansas 2016 Home Energy Savings Program (which also applies the Consistent Weatherization Approach) achieved a 95% conversion rate Recommendations Collect tracking data needed for TRM Desk Review. The evaluators noticed several parameters not provided in the tracking data, such as existing R-value for ceiling insulation, GPM for showerheads and aerators, and water heater jacket thickness. Assess trade ally performance based on conversion rates of assessments. The SHP should target aa 95% conversion rate. Develop public-facing marketing collateral if program budgets can accommodate the added interest. The program has significant room for growth as CenterPoint never made significant inroads with building envelope improvements in the past (through the Arkansas Weatherization Program and the HEAL Partnership). The program should have its funding expanded as the Consistent Weatherization Approach has garnered significant interest in other areas of Arkansas when customers are made aware of it. Saving Homes Program 12-21

229 13. Recommendations for TRM Updates Based on the EM&V efforts of the 2016 CenterPoint DSM portfolio, the Evaluators recommend the following additions and updates to the TRM TRM Additions If budget permits, the Evaluators would recommend the following measures for inclusion in the TRM: Thermostatic Restrictor Valves: These valves are a low-cost measure which restricts hot water use in a shower when it has not yet reached the desired temperature setpoint. Values for this measure can be found in the current Illinois TRM, and would require updates to reflect Arkansas temperature setpoints and water main temperatures. Low Flow Showerhead with ShowerStart: This is a low flow showerhead sold with an integrated thermostatic restrictor valve. Gas Broilers: Broilers were removed from the TRM in the V2.0 update due to their not having a reliable deemed savings source. This was a valid decision, in that the IEM and the PWC concluded that food service measures should have savings based either on Energy Star or Food Service Technology Center estimates. The result of this was the removal of broilers from CenterPoint Energy Arkansas and Black Hills Energy Arkansas (at that time, SourceGas) programs. The FSTC has since provided calculation estimates for broilers, and the Evaluators recommend they be reentered into the TRM using these new values. The FSTC calculated the following savings for the typical energy efficient broiler model: o Conveyor Broiler: 1,661 Therms 44 o Underfire Charboiler: 1,055 Therms TRM Amendments In the update to TRM V7.0, the Evaluators recommend the following amendments: General: Recommendations for TRM Updates 13-1

230 Remove Peak Therms in their entirety, and associated reporting requirements. Peak therms are consistently a needless expense. They are not used in cost-benefit analyses and require unnecessary effort by CenterPoint, program implementation staff, and Evaluator staff to calculate and validate. Section : Smart Thermostats Specify the efficiency of the AC system and furnace assumed in the Table 69 deemed savings values. The deemed savings values for this measure are per-square foot, and don t indicate what heating/cooling system is assumed. The Evaluators recommended to CenterPoint that they include this as an add-on to an efficient furnace installation, but the savings likely need to be scaled to account for the efficiency of the new furnace. This is not feasible without a benchmark AFUE value in this chapter. Section 2.3.1: Water Heater Replacement Add a 30 gallon column in Table 136. Table 136 of Section in AR TRM V6.0 does not have a value for 30-gallon water heaters. The Evaluators interpolated this value based on values for 40 and 50-gallon unit. Add a Thermal-Energy Factor conversion table to the Residential Water Heating Replacement chapter. Condensing storage tank water heaters for the residential sector are often rated by thermal efficiency rather than energy factor. This has necessitated the use of separate thermal efficiency and standby loss calculations, which is burdensome in residential tracking. The TRM should include a conversion factor so that program staff can more readily determine the eligibility and savings of units that are rated in thermal efficiency. Section Equivalent Full Load Hours Correct the Zone 9 EFLH. The Zone 9 EFLH shows a lower heating load than Zone 8. This is due to the use of Fayetteville instead of Rogers as the weather zone city. Recommendations for TRM Updates 13-2

231 14. Appendix A: Site Reports This appendix contains the individual site reports for C&I Solutions. Appendix A: Site Reports 14-1

232 Program CNP-CIS Project ID C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code Arrangement of Transportation of Freight and Cargo Measures Washer Controls Annual Consumption CCF 992,010 Project Background The participant is a railroad maintenance and repair hub that received incentives from CenterPoint for: ECM#1: Washer Controls - Phase 2 M&V Methodology ECM #1: Washer Controls This measurement and verification project followed the guidelines of the 2012 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A - Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement. This was the second phase of Measured combustion efficiency was 69.1% on average with clean water in the tanks. Measured efficiency was 67.8% on average with dirty water (right before cleaning). Combustion efficiency is assumed to decline linearly during between cleaning cycles, so an average of 68.5% is used for all calculations. The rough tank dimensions were measured during the post-retrofit site visit. Proceco Thank Dimensions Washer Unit Length (Ft) Width (Ft) Height (Ft) Tank Surface Area (SF) Mart # Proceco # ,176 Proceco # ,176 Proceco # Water Volume (Cu. Ft) Morning water temperatures have previously been measured and averaged at 165 F for parts washers with 195 F set points. Measured Morning Temperatures Washer Number Operating Set Point (F) #3 Proceco #5 Proceco #5a Proceco #8 Proceco Morning Temperature (F) Appendix A: Site Reports 14-2

233 Shell losses are calculated on a per sq. ft. basis using DOE 3Eplus software. The calculated surface loss is BTU/SF/HR for tanks with a 195 F set point, and BTU/SF/HR for tanks with a 140 F set point. The tank shell losses were considered to be equal for the sides and top of the rectangular tanks. The tanks are raised off the floor on feet, allowing heat losses through the bottom of the tank. The bottom losses were considered to be 80% of those on the top and sides, and were adjusted by reducing the apparent surface area of the tank accordingly. The one exception was Proceco #14, where the bottom was against the ground, therefore the bottom surface area was disregarded. All latent losses are neglected, since these are covered or mostly covered tanks. Annual BTU losses were calculated using the equation: Annual loss = (AOHpro AOHpost) Tank sq. ft. Recovery energy was calculated using the equation: Where: Recovery Energy = Average shell loss sq. ft. Tank volume x water density x specific heat (water) x (Operating water temp Morning water temp) Water density = 60 lbm/cu. ft. Specific heat (water) = btu/lbm-r Annual recovery energy is the specific recovery energy multiplied by the number of annual recovery cycles. Annual recovery natural gas input is the Annual recovery energy divided by the average combustion efficiency of the system and converted from BTU to Therms. Tank cleaning procedures require draining and refilling the tank with city water and are not changing due to this ECM. Therefore, recovery energy after cleaning operations is neglected from this calculation. Measure Life The Estimated Useful Life (EUL) for this project is 12 years based on the measure Linkless Controls Savings Calculations #15 Proceco Averages: The tank losses in the pre-retrofit condition are the thermal losses from the water being held at set point temperature for all hours not required for production. The set point for washers #2, #7, and #14 was 195 F. Meanwhile Proceco #10 had a lower set point at Appendix A: Site Reports 14-3

234 140 F. The Annual Shell Losses are calculated with the values and equations mentioned previously, and detailed in the following table. Annual Shell Losses Washer Unit AOH Pre AOH Post Tank Surface Area (SF) Annual Shell Loss Savings (Btu) Annual Shell Loss Savings (CCF) Mart #2 7,072 4, ,242,122 3,201 Proceco #7 8,448 4,940 1, ,221,796 14,120 Proceco #10 8,448 4,940 1, ,914,194 7,984 Proceco #14 7,072 2, ,427,887 2,663 Annual recovery cycles are the number of times that the system must bring the tank from the morning temperature up to the operating temperature, and does not include cycles where dirty water is replaced with clean city water. Annual Recovery Energy Washer Unit Tank Volume (Cu. Ft.) Operating Water Temp F Morning Water Temp F Morning Recovery Energy (Btu) Annual Recovery Cycles Annual Recovery Energy (Btu) Annual Recovery Energy (CCF) Mart # , ,864, Proceco #7 1, ,128, ,942,502 7,707 Proceco #10 1, ,411, ,094,497 5,111 Proceco # , ,634,201 1,469 Annual Savings Annual Shell Losses (CCF) 27,968 Annual Recovery Savings (CCF): 15,132 Total Annual Savings (CCF): 12,836 The calculated savings for ECM #1 are as follows: Annual Therms: 12,836 Peak Therms: Lifetime Therms: 154,032 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. The parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Proceco Efficiency 68.5% +/- 0.6% 111 Morning Temp Varies +/- 5 F 1,608 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-4

235 The errors were then propagated as follows: Propogated Error = (σ efficiency ) 2 + (σ morning temp ) 2 = 1,612 With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Uncertainty = 1, 612 = 12. 6% 12, 836 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-5

236 Project Number CNP-CIS Program C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code 3479 Coating, Engraving, and Allied Services, Not Elsewhere Classified Measures Steam Generator Replacement Project Background The participant is a tanker repair facility whose operations encompass activities in cleaning, cutting, welding and repainting. The plant is currently undergoing a replacement of its gas equipment including a 600 HP steam boiler. This project will cover 2 phases where phase 1 will see the installation of a 250 HP steam generator and Phase 2 will see the installation of a second 250 HP steam generator in June The scope of this project included: ECM 1: Boiler Replacement The facility is estimated to have an annual natural gas usage of 2.45 million CCF during the first year after the renovations, which should increase to approximately 2.95 million CCF after the installation of the second 250 HP steam generator. M&V Methodology The M&V effort for ECM 1 follows the guidelines of the 2012 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option B. It is difficult to project savings based on current production rates as a second steam generator will be added later on, so savings for phase 1 were only claimed during nonproduction hours. This would only be based on the savings by the boiler because the steam generator is OFF during non-production hours while the boiler would remain ON in standby mode. Production-hours-savings will be calculated in phase 2 after the second steam generator is installed and the facility reaches full production. The facility operates 60 hours/week at 51 weeks/year. The annual Therm savings were calculated using the following: Annual Therm Savings non production = 600 HP Boiler Usage 250 HP Steam Generator Usage 600 HP Boiler Usage = Max Input (MBH) 1 therm StandbyFiring Rate (%) 100 MBtu DiversityRate (%) ANOH 250 HP Steam Generator non production = 0 therms Appendix A: Site Reports 14-6

237 The facility operates 60 hours/week at 51 weeks/year so the ANOH (annual nonoperating hours) is calculated as follows: ANOH = 51 weeks yr weekend hours ( week night hours ) = 5,508 hours/yr week The boiler is assumed to operate at 20% firing rate and 20% diversity rate during nonproduction hours. The annual Therms savings are then: Annual Therm Savings non production = (25,200 MBtu 1 therm hours 20% 20% 5,508 ) (0 therms) h 100 MBtu yr = 55, therms/yr Measure Life The EUL of ECM 1 is 20 years. Savings Results The total annual Therms savings from ECM 1 is 55, The lifetime Therms savings are: 1,110, The peak Therms is based on 255 annual operating days. Uncertainty The estimated savings for phase 1 in this project relied on pre-specified numbers including manufacturer specified figures and rates. For this reason, there was no propagation of uncertainties. Appendix A: Site Reports 14-7

238 Program CNP-CIS Project ID C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code 2076 Vegetable Oil Mill Measures Steam Trap Replacement Annual Consumption CCF 1,454,720 Project Background The participant is a vegetable oil producer that received incentives from CenterPoint for: ECM#1: Steam Trap Replacement. The processes used to separate the cotton oil from the cotton seeds require steam to extract the oil through vaporization from the chemically treated cotton seeds. Then a distilling process separates the oil from the water and chemicals used in the extraction process. The steam used in both processes is provided by two 500 HP Cleaver Brooks fire tube boilers. Steam Traps Replaced Line Size (inches) Orifice Size (inches) Inlet Pressure (PSIG) Outlet Pressure (PSIG) Applied Discharge Rate / / / / / M&V Methodology ECM #1: Steam Trap Replacement Because replacement of failed open steam traps is a deemed measure, no M&V was conducted. Savings were calculated by adopting the procedure specified in Section of the Arkansas TRM V3.0. In this, steam trap savings are calculated as: Therm savings = Steam Trap Discharge Rate EFLH H h fg Ec Base Therm Conversion Factor Where: (2) Appendix A: Site Reports 14-8

239 Steam Trap Discharge Rate = Steam loss in lb/hr. EFLH H = Equivalent full-load hours for heating from Table 363. h fg = Latent heat of evaporation in Btu/lb from steam tables. Ec Combustion efficiency for boiler, if unavailable estimate efficiency to 70% Base Therm Conversion Factor = 100,000BTU/Therm (assumed) The Evaluators updated this formula as follows: 1) EFLH was replaced with hours of system pressurization. Steam traps are in operation whenever the system is pressurized; EFLH is a different metric, in totaling hours at full boiler load, and is not appropriate for this calculation. 2) Combustion efficiency was measured on-site as 84%. This was used in place of the 70% default value, lowering savings. Data Collection Procedures Pre- and post-photos were obtained for each failed open steam trap that was replaced. Measure Life The EUL of this measure is 5 years. Source: NYSERDA Natural Gas Database Savings Results ECM #1: Steam Trap Replacement Using the above parameters, calculated savings of each replaced steam trap are presented in the table below. Line Size (inches) Orifice Size (inches) Inlet Pressure (PSIG) Outlet Pressure (PSIG) Applied Discharge Rate Therms Savings / , / , / , / , / ,583 Total 15,745 The calculated savings for ECM #1 are as follows: Annual Therms: 15,745 Peak Therms: Appendix A: Site Reports 14-9

240 Lifetime Therms: 78,725 Overall, project savings are as follows: Annual Therms: 15,745 Peak Therms: Lifetime Therms: 78,725 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. The parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Hours of Operation 6,912 5% 788 Discharge Rate Varies +/- 20% 3,149 Boiler Efficiency 84% +/- 3% 543 The errors were then propagated as follows: Propogated Error = (σ hours ) 2 + (σ dis. ) 2 + (σ effic. ) 2 = 3, 291 With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Uncertainty = 3, , 745 = 21% Appendix A: Site Reports 14-10

241 Program Project ID Facility SIC Code Measures CNP-CIS C&I Solutions 2048 Pet Food Manufacturing Continuous Cooker Waste Steam for Heating Plant Hot Water Project Background The participant is a manufacturing facility that received incentives from CenterPoint for: ECM#1: Continuous Cooker This site is a 150,000 ft 2 plant that manufactures pet food using meat from other processing plants. Two large boilers (2,200HP each) use the majority of the facility s gas to provide steam for the meat processing. This retrofit replaces 12 old batch cookers with one continuous cooker; this single cooker can produce the same amount of cooked food weekly as the 12 batch cookers combined. M&V Methodology ECM #1: Continuous Cooker The M&V effort for this project follows the guidelines of the 2012 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement. Measurement and verification activities are based on the following assumptions: Annual hours of operation: 8,760 The pre-retrofit baseline is comprised of 52 weeks of steam data (in lbs.) and production data (tons) for the existing 12 batch cookers. The weekly data is used to make a preretrofit regression equation, which will be used to help calculate the savings. Heat loss in the pre- and post- conditions was calculated as follows: Baseline Consumption Where, (DTH. Natural Gas day = A Tons p ost + b) Appendix A: Site Reports 14-11

242 Tons Processed Chicken : Tons of chicken processed for those same weekly periods Post Retrofit Consumption Where, = Average Steam Flow (Steam Enthalpy Feed Water Enthalpy)/ Boiler Efficiency] Steam Enthalpy: 1193 Btu/lb@125psig Feed Water Enthalpy: Btu/lb@5psig Boiler Efficiency: 83% Data Collection Procedures Data used in calculating savings with this project were collected as follows: Customer provided gas usage for pre-retrofit period Customer logged steam use post-retrofit Customer logged production use pre and post retrofit Calculated Savings: Therms Savings = (Pre DTH/day/Post Production (tons) Post DTH/day /Post Production (tons) Extrapolated Annual Production (tons) Measure Life The EUL of this measure is 20 years. Savings Results ECM #1: Continuous Cooker The following table shows the Therms savings for ECM#1. Appendix A: Site Reports 14-12

243 Date Total Finished (lbs) Total Finishe d (Tons) Steam Usage (lbs/day) Gas Usage (DTH/day) Adjusted Gas Usage (DTH/day) Efficienc y DTH/ton Adjusted Efficienc y DTH/ton 6/15/ , , /16/ , , /17/ , , /18/ , , /19/ /20/ , , /21/ , , /22/ , , /23/ , , /24/ , , /25/ , , /26/ /27/201 28, , /28/ , , /29/ , , , /30/ , , /1/ , , /2/ , , , /3/ , , Average 203, , Annual 74,273,85 37, ,201,07 247, , ,471, ,661, Appendix A: Site Reports 14-13

244 Annual Gas Savings 189, therms/yr The calculated savings for ECM#1 project are as follows: Annual Therms: 189,662 Peak Therms: Lifetime Therms: 2,275,944 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. The parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Boiler Efficiency 83% +/- 3% 77,992 The errors were then propagated as follows: Propogated Error = (σ boiler effic ) 2 = 77, 992 With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Uncertainty = 77, 992 = 18. 3% 425, 486 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-14

245 Project Number CNP-CIS Program C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code 2015 Poultry Slaughtering and Processing Measures Condensate Return Annual Consumption CCF 1,592,990 Project Background The participant is a Poultry Processor, Hatchery, and Feed Mill that received incentives from CenterPoint for installing a condensate return. The Feed Mill will be the focus of this report. The scope of this project included: ECM 1: Condensate Return The facility has a 500 HP Hurst boiler which operates 24/7 or 8,760 hours per year. The boiler uses steam to produce feed pellets. An economizer is used on the boiler exhaust stack to make 140 F hot water to be added to the feed mixture prior to the pelletizer. The boiler pressure is 100 psig and the average combustion efficiency of the boiler is 82.3%. The customer did not return condensate to the boiler prior to the implementation. M&V Methodology The M&V effort for ECM 1 follows the guidelines of the 2012 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A Key Parameter Measurement. The key performance indicators include the water flow rate (in gal/day) pre and post retro-fit, the daily feed production and the annual feed production. The change in water flow rate (condensate returned) each day was calculated by subtracting the pre retro-fit flow rate from the post retro-fit flow rate. This was then used to calculate energy savings per day according to the following formula: Gal lb CCF Condensate Returned ( ) ( day = day gal ) ( 1 ) 960 (btu 24hr hr ) 24hr 100, 000 ( Btu ) Combustion Efficiency CCF The annual feed production was obtained by summing the monthly production for the year. Using this information, the daily feed production, as well as the CCF/day values, the annual savings could be calculated using the following: Annual CCF Savings = CCF day 1 Annual Production (Tons) Daily Production (Tons) Appendix A: Site Reports 14-15

246 This calculation was done every day over a period of approximately 3 weeks and an average of the annual CCF savings was calculated. Data were collected from November 23 rd 2016 to December 15 th Averages for each of the key parameters over the observation period are summarized below: Difference in flow rate (Gal/day) CCF/day Daily feed production (tons) Annual feed production (tons) Annual CCF Savings ,652 10, Measure Life The EUL of ECM 1 is 10 years. Savings Results The total annual Therms savings from ECM 1 is 10,249. The lifetime Therms savings are: 102,486. The peak Therms is 28. Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. The parameters and their uncertainties are summarized in the table below. Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Condensate Returned Varies ± 3% Annual Production Varies ± 10% 1, Combustion Efficiency Varies ± 2.5% The errors were then propagated as follows: Propagated Error = (σ Condensate Returned ) 2 + (σ Annual Production ) 2 + (σ Combustion Efficiency ) 2 The propagated error amounts to 1,073. With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project has an overall uncertainty of: 1, 073 Uncertainty = = % 10, 249 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-16

247 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-17

248 Program CNP-CIS Project ID C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code 3357 Drawing and Insulating of Nonferrous Wire Measures Steam Trap Insulation Steam Trap Replacement Annual Consumption CCF 1,280,171 Project Background The participant is a manufacturing facility that received incentives from CenterPoint for: ECM#1: Steam Trap Insulation; ECM#2: Steam Trap Replacement. The customer manufactures a full assortment of standard electrical wire and cable products for automotive and industrial applications. The facility has three E HP Clayton steam generators on site. During the audit, it was observed that there was missing insulation at several locations in the plant s steam and condensate system. Fifteen steam traps of various sizes were insulated. Steam Traps Insulated Pipe Diameter Equivalent Length (feet) (inches) Line Size (inches) Steam Traps Replaced Orifice Size (inches) Inlet Pressure (PSIG) Outlet Pressure (PSIG) Applied Discharge Rate / / / / M&V Methodology ECM #1: Insulation Installation The M&V effort for this project follows the guidelines of the 2012 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement. Appendix A: Site Reports 14-18

249 Measurement and verification activities are based on the following assumptions: Trap insulation will be 0.50 ManniGlass 1900 Non-woven glass fiber, with a k- value of 0.525; The average annual ambient air temperature is 85 F. These traps are indoors and the room is not air conditioned; Savings estimates assume that the traps are equivalent to one linear foot of 10 pipe per trap. Pre-installation parameters of interest include: type of surface, bare-metal temperature, equipment dimensions, ambient temperature, and hours of operation. During the site visit, the evaluators verified installation of 0.50 inches of insulation, as well as insulation temperature. Post measurements were also taken at still-exposed surfaces to verify that the system was still operating at the same temperature. Heat loss in the pre- and post- conditions was calculated as follows: Heat Loss (Pre-Retrofit) Where, L = Length of pipe To = Ambient air temperature (85 F) Q pre = 2πL(T i T o ) 1 rb hb Ti = Surface temperature of the pipe. The pipes are thin walled so the surface temperature is assumed to be the same as the temperature of steam. rb = Outer radius of pipe hb = Air film values derived from ASHREA Table 15 Heat Loss (Post-Retrofit) 2πL(T i T o ) Q post = 1ln ( rc [ rb ) k insulation + 1 rc hc ] Where, rc = Outside radius of the insulation k insulation = thermal conductivity of insulation hc = Air film value Data Collection Procedures Appendix A: Site Reports 14-19

250 Data used in calculating savings with this project were collected as follows: Length & diameter of pipe: physical inspection where visible and review of building schematics where not visible. Ambient air temperature: facility set point Boiler efficiency: average of measurements at varying firing rates taken with a Portable Combustion Analyzer (found to be 81.5%) Surface temperature of pipes: collected with an infrared temperature thermometer. Air film values: derived from ASHREA Table 15 Annual operating hours of steam system: derived from facility interviews to determine factory schedule Calculated Savings: Measure Life Therms Savings = (Q pre Q post ) Hours of Operation Efficiency 100,000 BTU Therm The EUL of this measure is 5 years. ECM #2: Steam Trap Replacement Because replacement of failed open steam traps is a deemed measure, no M&V was conducted. Savings were calculated by adopting the procedure specified in Section of the Arkansas TRM V3.0. In this, steam trap savings are calculated as: Therm savings = Steam Trap Discharge Rate EFLH H h fg Ec Base Therm Conversion Factor Where: (3) Steam Trap Discharge Rate = Steam loss in lb/hr. EFLH H = Equivalent full-load hours for heating from Table 363. h fg = Latent heat of evaporation in Btu/lb from steam tables. Ec Combustion efficiency for boiler, if unavailable estimate efficiency to 70% Base Therm Conversion Factor = 100,000BTU/Therm (assumed) Appendix A: Site Reports 14-20

251 The Evaluators updated this formula as follows: 3) EFLH was replaced with hours of system pressurization. Steam traps are in operation whenever the system is pressurized; EFLH is a different metric, in totaling hours at full boiler load, and is not appropriate for this calculation. 4) Combustion efficiency was measured on-site as 81.5%. This was used in place of the 70% default value, lowering savings. Data Collection Procedures Pre- and post-photos were obtained for each failed open steam trap that was replaced. Measure Life The EUL of this measure is 5 years. Source: NYSERDA Natural Gas Database Savings Results ECM #1: Insulation installation The resulting Q values from the equation above and Therms savings are presented in the table below. Insulated Pipe Savings Equivalent Pipe Length Pipe Diameter (feet) (inches) Q pre Q post Therms Savings ,819 Total 3,819 The calculated savings for ECM #1 are as follows: Annual Therms: 3,819 Peak Therms: Lifetime Therms: 19,095 ECM #2: Steam Trap Replacement Using the above parameters, calculated savings of each replaced steam trap are presented in the table below. Line Size (inches) Orifice Size (inches) Inlet Pressure (PSIG) Outlet Pressure (PSIG) Applied Discharge Rate Therms Savings / , / , / , / ,570 Total 57,384 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-21

252 The calculated savings for ECM #2 are as follows: Annual Therms: 57,384 Peak Therms: Lifetime Therms: 286,920 Overall, project savings are as follows: Annual Therms: 61,203 Peak Therms: Lifetime Therms: 306,015 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. The parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Hours of Operation 8,760 0% 0 Pipe Temperature 408 deg. F +/- 5 deg. F 15 Ambient Temperature (Pipes) 85 +/- 5 deg. F 10 Discharge Rate Varies +/- 20% 11,477 Boiler Efficiency 81.5% +/- 3% 1,750 The errors were then propagated as follows: Propogated Error = (σ hours ) 2 + (σ temp. ) 2 + (σ dis. ) 2 + (σ effic. ) 2 = 11, 610 With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Uncertainty = 11, 610 = 3. 79% 306, 015 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-22

253 Program CNP-CIS Project ID C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code General Medical and Surgical Hospitals Measures Steam Trap Replacement Annual Consumption CCF 26,058 Project Background The participant is a meat processing plant that received incentives from CenterPoint for: ECM#1: Steam Trap Replacement; This facility is a General Medical and Surgical Hospital. The site replaced (28) failed open steam traps. Line Size (inches) Steam Traps Replaced Orifice Size (inches) Inlet Pressure (PSIG) Outlet Pressure (PSIG) Applied Discharge Rate ¾ 9/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 3/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ Appendix A: Site Reports 14-23

254 M&V Methodology ECM #1: Steam Trap Replacement ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ The M&V effort for this project follows the guidelines of the 2012 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement. Measurement and verification activities are based on the following assumptions: The steam boiler operates 8,320 hours per year based off information from the site; Based on combustion flue-gas analysis, the plant s boiler is approximately 83% efficient on average; Because replacement of failed open steam traps is a deemed measure, no M&V was conducted. Savings were calculated by adopting the procedure specified in Section of the Arkansas TRM V3.0. In this, steam trap savings are calculated as: Therm savings = Steam Trap Discharge Rate EFLH H h fg Ec Base Therm Conversion Factor Where: Steam Trap Discharge Rate = Steam loss in lb/hr. (4) EFLH H = Equivalent full-load hours for heating from the TRM, or hours of steam system pressurization unique to the faciltiy h fg = Latent heat of evaporation in Btu/lb from steam tables. Ec Combustion efficiency for boiler, if unavailable estimate efficiency to 70% Base Therm Conversion Factor = 100,000BTU/Therm (assumed) The Evaluators updated this formula as follows: 5) EFLH was replaced with hours of system pressurization. Steam traps are in operation whenever the system is pressurized; EFLH is a different metric, in totaling hours at full boiler load, and is not appropriate for this calculation. 6) Combustion efficiency was measured on-site as 83%. This was used in place of the 70% default value, lowering savings. Appendix A: Site Reports 14-24

255 Measure Life The EUL of this measure is 5 years. Source: NYSERDA Natural Gas Database Savings Results ECM #1: Steam Trap Replacement Using the above parameters, calculated savings of each replaced steam trap are presented in the table below. Line Size (inches) Orifice Size (inches) Inlet Pressure (PSIG) Outlet Pressure (PSIG) Applied Discharge Rate Therms Savings ¾ 9/ ,765 ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 3/ ,684 ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ ¾ 1/ Total: 26,058 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-25

256 The calculated savings for ECM #1 are as follows: Annual Therms: 26,058 Peak Therms: Lifetime Therms: 130,290 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. The parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Boiler Efficiency 80% +/- 3% 1708 The errors were then propagated as follows: Propogated Error = (1708) 2 = 1708 With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Uncertainty = 1, 708 = 6. 55% 26, 058 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-26

257 Program CNP-CIS Project ID C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code 2074 Cottonseed Oil Mills Measures Condensate Return Annual Consumption CCF 1,454,720 Project Background The participant is an oil mill that received incentives from CenterPoint for: ECM#1: Condensate Return; ECM#1 allows an increased amount of hot condensate to be returned to the boilers which saves energy by reducing the amount of cold water to be heated. The facility has a steam boiler that operates 6,912 hours per year at 84% efficiency. M&V Methodology Savings are determined by comparing consumption pre- and post- implementation. The M&V effort for ECM 1 follows the guidelines of the 2012 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A Key Parameter Measurement. The key parameters include make-up water flow rates, condensate return water temperature, and annual production from customer. The change in water flow rate (condensate returned) each day was calculated by subtracting the post retro-fit make-up water flow rate from the pre retro-fit flow rate. This was then used to calculate energy savings per day according to the following formula: CCF Savings = ρ [Avg MUW PreRetrofit Avg MUW PostRetrofit ] ( Gal ton ) [h Condensate h MUW ] Production ton per year Combustion Efficiency 100, 000 ( Btu CCF ) Total Annual CCF Savings = CCF Savings per ton of product Annual Production (tons) Assumptions: The steam boilers operate 24 hour per day in 10 day increments and 2 days off, or 6,912 hour per year. Based on the boiler s control panel output, the plant s boilers are approximately 84% efficient on average. Measure Life The estimated useful life (EUL) is 10 years. Appendix A: Site Reports 14-27

258 Savings Results ECM #1: Condensate Return Averages for each of the key parameters over the observation period are summarized below: Avg MUW (Pre) Avg MUW (Post) Annual Production (tons) Annual CCF Savings ,056 64,664 The calculated savings for ECM #1 are as follows: Annual Therms: 64,664 Peak Therms: 224 Lifetime Therms: 646,640 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. The parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Condensate Return (Avg MUW (Pre) Avg MUW (Post)) Varies ± 3% 1, Annual Production Varies ± 10% 6, Combustion Efficiency Varies ± 2.5% 1, The errors were then propagated as follows: Propogated Error = (σ Condensate Return ) 2 +(σ Annual Production ) 2 +(σ Combustion Efficiency ) 2 = 6, 931 With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Uncertainty = 6931 = % 64, 664 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-28

259 Program CNP-CIS Project ID C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code Meat Packing Plant Measures Steam Trap Replacement Steam Leak Repair Annual Consumption CCF 675,670 Project Background The participant is a meat processing plant that installed: ECM#1: Steam Trap Replacement; ECM#2: Steam Leak Repair. This facility is a meat processing plant that processes whole turkey breasts and hams into deli meats. The facility operates almost 24/7 and uses two steam boilers to help process the meat 8,320 hours annually. The site replaced (3) failed open steam traps and repaired (5) steam leaks. Line Size (inches) Steam Traps Replaced Orifice Size (inches) Inlet Pressure (PSIG) Outlet Pressure (PSIG) Applied Discharge Rate 3/4 1/ /2 7/ /4 7/ Description Steam Leak Repair Qty of Leaks Plume Length (ft) Leak (lbs/hr) hole in Y-strainer (Trap 13) Valve Leak east of Trap Peaking Leak (Trap 34) Nipple Leak (Trap 45) Elbow Leak (Trap52) Appendix A: Site Reports 14-29

260 M&V Methodology ECM #2: Steam Trap Replacement The M&V effort for this project follows the guidelines of the 2012 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement. Measurement and verification activities are based on the following assumptions: The steam boiler operates 8,320 hours per year based off information from the site; Based on combustion flue-gas analysis, the plant s boiler is approximately 83% efficient on average; Because replacement of failed open steam traps is a deemed measure, no M&V was conducted. Savings were calculated by adopting the procedure specified in Section of the Arkansas TRM V3.0. In this, steam trap savings are calculated as: Therm savings = Steam Trap Discharge Rate EFLH H h fg Ec Base Therm Conversion Factor Where: (5) Steam Trap Discharge Rate = Steam loss in lb/hr. EFLH H = Equivalent full-load hours for heating, or hours of steam system pressuraization h fg = Latent heat of evaporation in Btu/lb from steam tables. Ec Combustion efficiency for boiler, if unavailable estimate efficiency to 70% Base Therm Conversion Factor = 100,000BTU/Therm (assumed) The Evaluators updated this formula as follows: 1) EFLH was replaced with hours of system pressurization. Steam traps are in operation whenever the system is pressurized; EFLH is a different metric, in totaling hours at full boiler load, and is not appropriate for this calculation. 2) Combustion efficiency was measured on-site as 83%. This was used in place of the 70% default value, lowering savings. Appendix A: Site Reports 14-30

261 Measure Life The EUL of this measure is 5 years. Source: NYSERDA Natural Gas Database ECM #2: Steam Leak Repair Calculated Savings: System energy savings were determined by calculating the pre-retrofit and post-retrofit energy losses and taking the difference in the calculations. Heat loss is calculated according to the following equation: Heat Loss ( Btu hr Where ) = Leak Rate (lbs) [Steam Enthalpy (Btu) MW Enthalpy (Btu hr lb lb )] Enthalpy of Steam at 60 psig = Btu/lb Enthalpy of makeup water at 65.6 F = 69.5 Leak Rate (lbs/hr) = x exp[0.562 x Plume Length (ft)] Measure Life The EUL of this measure is 5 years. Savings Results ECM #1: Steam Trap Replacement Using the above parameters, calculated savings of each replaced steam trap are presented in the table below. Line Size (inches) Orifice Size (inches) Inlet Pressure (PSIG) Outlet Pressure (PSIG) Applied Discharge Rate Therms Savings 3/4 1/ ,468 1/2 7/ ,351 3/4 7/ ,351 Total: 11,170 The calculated savings for ECM #1 are as follows: Annual Therms: 11,170 Peak Therms: 30.6 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-31

262 Lifetime Therms: 55,850 ECM #2: Steam Leak Repair Using the above parameters, calculated savings of each replaced steam trap are presented in the table below. Description hole in Y-strainer (Trap 13) Valve Leak east of Trap 18 Peaking Leak (Trap 34) Nipple Leak (Trap 45) Elbow Leak (Trap52) Qty of Leaks Plume Length (ft) Leak (lbs/hr) Btu/h Lost Annual Btu s Lost Annual CCF Lost ,015 83,325,169 1, , ,219,168 1, , ,257,053 5, ,015 83,325,169 1, ,015 83,325,169 1,009 Total: 10,248 The calculated savings for ECM #2 are as follows: Annual Therms: 10,248 Peak Therms: 28.1 Lifetime Therms: 51,240 Overall, project savings are as follows: Annual Therms: 21,418 Peak Therms: Lifetime Therms: 107,090 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. The parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Hours of Operation 8,760 0% 0 Boiler Efficiency 83% +/- 3% 751 The errors were then propagated as follows: Propogated Error = (σ hours ) 2 +(σ effic. ) 2 = 751 With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Appendix A: Site Reports 14-32

263 Uncertainty = 751 = 3. 5% 21, 418 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-33

264 Program CNP-CIS Project ID C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code General Medical and Surgical Hospitals Measures Steam Trap Replacement Annual Consumption CCF 1,032,270 Project Background The participant is a medical hospital that received incentives from Centerpoint for: ECM#1: Steam Trap Replacement. The participant is a hospital using two 700 HP steam boilers to provide steam for their facility; steam is used for a variety of uses at the hospitals, including domestic hot water and sterilization. The participant replaced 6 steam traps for this project. Line Size (inches) Steam Traps Replaced Orifice Size (inches) Inlet Pressure (PSIG) Outlet Pressure (PSIG) Applied Discharge Rate 1/ / / / / / M&V Methodology ECM #1: Steam Trap Replacement The M&V effort for this project follows the guidelines of the 2012 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement. Measurement and verification activities are based on the following assumptions: The steam boiler operates 8,760 hours per year based off information from the site; Based on combustion flue-gas analysis, the plant s boiler is approximately 84% efficient on average; Because replacement of failed open steam traps is a deemed measure, no M&V was conducted. Appendix A: Site Reports 14-34

265 Savings were calculated by adopting the procedure specified in Section of the Arkansas TRM V6.0. In this, steam trap savings are calculated as: Therm savings = Steam Trap Discharge Rate EFLH H h fg Ec Base Therm Conversion Factor Where: (1) Steam Trap Discharge Rate = Steam loss in lb/hr. EFLH H = Equivalent full-load hours h fg = Latent heat of evaporation in Btu/lb from steam tables. Ec Combustion efficiency for boiler, if unavailable estimate efficiency to 70% Base Therm Conversion Factor = 100,000BTU/Therm (assumed) The Evaluators updated this formula as follows: 3) EFLH was replaced with hours of system pressurization. Steam traps are in operation whenever the system is pressurized; EFLH is a different metric, in totaling hours at full boiler load, and is not appropriate for this calculation. 4) Combustion efficiency was measured on-site as 84%. This was used in place of the 70% default value, lowering savings. Measure Life The EUL of this measure is 5 years. Source: NYSERDA Natural Gas Database Savings Results ECM #1: Steam Trap Replacement Using the above parameters, calculated savings of each replaced steam trap are presented in the table below. Line Size (inches) Orifice Size (inches) Inlet Pressure (PSIG) Outlet Pressure (PSIG) Applied Discharge Rate Therms Savings 1/ ,025 3/ ,299 3/ ,546 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-35

266 1/ ,025 1/ ,025 3/ ,025 Total: 21,946 The calculated savings for ECM #1 are as follows: Annual Therms: 21,946 Peak Therms: Lifetime Therms: 109,728 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. The parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Hours of Operation 8,760 0% 0 Boiler Efficiency 84% +/- 3% 754 The errors were then propagated as follows: Propogated Error = (σ hours ) 2 +(σ effic. ) 2 = 754 With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Uncertainty = 754 = 3. 4% 21, 946 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-36

267 Program CNP-CIS Project ID C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code Reconstituted Wood Products Measures Oven Waste Heat Capture (Spillover) Annual Consumption CCF 318,680 Project Background The participant is a company that manufactures medium- and light-density fiberboard molding and millwork plant that installed: ECM#1: Oven Waste Heat Capture (Spillover) M&V Methodology ECM #1: Oven Waste Heat Capture (Spillover) The savings for ECM 1 are a result of offsetting the heating usage that would be required by the existing heating units should the waste heat from the oxidizer not be recovered. The gas savings are represented by the amount of energy in the airstream entering the production facility from the heat exchanger. The energy in the airstream, and therefore the gas savings, was calculated by Equation 1 below. Equation 1: Gas Consumption Savings Gas Consumption Savings (Ccf) = ( 1.08 x CFM x (T SA T OSA ) ) x Heating Hours 100,000 x Eff % Where: CFM = Total CFM of exhaust air entering production facility T EA = Average Temperature of supply air entering production facility T OSA = Average outside air temperature during periods when space heat is required for the facility and the oxidizer is in operation. (OSA Temp less than 55)(TMY for Springdale, AR) Eff % = Package HV Make-up Unit Efficiency (As determined by Unit data sheet) Heating Hours = Number of annual hours the facility requires space heat and the oxidizer is in operation Measure Life The EUL of this measure is 20 years. Savings Results ECM #1: Oven Waste Heat Capture (Spillover) The calculated savings for ECM #1 are as follows: Annual Therms: 20,736 Peak Therms: Appendix A: Site Reports 14-37

268 Lifetime Therms: 428,540 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. The parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Hours of Operation 2,232 0% 0 Boiler Efficiency 80% +/- 3% 804 The errors were then propagated as follows: Propogated Error = (σ hours ) 2 +(σ effic. ) 2 = 804 With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Uncertainty = 804 = 3. 75% 21, 418 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-38

269 Program CNP-CIS Project ID C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code 4953 Refuse Systems Measures Pipe Insulation Annual Consumption CCF 4,229,720 Project Background The participant is a hazardous waste disposal incinerator facility that received incentives from CenterPoint for: ECM#1: Pipe Insulation. The site is a hazardous waste disposal company that has many methods for eliminating hazardous industrial waste. At this site, there are five systems using natural gas; 4 bare pipes were insulated onsite. Bare Pipes Insulated Pipe Diameter Length (feet) (inches) M&V Methodology ECM #1: Insulation Installation The M&V effort for this project follows the guidelines of the 2012 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement. Measurement and verification activities are based on the following assumptions: The steam boiler operates 8,568 hours annually based on information from the site; Insulation will be 1.5 ceramic fiberglass with stainless steel jacketing. Pre-installation parameters of interest include: bare-metal temperature, equipment dimensions, ambient temperature, and hours of operation. During the site visit, the evaluators verified installation of two inches of fiberglass insulation and aluminum jacketing, as well as insulation temperature. Post measurements were also taken at still-exposed surfaces to verify that the system was still operating at the same temperature. Heat loss in the pre- and post- conditions was calculated as follows: Appendix A: Site Reports 14-39

270 Heat Loss (Pre-Retrofit) Where, L = Length of pipe To = Ambient air temperature (75 F) Ti = Surface temperature of the pipe. rb = Outer radius of pipe Q pre = 2πL(T i T o ) 1 rb hb hb = Air film values derived from ASHREA Table 15 Heat Loss (Post-Retrofit) Where, rc = Outside radius of the insulation 2πL(T i T o ) Q post = 1ln ( rc [ rb ) k insulation + 1 rc hc ] k insulation = thermal conductivity of insulation hc = Air film value Data Collection Procedures Data used in calculating savings with this project were collected as follows: Length & diameter of pipe: physical inspection where visible and review of building schematics where not visible. Ambient air temperature: facility set point Boiler efficiency: average of measurements at varying firing rates taken with a Portable Combustion Analyzer (found to be 77%) Surface temperature of pipes: collected with an infrared temperature thermometer. Air film values: derived from ASHREA Table 15 Annual operating hours of steam system: derived from facility interviews to determine factory schedule Calculated Savings: Appendix A: Site Reports 14-40

271 Measure Life Therms Savings = (Q pre Q post ) Hours of Operation Efficiency 100,000 BTU Therm The EUL of this measure is 5 years. Savings Results ECM #1: Insulation installation The resulting Q values from the equation above and Therms savings are presented in the table below. Insulated Pipe Savings Pipe Length (feet) Pipe Diameter (inches) Q pre Q post Therms Savings , , , , , , ,119 Total: 86,149 The calculated savings for ECM #1 are as follows: Annual Therms: 86,149 Peak Therms: Lifetime Therms: 430,747 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. The Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Hours of Operation 8,568 0% 0 Boiler Efficiency 77% +/- 3% 3,231 The errors were then propagated as follows: Propogated Error = (σ hours ) 2 +(σ effic. ) 2 = 3, 231 With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Uncertainty = 3, 231 = 3. 75% 86, 149 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-41

272 Program CNP-CIS Project ID C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code Rubber Product Manufacturing Measures Boiler Retrofit Annual Consumption CCF 94,398 Project Background The participant is a manufacturing plant that received incentives from Centerpoint for: ECM#1: Boiler Retrofit M&V Methodology ECM #1: Boiler Retrofit Saving for the increase in boiler efficiency was calculated using the following equation informed by facility billing data: Therm savings = Cap EFLH (1 Eff base Effas built ) 100,000 Where: Cap EFLH = Capacity of boiler, Btu/hr = Equivalent full load hours of operation = (Annual Usage CCF / Cap) x 100,000 Eff base Eff as-built = Baseline boiler efficiency = As-built boiler efficiency Saving for the boiler insulation was calculated using the following equation: Therm savings = (SA base HL base SA as built HL as built ) Hrs 100,000 Eff as built Where: SA base = Surface area of baseline boiler, ft 2 HL base = Baseline heat loss per ft 2, Btu/hr/ft 2 SA as-built = Surface area of the as-built boiler, ft 2 HL as-built = As-built heat loss per ft 2, Btu/hr/ft 2 Hrs Eff as-built = Annual hours of operation for the boiler = As-built boiler efficiency Appendix A: Site Reports 14-42

273 Saving for the feed water economizer was calculated using the following equation: Therm savings = 500 GPM (FW O FW I ) Hrs 100,000 Eff as built Where: GPM FW O FW I Hrs Eff as-built Data Collection Procedures = Average flow rate of the feed water system = Feed water outlet temperature, o F = Feed water inlet temperature, o F = Annual hours of operation for the boiler = As-built boiler efficiency Data used in calculating savings with this project were collected as follows: Measure Life Annual natural gas billing data for the facility was obtained from the utility company. Boiler name plate data was documented. Baseline and as-built boiler circumference and length were measured for surface area calculations. Boiler surface temperature measurements were taken with an infrared thermometer. 3E plus piping calculator was used to determine heat loss coefficients for the baseline and as-built boilers. Feed water outlet temperature was recorded using a HOBO Channel Logger with T-Type Thermocouple. Feed water inlet temperature was recorded using a HOBO Channel Logger with T-Type Thermocouple. Feed water flow rate was measured using a GE Sensing Ultra Sonic Flow Meter, and verified using annual billing data and engineering calculations. The EUL of this measure is 20 years. Source: DEER 2014 Savings Results ECM #1: Boiler Retrofit Appendix A: Site Reports 14-43

274 Individual Therms savings are presented in the tables below: Boiler Replacement Savings Value Units Rated Capacity 9,704,058 Btu/hr Baseline Efficiency 85 % As-Built Efficiency 77.9 % EFLH 7,200 Hours Annual Savings Therms Peak Reduction 259 Therms Lifetime Savings 1,887,960 Therms Using the above parameters, calculated savings of each replaced steam trap are presented in the table below. The calculated savings for ECM #1 are as follows: Annual Therms: 94,398 Peak Therms: 259 Lifetime Therms: 1,887,960 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. The The errors were then propagated as follows: Parameter Uncertainty Sigma Model Confidence Interval +/- 18% 16,992 Propogated Error = (σ Model. ) 2 = With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Uncertainty = 16, , 398 = 18%% Appendix A: Site Reports 14-44

275 Program Project ID CNP-CIS C&I Solutions Facility SIC Code 5147 Meat and Meat Products Measures Steam Pipe and Tank Insulation Annual Consumption CCF 3,022,848 Project Background The participant is a manufacturing facility that received incentives from CenterPoint for: ECM#1: Steam Pipe and Tank Insulation. The customer is a 50,000 ft 2 plant that manufactures pet food, feed, and fertilizer using meat from other processing plants. Three boilers use the majority of the facility s gas to provide steam for the meat processing. Pipes Insulated Pipe Length (feet) Pipe Diameter (inches) Bare Pipe Temperature ( F) Appendix A: Site Reports 14-45

276 Tank Insulated Height Length Surface Area Bare Pipe Description (ft) (ft) (ft2) Temperature (⁰F) Horizontal Boiler Room Condensate Tank M&V Methodology ECM #1: Insulation Installation The M&V effort for this project follows the guidelines of the 2012 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement. Measurement and verification activities are based on the following assumptions: Insulation used was 2 ceramic fiberglass with aluminum jackets. The average annual ambient air temperature is 75 F. For the section of pipe that is located outside the facility, wind speed is estimated to be 7.09 mph and ambient air temperature is F. The facility s boilers operate with approximately 76.85% efficiency. Annual hours of operation: 8,568 Pre-installation parameters of interest include: type of surface, bare-metal temperature, equipment dimensions and quantity, ambient temperature, and hours of operation. Heat loss in the pre- and post- conditions was calculated as follows: Heat Loss (Pre-Retrofit) Where, L = Length of pipe To = Ambient air temperature (75 F) Q pre = 2πL(T i T o ) 1 rb hb Ti = Surface temperature of the pipe. The pipes are thin walled so the surface temperature is assumed to be the same as the temperature of steam. rb = Outer radius of pipe hb = Air film values derived from ASHREA Table 15 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-46

277 Heat Loss (Post-Retrofit) 2πL(T i T o ) Q post = 1ln ( rc [ rb ) k insulation + 1 rc hc ] Where, rc = Outside radius of the insulation k insulation = thermal conductivity of insulation hc = Air film value Data Collection Procedures Data used in calculating savings with this project were collected as follows: Length & diameter of pipe: physical inspection where visible and review of building schematics where not visible. Ambient air temperature: facility set point Boiler efficiency: average of measurements at varying firing rates taken with a Portable Combustion Analyzer (found to be 76.85%) Surface temperature of pipes: collected with an infrared temperature thermometer. Air film values: derived from ASHREA Table 15 Annual operating hours of steam system: from facility interviews to determine factory schedule Calculated Savings: Measure Life Therms Savings = (Q pre Q post ) Hours of Operation Efficiency 100,000 BTU Therm The EUL of this measure is 20 years. Savings Results ECM #1: Insulation installation The resulting Q values from the equation above and Therms savings are presented in the table below. Appendix A: Site Reports 14-47

278 Insulated Pipe Savings Equivalent Pipe Length Pipe Diameter (feet) (inches) Q pre Q post Therms Savings , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,218 Total: 123,834 Description Horizontal Boiler Room Condensate Tank Insulated Tank Savings Length Height (ft) Q (ft) pre Q post Therms Savings ,568 Total: 14,568 Tank and Pipe Insulation Total: 138,402 The calculated savings for the total insulation project are as follows: Annual Therms: 138,402 Peak Therms: Lifetime Therms: 2,768,040 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-48

279 Uncertainty The Evaluators conducted a propagation of uncertainty analysis for this project. The parameters and their uncertainty are summarized in the table below. Parameter Value Uncertainty Sigma Boiler Efficiency 76.85% +/- 3% 5,200 The errors were then propagated as follows: Propogated Error = (σ effic. ) 2 = 5, 200 With this propagated error, the savings estimate for this project as overall uncertainty of: Uncertainty = 5, 200 = 3. 76% 138, 402 Appendix A: Site Reports 14-49

280 APPENDIX B ARKANSAS MARKETING MATERIALS

281 APPENDIX B ARKANSAS MARKETING MATERIALS BUSINESS PRINT ADVERTISEMENT PAGE 3 RESIDENTIAL TRADE ALLY POSTCARD PAGE 4 WEB NAVIGATION PROMOTION PAGE 5 COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER REBATE REMINDER PAGE 6 TRADE ALLY BOOKLET PAGE 7-9 WATER HEATING POINT OF PURCHASE BROCHURE PAGE 10 LOW FLOW BILLING INSERT PAGE 11 FOOD SERVICE REBATE PROMOTION PAGE 12 SCOOP TRADE ALLY MEETING INVITATION PAGE 13 ENERGY LINK PROMOTION PAGE 14

282 3

283 4

284 5

285 6

286 7

287 8

288 9

289 10

290 11

291 12

292 13

293 14