1 / 11

PG&E Local Government Partnership (LGP) Programs 2004-05 Evaluation Results

PG&E Local Government Partnership (LGP) Programs 2004-05 Evaluation Results. Steve Grover ECONorthwest Presentation to CALMAC / MAESTRO July 26, 2006. 2004-05 Evaluation Tasks. Evaluation done by ECONorthwest, Freeman Sullivan, and SBW Participant phone surveys (2,382)

natan
Download Presentation

PG&E Local Government Partnership (LGP) Programs 2004-05 Evaluation Results

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PG&E Local Government Partnership (LGP) Programs 2004-05 Evaluation Results Steve Grover ECONorthwest Presentation to CALMAC / MAESTRO July 26, 2006

  2. 2004-05 Evaluation Tasks • Evaluation done by ECONorthwest, Freeman Sullivan, and SBW • Participant phone surveys (2,382) • On-site verification audits (326) • Utility and program staff interviews • Review of savings calculations • Final report will be available in August on CALMAC website ECONorthwest

  3. Local Government Partnership Programs Programs generally had residential and commercial components, CFLs and T8s were primary measures. Specific Partnership programs: • East Bay • Bakersfield / Kern County • Silicon Valley (Commercial only) • El Dorado • Fresno • Stockton ECONorthwest

  4. Annual Household Income ECONorthwest

  5. Spanish Speaking Households ECONorthwest

  6. Commercial Renters ECONorthwest

  7. Commercial Participants Rating Local Government Sponsorship “Very Important” ECONorthwest

  8. Commercial Participants Rating PG&E Sponsorship “Very Important” ECONorthwest

  9. Lack of Awareness of Other Efficiency Programs (Residential) ECONorthwest

  10. Lack of Awareness of Other Efficiency Programs (Commercial) ECONorthwest

  11. LGP Conclusions and Recommendations • Satisfaction with the partnerships is high and both utility and local government sponsorship is very important to participants. • Importance placed on sponsorship and success in reaching certain HTR market segments indicate that the partnership model is working • Awareness of other efficiency programs is very low, referral methods should be improved if this is to remain a criterion for the partnerships. • PG&E should require that implementers submit complete participant contact information. ECONorthwest

More Related