Seminar on status of MEASURE LIFETIME WORK

1. Seminar on status of MEASURE LIFETIME WORK RTF EUL Kickoff Meeting, August 2011 Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates skumatz@serainc.com, 303/494-1178

2. PERSISTENCE / RETENTION

3. RETENTION / PERSISTENCE • Persistence, measure life, EULs, 50% median, in place and operable • Protocols, best practices summaries on samples, data collection, analysis, modeling, comparisons, documentation • Some variations in considering adaptations for behavioral programs

4. REMAINING USEFUL LIFETIME (RUL) • Conceptual issue – early replacement • Intervene at replacement  standard vs. efficient • Intervene early  original vs. efficient for “early” part •  standard vs. efficient for later period • Question is, length of time from end of life? • Few studies; 1/3 ad hoc • Welch & Rogers 2010; • Survey, Weibull, curves for residential equipment • System dynamics / stocks cohorts • Strong application for behavioral • adoption curves / timing / lifetimes? Measurement issue 4

5. TECHNICAL DEGRADATION • Technical degradation (TDFs) • Addressed in CA-EM&V protocols • Differences in decay? Very few primary studies • 2 effects - Technical degradation & behavioral / operational based on quality of use & upkeep – need studies on combination • Behavioral very parallel; no studies 5

6. LIFETIMES / EULs STUDIES • CPUC • Protocols, results, measures with gaps • Updated lifetimes in report • All sectors, many measures  incorporated into DEER (database for energy efficient resources, energy.ca.gov/deer), protocols • Reviewed program, savings, measures, sampling, field work, data validation, analysis, justifiability • Strengths, weaknesses, “score” • Hundreds of millions in shareholder claims • SCE / DEER • CPUC / CIEE – nationwide review • Individual studies

7. SCORING CRITERION ON CPUC RETENTION PROJECT-SUMMARY

8. EUL STUDY – BEST PRACTICES ISSUES • Small sample size • Population list problems; needs vary by lifetime of measure • Omitted other models • Potential variations by measure type; easy to add; improves potential fit; not a priori • Ambiguous failure dates • Frequent surveys; “bound”, labeling, phone survey for some • Poor documentation in report • Methodology, weighting, failures, conclusions • Results not put in context • Over time; other studies

9. EUL VALUES USED IN US - RESIDENTIAL Note – some differences in values between CA, NW, NE values – Especially usage / weather based… 9

10. EUL VALUES USED IN US - COMMERCIAL 10

11. ISSUES IN EULs • Process values lacking (small sample size) • Some dependent on operating assumptions • Some end-uses missing / gaps • CFLs, lighting – updated with operating hours • Measures with limited (unreliable or zero) studies – some with much attributable savings • Models of air compress, A/C, cook, hvac, refrig/freezer, process, shell, (motors/pumps, dryers, lighting), ASD/VSD in some sectors • Missing for plug loads • Building shell – at least verify • Priority depends on future savings, rarity, variations; waiting hurts EUL data • Trend toward simplified tables, BUT research shows strong variations in turnover by business type 11

12. EULs FOR BEHAVIORAL PROGRAMS • Missing for behavioral / educational programs • 2 studies • CBSM • Best practices with nuances - Partial retention; frequency of data collection; large surveys and random assignment • Retention of “upstream” complicated 12

13. MEASURE LIFETIME ESTIMATES / RETENTION

14. VARIATIONS IN PERSISTENCE 14

15. ISSUES / PROBLEMS • Best practices • Results / gaps • TDF • RUL • Behavioral • Key component of program savings • Potential bias away from new, creative • Risk • Complexities for behavioral • Little primary research / dormant / agreement 15

16. CONCLUSIONS – MEASURE LIFETIMES • Measure lifetimes are a key element in the calculation of energy savings from energy efficiency programs • Measure lifetimes (and methods) are fairly consistent for many measure-based programs in residential and commercial sectors • Issue of simplified EUL tables / caution • Shortage of primary research on technical degradation (TDF); shortage of research on RULs • Virtual absence of studies addressing retention or persistence of energy savings from behavioral and education programs • Identifying the measure lifetimes of behavioral and education programs is complicated as more media messages on behavior and education “bleed” across territories 16

17. RECOMMENDATIONS – MEASURE LIFETIMES • Conduct measure lifetime studies on: • Process equipment, some shell measures, cooking, refrigeration, and air compressors • Conduct technical degradation studies that account for mechanical and behavioral performance-related changes • Conduct studies on retention or persistence of energy savings from behavioral and education programs • Require new behavioral programs to conduct retention assessments every year or two • Apply different evaluation methods to a variety of behavioral programs 17

18. NEXT STEPS / RESEARCH NEEDED

19. CONTEXT DISCUSSION • Investment dollars at risk • Debate over precision • Granger – evaluation to avoid making wrong decisions • Multiple applications… varying precision needs? • Program decisions to be advised include: • Public dollars responsibly spent • Apportionment of dollars between strategies • Precision based on value / cost of possibility of wrong decision… • Yes/No vs. precise level of shareholder dollars…

20. KEY USES OF EVALUATION RESULTS / PRECISION NEEDS Increasing Rigor (& cost) Deemed Detailed M&V, site verification, + 20

21. Persistence 21

22. QUESTIONS? Project Manager contact: Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 Phone: 303/494-1178 Email: skumatz@serainc.com