Community Pilot ~ Project Overview and Final Outcomes

1. Community Pilot~Project Overview and Final Outcomes 12-17-13

2. Agenda • WPS – Project Overview • Communications/Branding • Rates • Tools/Tech discussion – Utility perspective • Focus on Energy – Programs • Energy Center of WI • Tools/Tech discussion – Customer perspective • DNV GL (KEMA) – Evaluation • Findings • Recommendations

3. Overview • 2008 - WPS reached an agreement with CUB to provide increased funding to WPS customers participating in energy efficiency programs. The additional funds supported two types of programs: • Territory-Wide programs (mostly bonus incentives on top of existing Focus programs) • Community Pilot programs – test the effectiveness of new tools, technologies, program and rate approaches. • Key requirement: WPS jointly develop and implement at least three community-based pilot projects. WPS worked collaboratively with CUB, PSCW staff, and Focus on Energy.

4. Community Pilot Key Messages • iCanConserve was a bold, new community energy conservation pilot project • Participation was voluntary • Encouraged customers to conserve energy and change energy behaviors • Lowered energy bills • Helped the environment • Be part of the community

5. Community PilotGoals & Objectives • Evaluate customer response to current and new innovative rates • Better understand the communication and education methods to encourage customer participation in energy efficiency • Create awareness of energy usage via feedback devices and web-based tools • Create scalable models incorporating lessons learned from each pilot community

6. Community PilotSelection Criteria • Size of community • City or village (1-10,000 customers) • “Green” eco-friendly • Progressive • Diverse community • Active parks and recreation • Active business associations • South of Hwy 64

7. Scope • Three communities • Brillion - October 2009 • Allouez - September 2010 • Plover - July 2011 (Staggered approach to build on lessons learned) • All communities completed – December 2012 • Residential and small commercial customers included • Large commercial and industrial customers not included

8. Community Characteristics • Brillion – 1,500 customers • Tend to be older, more conservative, reluctant to change or adopt new technologies • Fewer internet connected customers • Offers are “too good to be true” • Receive information via TV, bill stuffers, news, neighbors • Word of mouth is extremely important – leverage Energy Advocates • Community newspaper • Small businesses with an average of 5 FTE’s

9. Community Characteristics • Allouez – 6,000 customers • Younger, wealthier, and more connected • Provides opportunity to leverage microsite • No newspaper or schools so marketing channels differed • Community leader support and involvement was high • Small businesses with an average of 12 FTE’s • Plover – 6,000 customers • Similar to Allouez except • More renters • Slightly younger population – more families • Plover newspaper and schools

10. Community PilotKey Program Elements

11. Community PilotProgram Offerings

12. Community PilotProgram Offerings

13. Community PilotCommunity Reward Outcome

14. Final Report • Final Report available on Public Service Commission of Wisconsin website: http://psc.wi.gov/ • Search Electronic Requirement Filing (ERF) System • Docket #: 6690-UR-119

15. Key Findings

16. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Marketing & Communications • Successes: • iCanConserve Microsite • iCanConserve Brand & WPS Logo • Involvement of Local Officials • Email Newsletter • Challenges: • Difficult to get customers to stop at pilot specific events (Brillion and Plover). • Various channels were used to deliver messages • Challenge to get customers interested/motivated to take action • Media channel selection limited due to “spillover” effect (Allouez & Plover). • Plover Success Kits • Community Involvement • Pilot-ending messages • Referral Rewards • WPS/Focus Collaboration

17. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Marketing & Communications • Lessons Learned: • Reduce communications after second year in first community. • Started to “tune out” pilot messaging (higher-than-normal frequency). • Individual messaging helped clarify each offer vs. multiple pilot offerings in one communication. • Customer’s preference for face-to-face interaction with the Energy Advocates. • Using testimonials to push the peer-to-peer participation in communications. • Tying actual energy savings (dollars) to the programs and rate offerings in communications to give customers a sense of the payback for such efforts.

18. Overview of Communications Topics: Program Offerings Rate Options/Education Energy-Saving Tips Community Reward Testimonials Channels: • Bill Inserts • Targeted Web Banners • Direct Mail • Emails • Microsite (variety of information) • Newspaper Ads/Editorials • Free Standing Inserts • Social Media • Yard Signs

19. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Rates • Successes: • Rate Videos • http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/home/response_rewards.aspx • Outreach • Success Kits • Understanding Opt-out impacts • Load Shifting behavior change • Conservation behavior change • Google PowerMeter and WPS Usage Graphs • Plover Opt Out Evaluation • Simple is better

20. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Rates • Challenges • Engaging/Educating Customers • Major appliances – Natural Gas/propane or electricity? • Reviewing Rate Options • Provided tables showing appliance consumption for small and large appliances • Impact of appliances to overall bill • What to run off-peak • Cell Phone Bill vs. Electric Bill Options

21. Community PilotEPRI Demonstration Projects 152 W Each, LED 311W Each, High Pressure Sodium

22. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • EPRI Initiatives – Hyper-Efficient Appliances • Refrigerators • Design options to increase the energy efficiency of refrigerators include: • Variable-speed compressors • Adaptive defrost technologies • Improved insulation • Better-sealing doors and gaskets • Alternative refrigerants

23. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned EPRI - Refrigerators • Savings based on manufacturer/model • Range: -5% to 45% • Barrier to market adoption • Cost • 1980 – avg. refrigerator • 19 cubic feet • used 1275 kWh/yr. • 2010 – avg. refrigerator • 22 cubic feet • uses 500 kWh/yr. • Average energy savings of about 50% (all host sites) 23

24. Average energy savings of 8 - 15% per washer-dryer load • Average hot water savings (gallons) of about 42% per load • ~90% of the energy used for washers is for heating water • Water extraction in the water spin cycle reduces dryer energy use Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned EPRI-Washer/Dryer 24

25. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • EPRI Initiatives – LED Lighting • Successes: • Customer Perspective • Informal feedback - LED lights were favorable. • Collaborative project made it possible for this technology to be used in Brillion; otherwise cost prohibitive. • Operating Perspective • Cold weather in NE WI did not hamper operation. • Energy savings ranged from 20% to 70% • Challenges: • The collection of photometric data was a challenge. • Circuit was controlled by a remote photo eye. Resulted in turn on and turn off times that would not be considered normal. • Location of the test site was a parking lot at a mini mall, which was not a high traffic area.

26. LED Street & Area Lighting Brillion Data Research Objective: Assess light emitting diode (LED) technology by measuring performance and user satisfaction of the technology when installed in street and area lighting locations.

27. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • EPRI Initiatives – Plug-In Electric Vehicles • Successes: • First-ever, North America-based scale demonstration of first production Plug-in Electric Vehicles. • Thirty (30) utilities, sixty-one (61) 2011 Chevrolet Volt vehicles, Texas to Manitoba, Maine to Hawaii footprint. • Focus on utility industry perspective – infrastructure impact, energy use, effect of various parameters on energy consumption and consumer preferences around infrastructure and charging. • Comprehensive data analysis spanning over 750,000 miles of driving and several thousand charge events over 2 years.

28. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • EPRI Initiatives – Plug-In Electric Vehicles • Challenges • Logistical challenges focused around structuring the program terms that balancedrisk(liability) of the new technology, ownershipof the vehicles, confidentiality of information and technical objectives. Total negotiations > a year to complete. • Enterprise risk management – with an advanced technology class of vehicle being driven by regular drivers, liability and risk exposure were major concerns. To resolve this, EPRI carried a fleet-wide insurance policy for any unforeseen events. • Technical challenges focused around getting data to flow regularly from GM (OnStar) and analyzing it for meaningful results, as well as getting the EPRI-designed data acquisition platform running smoothly.

29. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • EPRI Initiatives – PEVs • As of Jan 31, 2013 the fleet totaled 738,000 miles; 359,000 miles on electric. • As of Jan 31, 2013 the fleet totaled 128 AC megawatt-hours.

30. Tools & Technology

31. (EPRI) Feedback Type Categorization

32. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Home Energy Report • Designed based on industry research and customer feedback • Incorporated key data and information • Kept data consistent with online and on-bill data • Mailings in spring and fall

33. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Home Energy Report • Successes: • Two focus groups: • Customers perceived the HER as a value added service • Value in viewing their personal historical usage data, even if they aren’t taking energy saving efforts • Paper format was well accepted - mental trigger to think about energy usage • Customers trust the data and the utility • While viewing the entire report, customers found the most value from the usage graphs • The design was very appropriate, from the packaging to the overall layout of the report • Report spurred discussions within the household • Energy savings tips were of value • Comparison to average home (terminology) was preferred vs. providing a comparison to their neighbor

34. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Home Energy Report • Challenges: • Defining requirements and layout brought complexity : • Average home comparison and if it should be regional, etc. • Variables in customer data • Bill adjustments and exceptions • Multiple electric or gas meters at one location • Weather normalization

35. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Home Energy Report • Lessons Learned: • Focus Group Feedback: • Implementation options – potential opt-out process for those not interested • Customers would like to see more information about incentives, other programs and rate options • Comparison process must be done carefully - customers stated that the term “neighbor” was problematic, however the “average home” terminology was preferred • Customers requested a checklist of items to complete prior to the next heating/cooling season • Report is required to be a 1st class mailing

36. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Google Powermeter

37. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Google PowerMeter • Successes: • ~67% of participants continued to use it at least once per week. • Customer linked the PowerMeter to their iGoogle account • Customers became more conscious of energy consumption • Challenges: • Initial enrollment labor intensive, customers were manually entered in batches • Data was 24 hours old once viewed by customers • Comparison to other WPS tools, looks, etc.

38. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Google PowerMeter • Lessons Learned: • Customer Perspective • Inability to make translation from energy usage to bill savings • Customers did not know what contributed to hourly energy load “spikes” • Would like to see information on natural gas usage • Would like to see calculated dollars saved on current plan vs. other rate plans • Believability and accuracy of energy usage and calculations

39. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Web Tools

40. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Web Tools • Successes: • Customers felt they were user friendly and easy to interpret • Customers were able to measure historical changes • Interview respondents used the graphs to understand usage patterns • Challenges: • Color-coding of TOU rates were initially misleading • Throughout design of the graphs, actual cost data was considered, but too costly

41. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Web Tools • Lessons Learned: • Receipt of bill triggered review of usage graphs • Generally accessed every two weeks to once a month. • Customers became accustomed to the 1-2 day lag • Customers want to see usage along with cost • Customer wanted to see energy usage as a whole for their community • average usage per day, • household comparisons. • Some suggested providing quarter-hour intervals in an effort to identify appliance usage

42. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Smart Thermostat • Successes: • Provided the customer with remote access • User friendly control settings • Created awareness of temperature settings and schedules • Created awareness of energy usage and cost • Minimal installation issues • Challenges: • Internet connectivity issues caused lack of control • Warranty returns and exchanges • Some users thought display was problematic

43. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Smart Thermostat • Customers also received: • Live weather feeds and weather forecasts • Temperature alerts • Helpful conservation reminders

44. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Smart Thermostat • Lessons Learned: • Additional critical-peak pricing notification options: • Customers were not always home to see the messages on the thermostat. • Email notification received after had started • Customers were not aware of all thermostat features: • Most controlled the thermostat locally, and not remotely • Customers did not review home energy reports via the customer portal. • Easier enrollment and un-enrollment processes needed for expansion • A customer notification, via email, to resolve their Internet connectivity issues.

45. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Smart Thermostat • Customers preferred use of touch screen versus for changes • Most customers used the default control scheme for critical-peak price events. • Control summary: • 43 customers – altered set point 4 degrees higher (relative adjustment-default) • 1 customer – altered set point 5 degrees higher (relative adjustment) • 1 customer – altered set point 7 degrees higher (relative adjustment) • 1 customer – altered set point to 80 degrees (absolute adjustment) • 4 customers – Turned system off • Training the customer call center related to expanding territory wide

46. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Home Energy Management System (HEMS) • Setups • CT based Installations • In-home current transformers installations • Zigbee based communications • Additional meter installed on home with communication capabilities

47. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Home Energy Management System (HEMS) • Successes: • In-home device communication was solid and reliable • Smart meter-based HEMS reported no delays in real-time information • Nearly all households, used the Home Base to understand appliance impacts • Challenges: • Customer’s home router caused reliability issues • Proximity issues between the Home Base and the smart meter • Installation of the current transformer (CT) could be difficult • Dual socket adaptors were needed to keep the billing meter in tack • Customer was not able to select program billing dates • WPS managed rates on device, holidays, TOU periods • Blocks were not supported.

48. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Home Energy Management System (HEMS) • Lessons Learned: • Immaturity of advanced meter technology used caused delays • Package disbursement goals limited selection for some customers • Over a 6 month period the frequency of use decreased • The energy usage data updates needs to be as real-time as possible • Sockets and strips and time management were often reported to be unused • Preferred method of access was via the Home Base directly • Mobile application was not highly adopted due to limited functionality.

49. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Direct Load Control • Successes: • Appearance of the DRU is similar to the legacy DLC devices. • Indication lights on the DRU give status to customers • DRU’s can perform shed and cycle functions in a similar manner as legacy DLCs • Challenges: • 50% cycling capabilities required manual recording of daily heat indexes • To expand this weighting signal would be sent as part of an automated process • Installation challenges which could result in additional contractor installation costs: • Less space in DRU unit to connect A/C and Water Heater wires • Extra compartment with 4 additional screws covering the high voltage side access • Protective barriers around relays

50. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Direct Load Control • Lessons Learned: • Randomization differences in the DRU vs. legacy DLC: • Still small percentage of area not covered , 3% • Customer cycling program requires more attention to daily heat and humidity metrics than the existing DLC system