ADRS Customer Insight: Research Results

1. BOICE DUNHAM GROUP ADRS Customer Insight:Research Results Craig Boice Boice Dunham Group A Report to Working Group III San Francisco, California January 7, 2005

2. Agenda • BDG addressed four ADRS research objectives • Motivation to join and remain inthe program • Ranked relative importance of program features • Insight into overall consumer experience • Customer satisfaction with the program • These research objectives were identified in the joint utility ADRS implementation plan filed October 31, 2003 • Customer assessment was of the GoodWatts program, which included the CPP-F rate, the Invensys technology, and the GoodWatts Web site and periodic communications

3. 1: Motivation to Join and Remain • What fraction of the participating customers were interested in installing technology with any of these six capabilities, or others? • Ability to control multiple customer appliance loads based on customer programming • Customer ability to override any price or emergency signal • Ability to receive and send signals related to: • Pricing conditions • Electricity load levels at the house • Status of selected appliance loads (on or off) • Load drops achieved

4. 1: Motivation to Join and Remain • What fraction of the participating customers were interested in installing technology with any of these six capabilities, or others? • Capability of handling either pricing or load curtailment signals • Capability of confirming the level of load reduction achieved within 1 hour of a price or emergency signal (operator and customer) • Capability of using existing communication lines into the home to send and receive signals • Others identified by participants

5. 1: Research Method • Factor Analysis • Derives decisions from underlying motivating factors • Here surveys the contribution of 20 specified factors in enlistment, learning, and adoption • Technology factors assumed in ADRS framework • Follows telephone collection of completed survey data • Schedule • Similar questions completed twice, by 149 of 176 participants in July, and 137 participants in November • Quantitative statistical analysis of results

6. 1: Interest in Technology Factors • All six technology factors were of positive interest

7. 1: Interest in Other Factors

8. 1: Interest in Other Factors

9. 2: Ranked Importance of Features • Are there some of the six identified capabilities or others that are considered more or less important by customers? • Customers learned the system • enlisted based on recruitment materials • after installation, experimented with the system, may have changed their routines • intended to adopt or leave based on their experience • Customer rankings changed remarkably little • Similar line of inquiry with utility distribution planners and system dispatchers was postponed

10. 2: Research Method • Maximum-Difference Conjoint Analysis • A form of forced-ranking factor analysis • Provides the relative importance of 20 specified factors in enlistment, learning, and adoption • Technology factors and conjoint study assumed in ADRS framework • Follows telephone collection of completed survey data • Schedule • Same survey completed twice, by 149 of 176 participants in July, and 137 participants in November • Quantitative statistical analysis of results

11. 2: Ranked Importance of Features

12. 2: Ranked Importance of Features

13. 2: Ranked Importance of Features

14. 2: Feature Rankings Over Time • Consistently the most important by far: • Saving money • Better control over my home • Slightly less important with experience: • The website with my energy information • Being a good citizen • Slightly more important with experience: • The option to override • Incentive payments • Online reprogramming

15. 3: Insight into Consumer Experience • What fraction of the participants considered the control technology installed to be useful and reliable? • What fraction report that the technology worked, in the sense that it either reduced their bills or gave them more control over their energy use? • What recommendations did participants have to make the technology more useful or user friendly? • Would some or all of these participants be willing to pay for all or most of these systems’ installation costs, after they have experienced these systems’ benefits over the course of the pilot?

16. 3: Research Method • In-home interviewing • “State-of-Mind” interviewing reveals: • customer perceptions of system operations, their own behavior, utility motivations • customer attitudes, ambitions, expectations, preferences • Non-participants also interviewed for contrast • Interview tapes • analyzed for themes, messages, and mental models • supplemented by survey questions • Schedule • 22 interviews in August and 22 interviews in October (38 participants and 6 non-participants)

17. 3: Insight into Consumer Experience • What fraction of the participants considered the control technology installed to be useful and reliable? • Participants measure usefulness primarily in terms of savings on their energy bills, as well as: • becoming mindful about electric use • energy savings • better control of their homes • stewardship of their communities • Participants used different program strategies • Spectators who let it function automatically • Converts who changed behavior as much as possible • Teammates who worked with the tools and data

18. 3: Insight into Consumer Experience • What fraction of the participants considered the control technology installed to be useful and reliable?

19. 3: Insight into Consumer Experience • What fraction report that the technology worked, in the sense that it either reduced their bills or gave them more control over their energy use?

20. 3: Insight into Consumer Experience • What recommendations did participants have to make the technology more useful or user friendly? • Timely and regular feedback on behavior, results, and recommendations: • my energy usage and my bills (baseline and ongoing) • programming and reprogramming routines • program economics for me, my utility, and my community • Provide control, not merely data: • easier navigation and simpler data presentation (website, thermostat, printed materials) • more convenient control of pools, spas, and other appliances

21. 3: Insight into Consumer Experience • Would some or all of these participants be willing to pay for all or most of these systems’ installation costs, after they have experienced these systems’ benefits over the course of the pilot?

22. 4: Customer Satisfaction • What was the average and range of customer satisfaction levels observed using this type of equipment?

23. 4: Research Method • Survey • Standard customer satisfaction measures assumed in ADRS framework • Mailed survey with mailed response • Schedule • Survey completed in December • To date, 84 received, 64 analyzed, remainder solicited • Quantitative statistical analysis of results

24. 4: Customer Satisfaction

25. 4: Customer Satisfaction

26. Primary Conclusions • Across utilities, strategies, and time, most GoodWatts participants: • defined the program in terms of savings on the electric bill and better control over my home • were satisfied with the program, believed it worked for them, and would recommend it to others • Participants seek economical control routines: • action-oriented information, training, and devices • simpler, easier, and more convenient system operations • a better understanding of program economics, especially where pricing and rates are concerned • The GoodWatts experience has been positive