Climate & Usage, Health & SafetyLessons Learned

ESAP Workshop #1October 17, 2011

Outline

• Mild Climates• Extreme Climates

– Discussion• Customer Usage, Low-Income Profiles

– Discussion

3

Installation Rates (2008)measures for most climates & dwelling types

SF MF MH• Refrigerator 26% 19% 30%• CFLs, or 82% 81% 85%

– Occupancy sensor

• Other lighting – Hard-wired fixtures 37% 16% 33%– torchiere

• Hot Water Reduction (DHW)– Low-Flow Showerheads 61% 70% 38%– Aerators 64% 75% 46%– Heater/Pipe Insulation 14% 5% 8%

4

2009 CA RASS Electric Consumption

2

Electric Consumption (2009 CA RASS Figure ES-3)

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

Forecast Climate Zone

kWh

per H

ouse

hold

water

space

base

5

CA Climate Zones

6

Low-Income Households, CZCZ Utility % dwellings % served ’08

1 PG&E 1% <1%

2 PG&E 3% 2%

3 PG&E 10% 10%

4 PG&E, (SCG) 4% 3%

5 PG&E, SCG 1% 1%

6 SCE, SCG, SDG&E 7% 2%

7 SDG&E, (SCG) 6% 8%

8 SCE, SCG 13% 13%

9 SCE, SCG 17% 12%

10 SCE, SCG, SDG&E 9% 17%

11 PG&E 5% 4%

12 PG&E 7% 9%

13 PG&E, SCE, SCG 8% 11%

14 (PG&E), SCE, SCG, SDG&E 4% 3%

15 SCE, SCG, (SDG&E) 1% 2%

16 PG&E, SCE, SCG 2% 1%

7

Installation Rates (2008)

heating/cooling

SF MF MH• Envelope & Air Sealing 70% 73% 48%• Attic Insulation 7% 1% 0%

• Furnace Repair/Replace ^ 13% 1% 8%

• A/C*, or 33% 6% 9%• Evap Cooler* 16% 0% 16%

^for gas utilities *for eligible climate zones 10-16

8

Heating & Cooling Insights2009 Impact Eval

• The survey assessed the quality of installation, measure retention, reasons for removal of measures, missed opportunities, post-installation use of the efficient equipment, and behavioral changes made as a result of the program (p.12)

– 1,502 phone surveys – furnaces, weatherization, evap coolers

– 382 on-site surveys of single-family homes –furnaces & evap coolers

• Temperature varies within climate zone

• Current ESAP policy is to approve measures approval by climate zone– “Specifying homes eligible for specific weather-sensitive measures based on CEC climate

zone may eliminate some participants with potentially cost effective installations.” (2005, p. 15) (2009, p.95)

– Table 3 in 2009 Report shows wide range of temperatures in each region

– The impact evaluation could not utilize climate zone as a predictor of “extreme weather”, because variability was too great. Instead used temperature data from about 60 weather stations in CA.

9

Evaporative Coolers-Improve Education

• “The phone and on-site survey respondents indicated that many of them did not realize that the evaporative collers should be operated with the windows open and that they should not run their air conditioners at the same time.” (2009)

• “It is clear that some of the operating procedures for the evaporative coolers are not thoroughly understood by LIEE participants,…35% reporting use with all windows closed occasionally, and 16% reporting using refrigerant-based system with evaporative cooler” (2005)

10

Infrequent Heating Use

• “about a third of the survey respondents reported using their heating system 30 days or less” (2005 Evaluation)

Days per Year Household Use Furnace (2009 Tables 42 & 46)

Extremely cold climate Milder climate

Received new furnace

Received repaired furnace

Received new furnace

Received repaired furnace

30 days or less

30% 28% 41% 54%

More than 90 days

47%* 25% 18%* 12%

* Appears Table 42 reverses % of furnace use in mild/extreme climates

11

Envelope & Air Sealing -Gas Safety (2009)

PG&E SCG SDG&E

• # of Dwellings receiving 55,032 67,829 15,400

Envelope & Air Sealing• Post-weatherization 18% 33% 0%

“NGAT” failure • Furnace/water heater “redtagged”

– owners 4,017 19,037 1

– renters 109 8,140 2

Source: 2009 Annual Reports, Data Request Responses

12

Area For Improvement

• 2009 Process Evaluation identifies combustion appliance problems as limiting measure installations, provision for “minor home repairs” may not be sufficient to correct problems

• Households could be left without heat or hot water, renters are particularly vulnerable (2009 Process Eval pp. 85-86)

• Find funding or establish partnerships to resolve these events (p.91)

• Program should communicate with landlord rather than allowing tenant to pursue fix (p.91)

13

Discussion-Climate

• Where are the areas with extreme heating needs? Extreme cooling areas?

• How many low-income customers are in these areas? • What types of customers are especially vulnerable to

weather? (medically vulnerable, elderly)• What are the approved measures for these areas? • Installation rates of these approved measures in these

areas?• What kind of program improvements could address

this priority?

14

Energy Consumption by Income

• Sources – Utility Annual Reports, Table 9– 2009 California Residential Appliance

Saturation Survey, Figures ES-34, ES-35, Table ES-7

– 2005 & 2009 Impact Evaluation Reports

15

Average Electric Usage

• CARE customers use less electricity than the average residential customer• ESAP: Pre-installation use for households treated in 2008

– 50% used <421 monthly– 50% used >421 monthly

PG&E SDG&E SCE 2009 CA RASS

Regular CARE Regular CARE Regular CARE

$25,000-$74,999

<$25,000

Elec 569 558 533 397 602 507 491 359

* Source: 2009 Annual Reports

Average Monthly Usage2009*

16

10 Equal Customer Groupings

PGE 2009 annual kWh by CARE & nonCARE customers

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

customer %

kWh

CARE

nonCARE

17

10 Equal Customer Groupings

SCE 2009 annual kWh by CARE & nonCARE customers

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00022,00024,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

customer %

kWh

CARE

nonCARE

18

10 Equal Customer Groupings

SDGE 2009 annual kWh by CARE & nonCARE customers

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

customer %

kWh CARE

nonCARE

19

Average Gas Usage

• CARE customers use less gas than the average residential customer• ESAP: Pre-installation use for households treated in 2008

– 50% used <26 monthly– 50% used >26 monthly

PG&E SDG&E SoCalGas 2009 CA RASS

Regular CARE Regular CARE Regular CARE

$25,000-$74,999

<$25,000

Therms 39 34.9 30 23 41.8 30.2 26 21

* Source: 2009 Annual Reports

Average Monthly Usage2009*

20

Discussion-Usage

• Is usage a consideration in outreach? How is it used in education?

• SCE High Usage Needs Assessment: High users are more similar to other high users across climate zones than they are to other households in similar climate zones

• Have higher use customers had success after ESAP service?• What drives high electric usage? • What kind of program improvements could address this priority?• How will proposed new measures address high usage? Baseload

usage?

21

Useful Insights From Report Phone and on-site surveys generate information for

weather-sensitive measures Furnaces/heating systems Evaporative coolers, A/C Weatherization

Recommendations from phone & on-site surveys consistent with 2005 LIEE Impact Evaluation

Valid question whether to pursue estimating measure-level benefits, or pursue possibly overlooked non-energy benefits Gas safety improvements Indoor air quality, moisture, pest control Water consumption savings

22

Prioritize What To Estimate

• “It may be more fruitful to spend evaluation dollars investigating the non-energy benefits accruing from the program…..Pursuing these savings is likely to be more productive than continuing to try to make incremental improvements to the estimates of energy savings.” (2005 LIEE Impact Evaluation, p.157)

23

Climate & Usage, Health & SafetyLessons Learned

ESAP Workshop #1October 17, 2011