State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 2020-06-14¢  spillover (e.g.,...

Click here to load reader

download State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 2020-06-14¢  spillover (e.g., participants

of 185

  • date post

    08-Aug-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    0
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission of Wisconsin 2020-06-14¢  spillover (e.g.,...

  • State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

    Focus on Energy Evaluation

    Semiannual Report (18-month Contract Period)

    Final: April 8, 2009

    Evaluation Contractor: PA Consulting Group

    Prepared by the Focus evaluation team

  • This report is the property of the state of Wisconsin, Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, and was funded through the Wisconsin Focus on Energy Program.

    State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

    Focus on Energy Evaluation

    Semiannual Report (18-month Contract Period)

    Final: April 8, 2009

    © PA Knowledge Limited 2009

    Liaison Contact: Dr. David Sumi PA Consulting Group 6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 Madison, Wisconsin 53719 Tel.: +1 608 443 2700 Fax: +1 608 661 5181 E-mail: david.sumi@paconsulting.com

    Prepared by: The Focus evaluation team

    Contributions by: Miriam Goldberg, Bobbi Tannenbaum, and J. Ryan Barry; KEMA, Inc.

    David Sumi, Bryan Ward, Pam Rathbun, Lark Lee; PA Consulting Group

    Brian Fee, Patrick Engineering Inc.

    Acknowledgments: Ralph Prahl (Prahl & Associates) contributed critical review and analysis. David Sumi contributed critical review and analysis.

  • i

    Semiannual Report (18-month Contract Period). Final: April 8, 2009

    Table of Contents

    1. Introduction 1–1 1.1 Tracked Energy Impacts 1–1 1.2 Nontracked Energy Impacts 1–3 1.3 Supporting Information 1–3

    2. Focus Impacts 2–1 2.1 Verified Tracked Energy Impacts 2–1 2.2 Verified Nontracked Energy Impacts 2–15 2.3 Market Effects 2–17 2.4 Economic Impacts 2–18 2.5 Environmental Impacts 2–22 2.6 Non-energy Benefits 2–25 2.7 Historical Simple B/C and Cost of Conserved Energy (CCE) 2–26 2.8 Benefit-cost Analysis 2–28 2.9 Comparisons of Focus Energy Impacts and Achievable Potential

    2–32

    3. Business Programs Evaluation 3–1 3.1 Overview of Key Activities 3–1 3.2 Reports Delivered in the 18-month Contract Period 3–1 3.3 Energy Impacts 3–2 3.4 Deemed Savings 3–13 3.5 Channel Studies 3–14 3.6 Education & Training Spillover 3–25 3.7 Further Business Programs Reading 3–30 3.8 Activities Postponed to Contract Year 2009 3–30

    4. Residential Programs Evaluation 4–1 4.1 Overall 4–1 4.2 ENERGY STAR Products 4–5 4.3 Wisconsin ENERGY STAR Homes 4–13 4.4 Home Performance with ENERGY STAR 4–14 4.5 Apartment and Condominium Efficiency Services 4–15 4.6 Targeted Home Performance with ENERGY STAR 4–19 4.7 Efficient Heating and Cooling 4–22 4.8 Head Start CFL 4–24

    5. Renewable Energy Program Evaluation 5–1 5.1 Overview/Key Activities 5–1 5.2 Gross Energy Impacts 5–1 5.3 Net Energy Impacts 5–4

  • ii

    Semiannual Report (18-month Contract Period). Final: April 8, 2009

    6. Focus on Energy Bibliography 6–1 6.1 References 6–1

    APPENDIX A: Geographic Distribution of Direct Energy Impacts A–1 A.1 Introduction A–1 A.2 Business Programs A–2 A.3 Residential Programs A–34 A.4 Renewable Energy Program A–51

    APPENDIX B: Residential Default Savings Values Used for the 18- month Contract Period B–1

    APPENDIX C: Measure Lifetime and Net Incremental Costs by Program by Benefit-cost Measure Category C–1

    APPENDIX D: Tables and Figures Linked to the Type of Impacts D–1

    APPENDIX E: Evaluation Reports and Other Deliverables E–1

    APPENDIX F: Endnotes F–1

  • 1–1

    Semiannual Report (18-month Contract Period). Final: April 8, 2009

    1. INTRODUCTION

    The purpose of this document is to present an overview of all Focus on Energy (Focus) impacts achieved for the previous eighteen months and the program to date. Focus on Energy has had a number of impacts on the state of Wisconsin. The most important are energy impacts—the energy savings realized through the implementation of energy conservation measures. Other impacts that result from the program are (1) environmental benefits (with emphasis on quantification of displaced generation emissions); (2) other non- energy benefits following from increased health, safety, and comfort; and (3) the economic benefits realized as a result of savings on energy bills, stimulation of economic development, and the creation of jobs. Another significant benefit provided by Focus on Energy, beyond the implementation of energy efficiency measures, is encouragement to various members of the marketplace—manufacturers, distributors, retailers, building contractors, trade allies, and consumers—to “raise the bar” for practices and standards related to energy efficiency technologies.

    1.1 TRACKED ENERGY IMPACTS

    The numbers in the tracked energy impacts tables presented in this report are annual energy savings—the energy saved by an installed conservation measure over 12 months. The annual energy impacts reported for a given time period are the sum of the annual energy savings for all of the energy conservation measures installed in that period. See the introduction to Section 2, Focus Impacts, for additional explanation of the date references that will be used in this report as Focus transitions from a fiscal year basis to a calendar year basis.

    The program administrators for Focus must maintain a program tracking database that includes all of the energy efficiency measures and actions taken within the program. The term “tracked” is used to signify that these savings result from program efforts directly counted (or tracked) by program administrators. This is the fundamental foundation for a program-based evaluation of energy impacts.

    1.1.1 Reporting of tracked energy impacts: annual first year vs. lifecycle

    Focus includes many long-term initiatives directed toward lasting changes in the state’s energy efficiency markets. As a result, any meaningful assessment of the benefits (and costs) of Focus must consider a multi-year timeframe. Thus, as in the formal benefit-cost analysis conducted for Focus, in order to appropriately value Focus energy impacts, the energy savings must be estimated as a projected stream based on the program-area evaluations.1 These energy savings are counted as benefits over the measure lifetime, or the 25-year horizon of the benefit-cost analysis, whichever is shorter.

    1 Documentable energy savings, projected net verified savings based on documented impacts, are the

    foundation of Focus benefits included in the benefit-cost analysis (see Interim Benefit-cost Analysis: FY07 Evaluation Report, February 26, 2007). In this analysis, the projected new implementation of energy efficient measures includes both direct effects (in-program) and projected market effects.

  • 1. Introduction…

    1–2

    Semiannual Report (18-month Contract Period). Final: April 8, 2009

    Table 1-1 below provides definitions for each of the various tracked savings impacts incorporated in the Focus impact evaluation system. As introduced in the last semiannual report (First Half of 2008. Final: October 22, 2008), the types of reported impacts have been expanded for this semiannual report corresponding to three added impact types which are now included in Table 1-1 (definitions), and also shown in Table 1-2 (with Appendix D providing a complete listing of tables and figures in the report linked to the type of impacts reported).

    These additional reported impact types are necessitated by the need to report more accurately what were previously referred to as “cumulative” savings (simple summing of annual first year savings), as well as to conform to the impacts as used in the benefit-cost. As the energy impacts of Focus are increasingly seen as resources in the state’s long-term planning, these impacts must be as realistically reported as we can. While it is important to know the cumulative energy impacts from Focus on Energy, simply summing the savings is an oversimplification and can be misleading. For this reason we have taken the program-to- date (PTD) savings numbers out of the semiannual reports, since they were previously compiled by a simple summing of annual first year savings.

    Why is a “lifecycle” approach needed? The energy efficiency measures installed typically last for a number of years, so their lifetime energy impacts would be calculated by multiplying the annual energy savings by the number of years that the energy efficiency measure is expected to be in operation. These lifetime energy impacts—explicitly considering measure life interpreted as the median number of years of expected operation—are now termed in this report lifecycle energy impacts. An additional new concept embodied in the energy impacts presented in this semiannual report is persistent savings. These are lifecycle impacts that also include an exponential decay rate, such that half the savings remains after the measure life. (See additional discussion in Section 2.1 and Section 2.8.).

    The term “tracked” is used to signify that these savings result from Focus efforts directly counted (or tracked) by program administrators. Table 1-1 below provides definitions for each of the various tracked savings impacts referred to throughout this report.

    Table 1-1. Tracked Energy Impacts

    Gross Reported Savings

    Energy savings as reported by the program administrator, unverified by an independent evaluation (inputs to the evaluation impact analyses).

    Verified Gross Savings

    Energy savings verified by an independent evaluati