## Are Savings from Behavior Programs Ready for TRM Prime Time?

##### Katie Parkinson and Scott Dimetrosky, Apex Analytics, Boulder, CO Jeffrey Orrey, GeoVisual Analytics, Boulder, CO

## ABSTRACT

Behavior-based programs are increasing in number and magnitude throughout the country. Concurrent with this trend, more and more regions are developing Technical Reference Manuals (TRMs) as a way to provide more consistent savings assumptions across different program administrators. The paper summarizes savings claims from information “opt-out” behavior-based programs across the country, finding that the savings range from a low of 1.2% to a high of 3.3%. Given the range of savings, the paper does not recommend that TRMs deem savings from behavior-based programs. However, there are different methods that may be employed to determine the savings, and these methods can impact the savings claim. Furthermore, there are a number of policy decisions around the savings claims, including measure lifetime (persistence), double counting, monthly vs. annual claims, and measure incremental cost. Given the uncertainty around the methods and the policy decisions, the paper recommends that TRMs adopt a methods protocol for behavior-based programs. The paper also recommends that more research be conducted around how the different methods may drive savings upwards or downwards.

## Introduction

Behavior-based programs are increasing in number and magnitude throughout the country. OPower, the largest provider of behavior-based programs, now serves 85 utilities in 30 US states and seven countries and has grown by almost 200% over the past three years.1 Concurrent with the growth of behavior-based programs, many regions of the country are developing Technical Reference Manuals (TRMs). As of April 2013, there were approximately17 states with energy efficiency programs that were impacted by TRMs. TRMs serve a number of purposes, including:2

- • consistency and transparency, across multiple program administrators, regarding • consistency and transparency, across multiple program administrators, regarding savings assumptions and calculations and the underlying sources of those assumptions and calculations.
- • the calculation of the benefit cost tests in support of program design, evaluation • the calculation of the benefit cost tests in support of program design, evaluation and regulatory compliance.
- • gaps in robust, primary data, that can be addressed via evaluation efforts and/or • gaps in robust, primary data, that can be addressed via evaluation efforts and/or other targeted end-use studies.
- • a process for periodically updating and maintaining records, and preserve a clear • a process for periodically updating and maintaining records, and preserve a clear record of what deemed parameters are/were in effect at what times to facilitate evaluation and data accuracy reviews.
- • some regions, to provide certainty as to savings values that will be used in assessing • some regions, to provide certainty as to savings values that will be used in assessing performance against energy efficiency or capacity savings goals.

Since not every measure can be included in a TRM, there is usually a process for selecting measures that represent either significant claimed savings or large potential savings. Behavioral-based

2013 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference, Chicago