NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable E nergy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE

- AC36

- 08GO28308 

## The Un iform Methods Project: Methods f or Determi ning Energy Efficiency Savings f or Specific Measures

January 2012 — March 2013

Tina Jayaweera Hosse i n Haeri The Cadmus Group Portland, Oregon

NREL Technical Monitor: Charles Kurnik

Subcontract Report NREL/SR -7A30- 53827 April 2013NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 15013 Denver West Parkway Golden, Colorado 80401 303

- 275

- 3000 • www.nrel.gov
Contract No. DE

- AC36

- 08 GO28308 

## The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

January 2012 — March 2013

Tina Jayaweera, Hosse i n Haeri, Doug Bruchs and Josh Keeling, M. Sami Khawaja, Josh Rushton The Cadmus Group

Dakers Gowan s Left Fork Energy

Stephen Carlson, Ken Agnew, and Mimi Goldberg DNV KEMA

David Jacobson Jacobson Energy Research

Scott Dimetrosky Apex Analytics, LLC

Dan Mort ADM Associates, Inc.

Frank Stern

, Daniel M. Violette Navigant Consulting

Robert Baumgartner Tetra Tech

NREL Technical Monitor: Chuck Kurnik Prepared under Subcontract No

. LGJ -1- 11965

- 01

Subcontract Report NREL/SR -7A30- 53827 April 2013This publication received minimal editorial review at NREL

.

NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency ther eof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831

- 0062 phone: 865.576.8401 fax: 865.576.5728 email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 phone: 800.553.6847 fax: 703.605.6900 email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721
Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.

### Table of Contents

Acknowledg ments

Chapter 1 : Introduction

Chapter 2 : Commercial and Industrial Lighting Evaluation Protocol

Chapter 3 : Commercial and Industrial Lighting Controls Evaluation Protocol

Chapter 4 : Small Commercial and Residential Unitary and Split System HVAC Cooling Equipment- Efficiency Upgrade Evaluation Protocol

Chapter 5 : Residential Furnaces and Boilers Evaluation Protocol

Chapter 6 : Residential Lighting Evaluation Protocol

Chapter 7 : Refrigerator Recycling Evaluation Protocol

Chapter 8 : Whole-Building Retrofit with Consumption Data Analysis Evaluation Protocol

Chapter 9 : Metering Cross -Cutting Protocols

Chapter 10 : Peak Demand and Time-Differentiated Energy Savings CrossCutting Protocols

Chapter 11 : Sample Design Cross-Cutting Protocols

Chapter 12 : Survey Design and Implementation Cross -Cutting Protocols for Estimating Gross Savings

Chapter 13 : Assessing Persistence and Other Evaluation Issues Cross

Cutting Protocols1 

### Acknowledg ments

This report was prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the Permitting, Siting and Analysis Division of the Office of Electricity Deliv ery and Energy Reliability under National Renewable Energy Contract No. DE

- AC36 -08GO28308. The project was managed by Charles Kurnik of NREL. The Cadmus Group, Inc. managed protocols development with participation from a broad cross section of experts.

The project engaged a steering committee to provide industry insight and intelligence. We would like to thank all of the individuals who participated in the steering committee (see list below) for their contribution and for engaging their organization’s staff in the reviews

. Uniform Methods Project Steering Committee Michael Brandt Commonwealth Edison Niko Dietsch U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Linda Ecker AEP Ohio Tom Eckman Regional Technical Forum Donald Gilligan National Association of Energy Service Companies Brian Granahan Illinois Commerce Commission Kevin Gunn Missouri Public Service Commission Miles Keogh National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Steve Kromer Efficiency Valuation Organization Marty Kushler American Coun cil for an Energy

- Efficient Economy Julie Michals Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships William Miller Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory William Newbold Jr. Detroit Edison Mary Ann Ralls National Rural Electric Cooperative Association Chuck Rea MidAmerican Energy Company Phyllis Reha Minnesota Public Utility Commission Gene Rodrigues Southern California Edison Steve Rosenstock Edison Electric Institute Amy Royden

- Bloom National Association of Clean Air Agencies Steve n R. Schiller on behalf of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Doug Scott Illinois Commerce Commission Nancy Seidman Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Rodney Sobin Alliance to Save Energy Dub Taylor Texas State Energy Conservation Office Lisa Wood Institute for Electric Efficiency Malcolm Woolf Carla Frisch Michael Li Maryland Energy Administration DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Lawrence Mansueti DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability2 NREL would also like to thank the industry members that provided feedback on the early drafts of the protocols. Their enduring commitment and the contributions of their staffs greatly enhanced the protocols.
Uniform Methods Project Technical Advisory Group Kevin Cooney, Navigant Technical Advisory Group Terry Fry, Nexant Technical Advisory Group Pete Jacobs, BuildingMetrics, Inc. Technical Advisory Group M. Sami Khawaja, Cadmus Technical Advisory Group Fei tau Kung, National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Advisory Group

Michael Rufo, Itron Technical Advisory Group Dick Spellman, GDS Associates Technical Advisory Group Kevin Warren, Warren Energy Technical Advisory Group Tom Eckman, Regional Technical Forum Net

- to

- Gross Technical Advisory Group Val Jensen, Commonwealth Edison Net

- to

- Gross Technical Advisory Group Steve Schiller, Schiller Consulting Net

- to

- Gross Technical Advisory Group Elizabeth Titus, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnershi ps Net

- to

- Gross Technical Advisory Group

Special thanks goes out to the following organizations for allowing their staff to dedicate many hours to reading the draft protocols and providing constructive feedback: Commonwealth Edison; Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s Regional Technical Forum; National Association of Energy Service Companies; Illinois Commerce Commission; Efficiency Valuation Organization; Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships; Detroit Edison; National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; MidAmerican Energy Company; Southern California Edison; National Association of Clean Air Agencies; Schiller Consulting; Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Alliance to Save Energy; Navigant; BuildingMetrics, Inc.; Itron; and Warren Energy.

The authors below would like to thank some addit ional individuals for their significant contributions to their sections:
Small Commercial and Residential Unitary and Split System HVAC Cooling Equipment- Efficiency Upgrade Evaluation Protocol by David Jacobson
The author would like to thank Jarred Metoyer of DNV KEMA, whose work for NEEP the protocol was largely based on.

Residential Furnaces and Boilers Evaluation Protocol by David Jacobson
The author would like to thank Ken Agnew and Jeremiah Robinson, of DNV KEMA, and Arlis Reynolds and Matei Perussi of The Cadmus Group

.3 Whole- Building Retrofit with Consumption D ata Analysis Evaluation Protocol by Ken Agnew and Mimi Goldberg

The author would like to thank Michael Blasnik.

Assessing Persistence and Other Evaluation Issues Cross -Cutting Protocol by Daniel M. Violette
The author would like to thank Hossein Haeri of The Cadmus Group, Brent Barkett of Navigant, and the Stakeholder Review participants

. The authors would like to thank the editors for improving the organization and wording of each chap ter. This includes JP Christy of The Cadmus Group, and Maureen McIntyre of NREL

. Finally, NREL also thanks the dozens of individuals and organizations that provided constructive technical feedback during the stakeholder review period. These efforts dramati cally improved the quality of the final product.

# Chapter 1: Introduction The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

Hossein Haeri , The Cadmus Group, Inc.

Subcontract Report NREL/SR

- 7A30

- 53827 April 20131 – 1 

### Chapter 1 – Table of Contents
About the Protocols......................................................................................................................... 2 Rationale ......................................................................................................................................... 2 The Audiences and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 3 Definitions

................................................................................................ ....................................... 4 Project Process ................................................................................................................................ 5 Relationship to Other Protocols ................................................................................................ 6 About EM&V Budgets ................................................................................................................... 8 Considering Resource Constraints .................................................................................................. 9 Options for Small Program Administrators .............................................................................. 9 Project Management and Oversight .............................................................................................. 10 Project Oversight by Variety of Stakeholders ........................................................................ 10 Authorship by Experts ............................................................................................................ 10 Review by Technical Advisory Groups .................................................................................. 10 Review by Stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 10 Protocol Organization ................................................................................................................... 101 – 2 This document provides a set of model protocols for determining energy and demand savings that result from specific energy efficiency measures implemented through state and utility efficiency programs. The methods described here are approaches that are

― or are among
― the most commonly used in the energy efficiency industry for certain measures or programs. As such, they draw from the existing body of research and best practices for energy efficiency program evaluation, measurement, and verif ication (EM&V). 1

These protocols were developed as part of the Uniform Methods Project (UMP), funded by th eU.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The principal objective for the project was to establish easyto -follow protocols based on commonly accepted methods for a core set of commonly deployed energy efficiency measures.


### About the Protocols The methods described here represent generally accepted standard practices within the EM&V profession; however, they are not necessarily the only manner in which savings can be reliably determined. Still, program administrators and policymakers can adopt these methods with the assurance that: (1) they are consistent with commonly accepted practices and (2) they have been vetted by technical experts in the field of energy program evaluation. If widely adopted, these protocols will help establish a common basis for assessing an d comparing the performance and effectiveness of energy efficiency policies and investments across programs, portfolios, and jurisdictions.
These protocols do not provide stipulated values for energy savings; however, their widespread use would provide a common analytic foundation for determining “deemed” values while still allowing for the use of inputs appropriate for a project’s particular circumstances. Nor do these protocols prescribe specific criteria for either statistical confidence or the accuracy of savings estimates. Such thresholds are assumed to be set by the audiences, as determined by their unique objectives and priorities. Ins tead, the protocols provide a structure for deciding on and applying such criteria consistent ly and for reporting the uncertainty associated with the indicated savings estimates.


### Rationale Investment in energy efficiency has increased steadily in the Unite d States in recent years. In many jurisdictions, energy efficiency now accounts for a significant share of utilities’ integrated resource portfolios. In several jurisdictions, energy efficiency has been recognized as the “fuel of first choice,” thus amplifying its critical role in electric resource reliability and adequacy.
This trend of increasing investment in energy efficiency will likely continue as utilities strive to meet the energy efficiency resource standards that have been adopted through legisla tive or regulatory mandates in 26 jurisdictions— and are being considered in several more. In at least

1 M easurement and verification (M&V) is distinct from evaluation in that it focuses on determining savings for individual measures and projects, while evaluation aims to quantify the impacts of a program.1 – 3 half of these jurisdictions, the standards are designed to achieve aggressive savings of 10% or more of forecast load by 2020; in six jurisdictions, savings of more than 20% are expected. 2

With greater reliance on energy efficiency as a means of meeting future energy resource requirements, there is a growing demand for publicly available information on energy efficiency programs, how their savings are determined, and how the achieved savings are reported. By the sharing and vetting of information among experienced practitioners and those new to the energy efficiency field, this knowledge can reinforce the reliability of the savings. To this end, these protocols offer evaluation methods and techniques for determining energy savings based on generally accepted practices in the energy efficiency industry for certain common measures and programs.
To help reduce the uncertainty associated with determining energ y efficiency savings, this material offers guidance for implementing the techniques and interpreting results. It can also provide a basis for comparing the impacts of energy efficiency portfolios and policy initiatives across the country.
DOE envisions the following specific goals for this project:

• Offer guidelines that help strengthen the credibility of energy efficiency program savings calculations.

• Provide clear, accessible, step -by-step protocols to determine savings for the most common energy efficiency measures.

• Support consistency and transparency in how savings are calculated.

• Reduce the development and management costs of EM&V for energy efficiency programs offered by public utility commissions, utilities, and program administrators.

• Allow for comparison of savings across similar efficiency programs and measures in different jurisdictions.

• Increase the acceptance of reported energy savings by financ ial and regulatory communities. 

### The Audience s and Objectives In response to the interest of th e State and Local Energy Efficiency Action Network (SEE Action) 3 EM&V Working Group and others, DOE commissioned this effort to provide a voluntary set of standard protocols for determining savings resulting from particular energy efficiency measures imple mented through state and utility efficiency programs.

2 See Energy Ef ficiency Resource Standards: A Progress Report on State Experience , American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy (ACEEE), Report Number U112, June 2011.

3 U.S. DOE: www.seeaction.energy.gov1 – 4 Although these protocols are applicable to a wide range of situations, their initial audience is expected to be stakeholders in states where energy efficiency is relatively new (or is newly expanded) an d the issues of documenting savings have gained importance. From this general perspective, these protocols primarily serve evaluators working under the direction of regulators and/or program administrators in at least these four ways:

1. Providing a reliable basis for evaluating the effectiveness and viability of energy efficiency , thus offer ing regulators a basis and the means for both assessing the prudency of rate payer -funded investments in energy efficiency and determining compliance with savings targets.

2. Offering utility resource planners and program administrators greater certainty about program performance and reducing planning and regulatory compliance risks.

3. Supplying independent EM&V contractors with a standard set of tools and techniques that would enhance the credibility of their findings.

4. Providing a resource for educating EM&V practitioners and a basis for the calculation of deemed and algorithm- based savings in technical reference manuals (TRMs) that are being developed or updated in various jurisdictions. By making the methods for calculation and verification of savings more transparent and uniform, these protocols will increase the reliability of energy efficiency results reported by program administrators and implementation contractors. This will help mitigate the perceived risks of investing in energy efficiency and stimulate greater participation. In order to help achieve the objective of transparency, EM&V contractors should identify where alternate approaches to UMP are used.


### Definitions Various market participants in the energy efficiency industry (such as end- use energy consumers, project designers, contractors, program implementers and administrators, and utility resource planners, as well as independent, third

- party evaluator s) may define savings resulting from energy efficiency differently. The UMP uses standard industry definitions to differentiate the four ways savings are reported at the design, implementation, and evaluation stages of a program’s life cycle: 4

• Projected Savings are values reported by a program implementer or administrator before the efficiency activities are completed. 5

• Gross Savings are changes in energy consumption that result directly from programrelated actions taken by participants in an energy efficiency p rogram, regardless of why they participated.

4 For more complete and detailed descriptions see the State and Local Energy Efficiency Action Network. 2012. Energy

- Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide . Prepared by Steven R. Schiller, Schiller Consulting, Inc. www.seeaction.energy.gov

5 In certain cases the projected savings may be based on deemed values approved by regulators.1 – 5 • Claimed (Gross) Savings are values reported by a program implementer or administrator after the implementation activities have been completed. 6

• Evaluated (Gross) Savings are values reported by an independent, th ird -party evaluator after the efficiency activities and impact evaluation have been completed. The designations of “independent” and “third-party” are determined by those entities involved in the use of the evaluations and thus may include evaluators retai ned by the program administrator or a regulator , for example.

• Net Savings are changes in energy use attributable to a particular energy efficiency program. Th ese changes may implicitly or explicitly include the effects of factors such as freeridership , participant and nonparticipant spillover, and induced market effects. The UMP protocols provided here focus primarily on estimating evaluated gross first- year savings, except where estimates of net savings may be derived as part of the same method. A more comprehensive discussion of the elements of net

- to -gross (NTG) adjustments and the methods for measuring them will be described in a separate crosscutting section dedicated to the topic in the second phase of this project. The definition of net savings (for example, whether it includes participant and/or nonparticipant spillover) and the manner in which NTG is applied also vary across jurisdictions as a matter of policy. Therefore, UMP does not offer specific recommendations on how NTG is applied.
Assumptions about baseline conditions form the basis for calculation of savings and should be defined for technology-based, energy efficiency programs depending on whether the efficiency actions involve: early replacement or retrofit of functional equipment still wit hin its expected useful life, replacement of functional equipment beyond its rated useful life, unplannedreplacement of failed equipment, or new construction and replacement on burnout. While “asfound” (existing) conditions usually represent an appropria te basis for establishing baselines for early replacement actions, either common practice or the requirements of applicable efficiency codes and standards are usually appropriate for the other categories of efficiency actions. 7


### Project Process The UMP project is a two

- phase undertaking. This report, which presents the results of the first phase, contains protocols for these seven measures, which are primarily applicable to residential and commercial facilities:

• Refrigerator r ecycling

6 In certain cases these savings may have been adjusted by a predetermined net

- to

- gross (NTG) ratio.

7 As a general rule, it is recommended that the more efficient of the applicable common practice or code/standard requirement should be used if either might be applicable. Information on establishing baselines is discussed in Section 7.1 of the previously cited Energy

- Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Gu ide . Since the manner in which baseline conditions are defined has a direct bearing on how net savings are defined and calculated, methods for establishing baseline will be discussed in greater detail in the second phase of the project.1 – 6 • Commercial lighting

• Commercial lighting controls

• Residential lighting

• Residential furnaces and boilers

• Residential and small commercial unitary and s plit s ystem air conditioning equipment

• Whole-building r etrofit

. These measures were selected because they: (1) represent a diverse set of end uses in the residential and commercial sectors; (2) are present in most energy efficiency portfolios across all jurisdictions; and (3) have a significant remaining savings potential.
In the second phase, this list will be expanded, so the final set of measures covered is expected to represent a significant share of the available technical and economic energy efficiency potential in most jurisdictions.
For each energy efficiency measure, the protocol explains the underlying technology, the end uses affected by the measure, the method for calculating the measure’s savings, and the data requirements. Also, each protocol attempts to provide sufficient detail without being overly prescriptive, allowing flexibility and room for professional judgment.

The measure -specific protocols are supported and complemented by separate chapters that discuss technical issues and topics common to all measures. These crosscutting topics, which are organized into the following five sections, are referenced in m easure

- specific protocols, where applicable:

1. Sample design 2. Survey design 3. Metering 4. Calculation of peak impacts 5. Other evaluation topics (including rebound and persistence of savings).
These supplemental, crosscutting discussions help extend the measure

- specific method for determination of savings to evaluating whole programs.

Relationship to Other Protocols The protocols provided here are based on long-standing EM&V practices, and their methods conform to well-established engineering and statistical principles. They draw from and build on a number of previous attempts to develop comprehensive, systematic approaches to estimating the impacts of energy efficiency. Those efforts were conducted by various entities, including Oak1 – 7 Ridge National Laborat or y (ORNL, 1991 8 ), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI , 1991 9 ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1995 10 ), DOE , 1996, 11 and DOE, 2008. 12

Several of these protocols were developed to address specific policy objectives, such as the verificatio n of utility program savings, the determination of savings from special performance contracts, and environmental compliance. In addition, a number of protocols have been developed to address specific EM&V requirements in certain jurisdictions (such as Cali fornia and the Pacific Northwest).
A valuable companion document to this set of protocols is the SEE Action Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide

. 13 It provides both an introduction to and a summary of the practices, planning, and associated issues of documenting energy savings, demand savings, avoided emissions, and other nonenergy benefits resulting from end- use energy efficiency programs. 14

Designed to be consistent with the SEE Action Ene rgy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide , the UMP protocols are more detailed and specific for particular measures and projects

. (The preparation of these protocols was closely coordinated with that guide.)

The EM&V methods described here draw on th e International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP). 15 The UMP protocols expand on the IPMVP options by adding detail and describing specific procedures for application to program- and portfolio- level evaluations. To this end, each pro tocol clearly identifies the IPMVP option with which it is associated . For many technologies, evaluation tools and methods continue to improve, and the industry will continue to benefit from advancements to evaluation methods so that system performance can be estimated more accurately in the future. As such, the evaluation methods will no doubt continue to evolve in r esponse to these changes

.

8 Oak Ridge Nation al Laboratory, Handbook of Evaluation of Utility DSM Programs , ORNL/CON

- 336, December 1991.

9 Electric Power Research Institute. Impact Evaluation of Demand

- Side Management Programs, Vol. 1: A Guide to Current Practice, EPRI CU

- 7179, Palo Alto, CA, Febr uary, 1991a.

10 Conservation Verification Protocols, Version 2, EPA

- 430/B

- 95

- 012, June 1995.

11 The North American Energy M&V Protocols, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE

- GO 10096

- 248, February 1996.

12 Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Federal Energy Projects Version 3.0, U.S. Department of Energy Federal Energy Management Program, April 2008.

13 Op. cit.

14 An ample discussion and initial examination of issues raised by pursuing a broadly applicabl e approach to EM&V can be found in National E nergy E fficiency Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM&V) Standard: Scoping Study of Issues and Implementation Requirements at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/seeaction/pdfs/emvstandard_scopingstudy.pdf

15 En ergy Valuation Organization, International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols, Concepts and Options for Determining Water and Energy Savings, Vol. 1
, January 2012.1 – 8 

### About EM&V Budgets Historically, the costs of determining energy savings are embedded in the larger context of evalu ation activities undertaken as part of large -scale programs. The range of those total evaluation costs can be obtained by reviewing those sources. For example:

• DOE’s FEMP Measurement and Verification (M&V) Guidelines for federal

- level performance contract ing projects estimate the average
, all -in cost of M&V as ranging from 3 % to 5% of total project costs. 16 The FEMP Guidelines report M&V expenses averaging 3.3% of costs for the typical performance-contracting project. 17

• A report sponsored by the National Association of Energy Service Companies and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suggests that each IPMVP Option will cost the client the following percentages of total project costs: from 1% to 5% for verification involving key parameters (IPMVP Optio n A), and from 3% to 10% for verification involving all parameters (IPMVP Option B). 18

• In several jurisdictions, the evaluation costs for large demand

- side management portfolios are available from regulatory filings. Our review revealed portfolio- level EM& V expenditures ranging from 2% of portfolio costs in Indiana to 4% of portfolio costs in California. 19
As a rule, the E M&V effort ―and expenditures― should be scaled to both the program being evaluated and the accuracy necessary to inform the decision for which evaluation results matter. The value of the information provided by the E M&V activity is determined by the resource benefits of the pr ogram and the particular policy and research questions the EM&V activity aims to address.
These budget figures should be considered as only rough guidance, as they are mostly selfreported, and the definitions of cost categories may vary significantly across states and program administrators. This is particularly true considering how internal verification processes may be different from independent, third-party evaluations. 20

Evaluation resource requirements also depend on how often they are conducted. The frequency with which evaluations are performed depends on a number of considerations, including, but not limited to, t he type and complexity of the measure and its expected contribution to portfolio savings, the uncertainty about the savings, the life cycle stage of the program in question, and

16 FEMP M&V Guidelines, op. cit., p. 5

- 2.

17 FEMP M&V Guidelines, op. cit., p. 5 -9

18 David Birr and Patricia Donahue, “ Meeting the Challenge – How Energy Performance contracting Can Help Schools Provide Comfortable, Healthy, and Productive Learning Environments ” (The National Association of Energy Services Companies and the US Environmental Protection Agency), pp. 32

- 33.

19 Similar estimates are also available for Illinois (3%), Indiana (5%) Michigan (5%) and Pennsylvania (2%

- 5%), Arkansas (2%

- 6%).

20 For additional discussion on budgeting see the SEE Action Guide, Section 7. 5.2.1 – 9 regulatory requirements. In light of these considerations, UMP has no specifi c recommendation about how often programs should be evaluated. 

### Considering Resource Constraints The UMP protocols are designed to represent approaches for providing accurate and reliable estimates of energy efficiency savings that draw on best practices w ithout undue cost burdens. However, the UMP protocols do not offer recommendations about the levels of rigor and the specific criteria for accuracy of the savings estimates. Those issues are largely matters of policy, ease and cost of data acquisition, and availability of resources

. To provide maximum flexibility, each protocol contains recommendations for alternative, lower cost means of deploying the protocol, such as relying on secondary sources of data for certain parameters and identifying guidelines for selecting appropriate sources of such data. Practitioners should document when they have used these alternative means. The costs of deploying the UMP protocols will vary, depending on the features of the energy efficiency program being evaluated, the p articipant characteristics, and the desired levels of rigor and accuracy. Thus, cost estimates for implementing the protocols are not provided. Instead, the utilities and program administrators adopting the protocols should consider benchmarking their programs and gauging their EM&V budgets against those of other entities with experience in conducting EM&V for similar programs.
Options for Small Program Administrators UMP recognizes that even the lower cost options provided in the UMP protocols may be impr actical where resources are constrained or programs are small (such as those offered by small utilities ). 21 In these circumstances, program administrators may consider using deemed savings values from :

• TRMs created by regional or state entities

• Evaluations of similar programs performed by other regional utilities

. (These can

serve as the basis for determining energy efficiency savings, provided that the installation and proper operation of the energy efficiency measure or device has been verified. ) Deemed savings may be adjusted to allow for climate or other factors (regional or economic/demographic) that differ from one jurisdiction to another . Given the differences in how TRMs determine savings for identical m easures, program administrators choosing this path should use deemed savings values based on calculations and stipulated values derived using the UMP protocols when possible. Those using this approach should update their deemed savings values periodically to incorporate changes in appliance and building codes and the results of new

21 According to the Small Business Administration, small utilities are currently defined as electric load serving entities with annual sales of less than 4 million megawatt

- hours . Additional information on the costs and benefits of different measureme nt and verification approaches for small utilities can be found in the Analysis of Proposed Department of Energy Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Protocols , sponsored by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association available at: http://www.nreca.coop/issues/ElectricIndustryIssues/Documents/EMVReportAugust2012.pdf1 – 10 EM&V studies (such as the primary protocols developed under the UMP or other secondary

sources ).
Alternatively, where possible, program administrators may consider other cost

- sav ing measures, such as pooling EM&V resources and jointly conducting evaluations of similar programs through local associations. (This has been done successfully in small utilities in California, Michigan, and the Pacific Northwest .)
Small utilities may a lso consider either coordinating with regional larger utilities or adopting the results of evaluations of similar programs implemented by larger utilities. 

### Project Management and Oversight This project was funded by DOE and managed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The Cadmus Group, Inc., was engaged to manage the protocol development and provide technical oversight. The project was designed to be inclusive of a broad set of stakeholders so as to ensure technical excellence. To facilitate the fin al appeal and acceptance of the work products, the following steps were taken.

Project Oversight by Variety of Stakeholders The National Renewable Energy Laboratory formed a project steering committee to provide general direction and guidance. The steeri ng committee consisted of regulators, utility managers, energy planners and policymakers, and representatives of industry associations.

Authorship by Experts Nationally recognized experts on specific energy efficiency measures and technologies drafted

eac h protocol.

Review by Technical Advisory Groups Two technical advisory groups—one focusing on the validity of the protocols and the other on applicability — reviewed draft protocols. Each member provided comments on one or more protocols. These advisory groups included experts from major consulting firms engaging in EM&V throughout North America.

Review by Stakeholders The protocols were subject to a review process that enabled stakeholders to provide feedback about the draft protocols before they were r eleased in their final form. 

### Protocol Organization The material in measure

- specific protocols is organized in a similar structure to provide consistency. Each protocol provides the following information:

1. Measure Description —a brief description of the meas ure or measures covered by the protocol

2. Application Conditions of Protocol —details on what types of delivery channels or program structure are or are not covered by the protocol1 – 11 3. Savings Calculations—the prevailing algorithm(s) needed to estimate energy savings with explanation of parameters included

4. M&V Plan —the recommended approach, including the IPMVP option, for determining values for the parameters required in the savings calculation

5. Sample Design —overview of considerations on how to segment the popula tion to provide a representative sample for evaluation; in some protocols, this is discussed in conjunction with the M&V Plan

6. Other Evaluation Issues —any additional information deemed pertinent by the author and/or reviewers, including brief discussions of persistence or NTG considerations; often this information is supplemented by the crosscutting protocols.
As each measure is unique, some protocols have additional sections to provide more details on specific areas of interest or consideration.

# Chapter 2: Commercial and Industrial Lighting Evaluation Protocol The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

Dakers Gowan s , Left Fork Energy

Subcontract Report NREL/SR -7A30- 53827 April 2013

### Chapter 2 – Table of Contents
1 Measure Description .............................................................................................................. 2 2 Application Conditions of the Protocol ................................................................................. 3 2.1 Common Program Types ................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Program Target Markets .................................................................................................. 4 3 Savings Calculations .............................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Algorithms ....................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Electric Peak Demand Savings ........................................................................................ 6 4 Role of the Lighting Program Implementer ........................................................................... 8 4.1 Program Implementer Data Requirements ....................................................................... 8 4.2 Implementation Data Collection Method ......................................................................... 8 5 Role of the Evaluator ........................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Evaluator Data Requirements ........................................................................................ 10 5.2 Evaluator Data Collection Method ................................................................................ 10 6 Measurement and Verification Plan ..................................................................................... 12 6.1 IPMVP Option ............................................................................................................... 12 6.2 Verifica tion Process ....................................................................................................... 12 6.3 Measurement Process ..................................................................................................... 13 6.4 Report M&V and Program Savings ............................................................................... 15 6.5 Data Requirements and Sources .................................................................................... 15 7 Impact Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 20 7.1 Sample Design ............................................................................................................... 20 8 Other Evaluation Issues ....................................................................................................... 22 8.1 Upstream Delivery ......................................................................................................... 22 8.2 New Construction .......................................................................................................... 22 8.3 First Year vs. Lifetime Savings ..................................................................................... 22 8.4 Program Evaluation Elements........................................................................................ 23 9 Resources ............................................................................................................................. 24 10 Appendix .............................................................................................................................. 26



### List of Tables Table 1: Required Lighting Data Form Fields

.............................................................................................. 9 Table 2: Lighting Data Required by Evaluator

........................................................................................... 11 Table 3: Example Lighting Inventory Form

............................................................................................... 26 Table 4: New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs New York Department of Public Service Appendix C: Standard Fixture Watts (excerpt, page 270)

........ 27 Table 5: New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Pr ograms 2010. Page 109.

................................................................................................ ........................................... 282 -2 

### 1 Measure Description The Commercial and Industrial Lighting Evaluation Protocol (the protocol) describes methods to account for energy savings resulting from the programmatic installation of efficient lighting equipment in large populations of commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential facilities. This protocol does not address savings resulting from changes in codes and sta ndards or from education and training activities. A separate “Lighting Controls Evaluation Protocol” addresses methods for evaluating savings resulting from lighting control measures such as adding time clocks, tuning energy management system commands, and adding occupancy sensors.
Historically, lighting equipment has accounted for a significant portion of cost- effective, electric energy efficiency resources in the United States, a trend likely to continue as old technologies improve and new ones emerge. By following the methods presented here, the energy savings from lighting efficiency programs in different jurisdictions or regions can be measured uniformly, providing planners, policymakers, regulators, and others with sound, comparable data for comprehensive energy planning. Also, the methods here can be scaled to match the evaluation costs to the value of the resulting information. 1

An energy efficiency measure is defined as a set of actions and equipment changes that result in reduced energy use— compared to standard or existing practices

— while maintaining the same or improved service levels for customers or processes. Energy

- efficient lighting measures in existing facilities deliver the light levels (illuminance and spatial distribution) required for

ac tivities or processes at reduced energy use, compared to original or baseline conditions. In new construction, “original or baseline condition” usually refers to the building codes and standards in place at the time of construction.
Examples of energy- eff icient lighting measures in commercial, industrial, and other nonresidential facilities include:

• Retrofitting existing, linear, fluorescent fixtures with efficacious 2 lamps and ballasts, or delamping overl it spaces

• Replacing incandescent lamps with compact fluorescent lamps

• Replacing high

- bay fixtures (such as metal halide or linear fluorescent) with efficacious high -bay equipment (such as light-emitting diodes or high- performance linear fluorescents)

. In practice, lighting retrofit projects and new construction projects commonly implement lighting fixture and lighting controls measures concurrently. This protocol accommodates these mixed

measures

.

1 As discussed in the section “Considering Resource Constraints” of the Introduction chapter to th is r eport, small utilities (as defined under U.S. Small Business Administration regulations) may face additional constraints in undertaking this protocol. Therefore, alternative methodologies should be considered for such utilities.
2 Efficiency of lighting equipment is expressed as “efficacy,” in units of lumens per W att, where lumens are a measure of light output.2 -3 

### 2 Application Conditions of the Protocol Energy efficiency lighting programs result in the i nstallat ion of commercial, industrial, and nonresidential lighting measures in customer facilities . The programs can take advantage of varying delivery mechanisms, depending on target markets and customer types. Primarily, these mechanisms can be distinguished by the parties receiving incentive payments from a program. Although the methods this protocol describes apply to all delivery mechanisms, issues with customer and baseline equipment data vary with each.

2.1 Common Program Types The following are descriptions of common program types used to acquire lighting energy and demand savings and their associated data issues

.
**2.1.1 Incentive**  **and Rebate** Under this model, implementers pay program participants in target markets to install lighting measures. A participants receives either an incentive payment, based on savings ($/kilowatt -hour [kWh]), or a rebate for each fixture or lamp ($/fixture, $/lamp). The terms incentive and rebate sometimes are used interchangeably, but generally, incentives are calculated based on project savings and rebates are based on equipment installed. Examples of participants include contractors, building owners, and property managers.
Savings can be estimated using simple engineering calculations. Some programs include a measurement and verification (M&V) process, in which key parameters —such as hours of use (HOU), baseline, and retrofit fixture wattages

— are verified or measu red, or both, as part of project implementation.
Rebate programs typically pay for specific lighting equipment types (for example, a 4-foot, fourlamp, T5 electronic ballast fixture), often after they have been installed, so assumptions must be made about baseline or replaced equipment. The result is a tradeoff: increased administrative efficiency for less certainty about baseline conditions (and therefore, savings).
Incentive programs often collect more detailed baseline data than do rebate programs. Typ ically, these data include baseline and retrofit equipment wattages and HOUs, which facilitate determination of savings impacts.
Although rebate programs typically track useful information about replacement lighting equipment, they may not collect baselin e data.

**2.1.2 Upstream Buy**  **-D own**  In upstream buy-down scenarios, programs pay incentive dollars to one or more entities (such as retail outlets, distributors, or manufacturers) in the lighting equipment market distribution chain. Although residential equipment programs commonly use the upstream buy-down program delivery approach, particularly for compact fluorescent lamps, commercial and industrial lighting programs use it less often.
Upstream buy -down programs do not interact with the end- use customers purchasi ng energyefficient equipment; thus, baseline conditions and installation rates cannot be known. Program planners, implementers, and impact evaluators estimate these parameters based on their experience with other programs or targeted market research studies.2 -4 **2.1.3 Direct Install**  Under this delivery approach, contractors, acting on a program’s behalf, install energy- efficient lighting equipment in customer facilities. The programs pay contractors directly. Customers receive a lighting retrofit at reduced cost. Direct

- install programs often target hard

- to

- reach customers

— typically small businesses —that are overlooked by contractors working with incentive and rebate programs.

Direct -install programs can usually collect precise information about baseline and repla cement equipment, and the program implementers may have reasonable estimates of annual operating hours. Data, when collected, can be used directly by impact evaluation researchers.

2.2 Program Target Markets In addition to being distinguished by their deliver y mechanisms, commercial, industrial, and

non- residential lighting programs can be classified by targeting retrofit s (serving existing facilities) and new construction markets. P rogram delivery types described above apply to retrofit programs. New construction programs also employ incentives and rebates ( and customers may benefit from upstream buy-downs) to improve lighting energy efficiency

. New construction programs present evaluator s with a dilemma in establishing baselines for buildings tha t have yet to be built. The problem is addressed by referring to new construction energy codes for commercial, industrial, and nonresidential facilities (usually by referenc ing IECC or ASHRAE Standard 90.1). The codes define lighting efficiency
, primarily in terms of lighting power density (lighting watts/ft 2 ) , calculated using simple spreadsheets

. Other f ederal, state , and local standards may set additional baseline constraints on lamps, ballasts , and fixture efficiency/efficacy

.2 -5 

### 3 Savings Calc ulations Project and program savings for lighting and other technologies result from the difference between the energy consumption that would have occurred had the measure not been implemented (the baseline) and the consumption occurring after the retrofit. Energy calculations use the following fundamental equation:
Energy Savings = (Baseline-Period Energy Use – Reporting-Period Energy Use) ± Adjustments
The equation’s adjustment term calibrates baseline or reporting use and demand to the same set of conditions. Common adjustments account for changes in schedules, occupancy rates, weather, or other parameters that can change between baseline and reporting periods. Adjustments commonly apply to heating, ventilating, and air- conditioning ( HVAC ) measures, but less commonly to lighting measures, or are inherent in algorithms for calculating savings.
Regulators and program administrators may require that lighting energy efficiency programs report demand savings and energy savings. Demand calculations use the following fundamental equation:
Demand Savings = ( Baseline -Period Demand – Reporting-Period Demand) ± Adjustments
Demand savings, wh ich is calculated for one or more time -of-use periods, is typically reported for the peak period of the utility system serving the efficiency program customers.

3.1 Algorithm s The following equations calculate first

- year energy and demand on- site savings for lighting

measures in commercial, industrial, nonresidential facilities :

**3.1.1 Energy Savings**  Equations in this section are used to calculate first -year energy savings for lighting measures.
Equation 1. Lighting Electric Energy Savings

kWh Save lig ht = � � fix watt base
, i ∙ qty base
, i 1000 ∙ HOU base �

u u , i −� � fix watt ee , i ∙ qty ee , i 1000 ∙ HOU ee �

u u , i

where:

kWh S ave light = Annual kWh savings resulting from the lighting efficiency project

fix watt base, ee , i = Fixture wattage, baseline or energy

- efficient , fixture type i

qty base, ee , i = Fixture quantity, baseline or energy- efficient , fixture type i
u = Usage group, a collection of fixtures sharing the same operating hours and schedules, for example all fixtures in office spaces or hallways2 -6 HOU base, ee = Annual hours of use, baseline or energy

- efficient , usually assumed unchanged from baseline unless new controls are installed

Equation 2 . Interactive Cooling Energy Savings for Interior Lighting

kW h Save interact

− cool = kW h Save light ∙ IF kW h
, c

Equation 3 . Interactive Heating Energy Savings for Interior Lighting

kW h Save interact −heat = kW h Save light ∙ IF kW h
, h

where:

kWh Save interact- cool = Interactive cooling energy impact due to a lighting efficiency project

kWh Save interact-heat = Interactive heating energy impact from a lighting efficiency project

IF kWh, c = Interactive cooling factor : the ratio of cooling energy reduction per unit of lighting energy reduction resulting from the reduction in lighting waste heat removed by

an HVAC system

IF kWh, h = Interactive heating factor : the ratio of heating energy increase per unit of lighting energy resulting from reduction in lighting waste heat that must be supplied by

an HVAC sy stem during the heating season

Note that i nteractive effects apply only to interior lighting that operat es in mechanically heated or cooled spaces.
Equation 4 . Total Annual Energy Savings Due t o Lighting Project

kW h Save total = kW h Save light + kW h Save interact

− cool + kW h Save interact −heat

3.2 Electric Peak Demand Savings The equations in this section are used to calculate first

- year electric peak demand savings for lighting measures. Additional information is available in the UMP document “Peak Demand and Time

- Differentiated Energy Savings .”
Equation 5 . Lighting Electric Peak Demand Savings

kW Peak Save light = CF ∙ � � fix watt base
, i ∙ qty base
, i 1000 − fix watt ee , i ∙ qty ee , i 1000 �

u u , i

where:2 -7 CF = coincidence factor, the fraction (0.0 to 1.0) of connected lighting load turned on during a utility peak period

Equation 6. Interactive Electric Cooling Demand Savings for Interior Lighting

kW Peak Save interact

− cool = kW Save light ∙ IF kW
, c

where:
kilowatt ( kW ) Peak Save interact- cool = Interactive electric cooling demand impact from a lighting efficiency project

IF kW, c = Interactive cooling factor, ratio of cooling demand reduction per unit of lighting demand reduction during the peak period resulting from the reduction in lighting waste heat removed by an HVAC system

Interactive effe cts apply only to interior lighting operating in mechanically cooled spaces. Interactive heating effects are usually ignored in North America because heating equipment is typically nonelectric and heating demand is usually not coincident with utility syste m peaks.

Equation 7. Total Electric Peak Demand Savings Due to Lighting Project

kW Peak Save total = kW Peak Save light + kW Peak Save interact

− cool2 -8 

### 4 Role of the Lighting Program Implementer Successful application of this protocol requires collecting standard data in a prescribed format as part of the implementation process. The protocol further requires tracking project and program savings estimated on the basis of those standard data.
The implementer is responsible for ensuring necessary data are collected to track program activity and to calculate savings at the project level. The implementer is responsible for maintaining a program activity record, including anticipated savings by project.

4.1 Program Implementer Data Requirements The protocol recommends the program implementer collect and archive
, for all project s, all data needed to execute the savings algorithms. These data are:

• Baseline fixture inventory
, including fixture wattage

• Baseline fixture quantities

• Baseline lighting HOU

• Efficient fixture inventory , including wattage

• Efficient fixture quantities

• Efficient lighting HOU

• Usage group assignments

• Heating and cooling equipment types

• Interactive factor for cooling (optional)

• Interactive factor for heating (optional)
Facilities

— or spaces within facilities where the project is installed

— are classified as cooled/uncooled or heated/unheated, so it is important to record information about heating and cooling equipment and fuel types for each facility or space. This information is used to estimate interactive effects.

4.2 Implementation Data Collection Method The protocol recommends participants collect and submit required data as a condition for enrolling in the program. The protocol also recommends the implementer specify the data reporting format, either by supplying a structured form (such as a spreadsheet) or by specifying the data fields and types used when submitting material to the program.
The format of the data must be electronic, searchable, and sortable. It must also support combining multiple files into single tables for analysis by the implementer. Microsoft Excel and

comma

- separated text files are acceptable formats; however, faxes, PDFs, and JPEGs d o not meet these criteria.
The data reporting format should be structured to allow verification of the project installation. Each record or line in the report: (1) is a collection of identical fixture types, (2) is installed in an2 -9 easily located room, floor, or space, and (3) belongs to one usage group. Table 1 lists the fields required in the data reporting format

. All data are supplied by the participant.

Table 1 : Required Lighting Data Form Fields
Field Note s Location Floor number, room number, description Usage group Location heating Yes/no Location heating type Boiler steam/hydronic, rooftop gas

- fired, etc. Location heating fuel Electric, natural gas, fuel oil, etc. Location cooling Yes/no Location cooling type Water cooled chiller, air cooled chiller, packaged DX, etc. Location cooling fuel Electric, natural gas, etc. Baseline fixture type From lookup table supplied by implementer, manufacturer cut sheet Baseline fixture count Baseline fixture watt From lookup table supplied by implementer, manufacturer cut sheet Baseline HOU From lookup table supplied by implementer

, estimated by customer

, BMS or meter data Efficient fixture type From lookup table supplied by implementer, manufacturer cut sheet E fficient fixture count Efficient fixture watt From lookup table supplied by implementer, manufacturer cut sheet Efficient lighting HOU Same as baseline if no controls installed IF c Interactive factor for cooling, from lookup table, optional IF h Interactive factor for heating, from lookup table, optional kWh save Calculated using savings algorithms

The Appendix to this protocol contains an example of a lighting inventory form with the fields listed in Table 1

.2 -10 

### 5 Role of the Evaluator The evaluator’s role is to determine energy savings result ing from the operation of lighting efficiency programs. The steps in this procedure include :

1. Reviewing a sample of completed projects , including conducting on- site M&V activities

2. Calculat ing a realization rate (the ratio of evaluator

- to

- implementer anticipated savings)

3. Us ing the realization rate to adjust the implementer- estimated savings.

5.1 Evaluator Data Requirements The p rotocol recommends the program evaluator collect the same data as the implementer. As described in the M&V Plan , the evaluator must have access to the implementation lighting inventory forms and participant application mate rial for each project in the sample.

5.2 Evaluator Data Collection Method Under the protocol, the implementer provides the evaluator with a copy of the program and project data tracking record for the evaluation review period. Th at record contains the fields specified in Table 1. The implementer also provides all records for projects in the evaluation review sample
, including application material s and site contact information.

The p rotocol recommends the evaluator collect additional M&V data durin g site visits conducted for the sample of evaluation review projects. Table 2 lists data required for each project in the evaluation sample.2 -11 Table 2 : Lighting Data Required by Evaluator
Field Note Location From implementer Usage group From implementer Location heating From implementer, verified by evaluator Location heating type From implementer, verified by evaluator Location heating fuel From implementer, verified by evaluator Location cooling From implementer, verified by evaluator Location cooling type From implementer, verified by evaluator Location cooling fuel From implementer, verified by evaluator. Baseline fixture type From implementer, verified by evaluator Baseline fixture count From implementer, v erified by evaluator Baseline fixture watt From implementer, verified by evaluator Baseline HOU From implementer, verified by evaluator Efficient fixture type From implementer, verified by evaluator Efficient fixture count From implementer, verified by evaluator Efficient fixture watt From implementer, verified by evaluator Efficient lighting HOU Measured by evaluator IF c Interactive factor for cooling, from lookup table, optional IF h Interactive factor for heating, from lookup table, optional kWh save Calculated using savings algorithms2 -12 

### 6 M easurement and Verification Plan The M&V plan describes how evaluator s determine actual energy savings in a facility where a lighting efficiency project has been installed. Evaluators use M& V to establish energy savings for projects . T he M&V results are applied to the population of all completed projects to determine program savings . The sampling and application processes are described in Chapter 11: Sample Design

.
All M&V activities in the protocol are conducted on a representative sample of completed projects , drawn from a closed reporting period (for example, a program year).

6.1 IPMVP Option The protocol recommends evaluators conduct M&V according to the International Performance Measuremen t and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option A

— Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement approach

. The key measured parameter s are the HOU term s in Equation 1. The fixture quantity parameter is verified through an inspection process. The fixture wattage parameter is verified through a combination of on- site inspections and look -up tables of fixture demand (Watts).
Option A is recommended because the demand (Watts) values are known and published for nearly all fixture types and configurations, and therefore need not be measured, whereas lighting operating hours vary widely from building to building.

6.2 Verification Process Verification involves visual inspections and engineering calculations to establish an energy efficiency project’s potential to achieve savings. The verification process determine s the fixture wattage and fixture quantity parameters in Equation 1.
A description of the activities involved in the process follows th ese steps :

1. Select a representative sample of projects for review. (See Chapter 11: Sample Design for guidance on sampling.)

2. Schedule a site visit with a facility representative for each project in the sample.

3. Conduct an on- site review for each project. I nspect a representative sample of the energy efficiency lighting fixtu res reported by the implementer. ( See Sample Design chapter for guidance on sampling.)

4. Confirm or correct the reported energy- efficient fixture type and wattage for each fixture in the sample

. 5. Confirm or correct the reported quantity for all energy

- efficient fixtures in the sample.

6. Confirm or correct the heating/cooling status and associated equipment for the spaces in the sample.

7. Interview facility representatives to check baseline fixture types and quantities reported for the sample. Confirmation or correction is based on the interviews. When available
, interviews are supplemented by physical evidence , such as: fixture types in2 -13 areas not changed by the project, replacement stock for lamps and ballasts, and/or stockpiles of removed fixtures stored on- site for recycle or disposal.

8. Update lighting inventory form for the sample, based on findings from the on- site review. At the completion of the verification process, the evaluator has confirmed or corrected the fixture wattage and fixture quantity pa rameters in Equation 1. The process for determining the HOU parameter s is described in the following section.

6.3 Measurement Process The measurement process involves using electronic metering equipment to collect the data for determin ing the HOU parameters in Equation 1. Most often
, the equipment is installed temporarily during the measurement period; however, some facilities have energy management systems that monitor lighting circuits , and these may be employed.
Metering equipment used to measure lighting operating hours either r ecord s a change of state (light on, light off) or continuously samples and records current in a lighting circuit or light output of a fixture. All data must be time -stamped for application in the protocol

.
**6.3.1 Use of Data Loggers**  Lighting operating hours are typically determined through the use of temporary equipment such

as data loggers.
Change-of- state lighting data loggers are small (matchbox size) integrated devices , which include a photocell, a microprocessor, and memory. The data logger is mounted temporarily inside a fixture (or in proximity to it) and is calibrated to the light output of the fixture . Each time the lamp(s) in the fixture are turned on or off, the event is recorded and time -stamped.
Data loggers that continuo usly sample and record lighting operating hour information usually require an external sensor such as a current transformer (CT) or photocell. Data loggers with CTs can monitor amperage to a lighting circuit. Spot measurements of the circuit’s amperage wit h the lights on and off establish the threshold amperage for the on condition. Similarly, a data logger with an external photocell can record light levels in a space. Spot measurements of lumen levels with the fixtures on and off establish the light level threshold for the on condition.
Although measuring amperage with data loggers is common , the continuous monitoring of light levels to determine hours of operation is less common.
Data logger failure commonly occurs due to incorrect adjustment s, locations, or software launch. Th us, this protocol recommends following manufacturer recommendations carefully.

**6.3.2 Metering**  The measurement process involves metering lighting operating hours for the representative sample of fixtures selected for the verification proce ss. Meters are deployed (or routines are programmed in an existing energy management system ) during the verification site visit.
This process entails the following activities:2 -14 1. Meter operating hours for each circuit in the verification sample

. A. If using light loggers , deploy loggers in one or more fixtures controlled by the circuit. Only one logger is required per circuit; additional loggers may be deployed to offset logger failure or loss.

B. If measuring amperage , install CT and data logger in a lighting panel for a sampled circuit. The sampling interval should be 15 minutes or less. Spot

measure amperage with lights on and off for the circuit leg with CT. Record the amperage threshold for the lights- on condition.
C. If using an energy management system, program trends for lighting on/off status for each circuit in the sample. The sampling interval should be 15 minutes or less. Check that the energy management system has sufficient capacity to archive recorded data , and that the metering task will not adverse ly slow system response time s.
2. Check data logger operation. Before leaving the site , spot- check a few data loggers to confirm they are recording data as expected. Correct any deficiencies and if the deficiencies appear to be systemic , redeploy the loggers. If using energy management system trends, spot- check recorded data.

3. Leave the metering equipment in place for the duration of the monitoring period. The protocol recommends a monitoring period that captures the full range of facility operating schedules.
A. For facilities with constant schedules (such as office buildings, grocery stores , and retail shops ), the protocol requires metering for a minimum of two weeks.

B. For f acilities with variable or irregular schedules , additional metering time is required. T he protocol recommends a monitoring period long enough to capture the average operation over the full range of variable schedules.
C. Facilities with season al schedules, such as schools
, should be monitored during active periods ; additional monitoring can be done during the inactive periods, or if the expected additional savings are small, the hours can be estimated as a percent of active period hours

. 4. Analyze metering data. Calculate the percent age of “on ” time (percent on

- time) for the metered lighting equipment for each usage group. Percent on

- time is the number of hours the lighting equipment is on divided by the total number of hours in the metering period.
A. For facilities with constant or variable schedules
, the HOU parameter is calculated as : 8,760 hours/year, less any hours when the facility is closed for holidays, times the percent

- on time.

B. For facilities with seasonal schedules
, the HOU parameter is : the hours/year in the active period
, times the percent -on time.
C. The data used in the analysis should represent a typical schedule cycle, for example; 7, 14, 21 days for an office space occupied Monday through Friday and unoccupied on weekends. The hours/year in the active period may vary by2 -15 usage group; in schools, for example, office spaces may be active 8 ,760 hours/year, while classrooms are only active 6 ,570 hours/year.

5. Evaluation timing requires the protocol meter operating hours after the efficiency project has been completed . The assumption in this process is that the operating hours have remained unchanged from the baseline period. Thus, HOU base line and HOU energy- efficient in Equation 1 have the same value. (Note that will not be the case if the project includes lighting c ontrol measures. )

6. Chapter 3: Lighting Controls Evaluation Protocol addresses lighting control
measures, but Equation 1 can accommodate changes in lighting operating hours, as would occur in combined lighting equipment and lighting controls projects, provided measured hours of use data are available for the baseline period. For example, these data may be available for a facility with a n energy management system with archived trends or if a lighting contractor conducted a metering study before entering into a performance contract.

6.4 Report M&V and Program Savings Information collected during the M&V processes is used to calculate M&V project savings
, as follows:

1. Using the results from the last step in the measurement process and the sample lighting inventory form from the verification process , update the inventory HOU parameters and calculate M&V savings for the sample of projects.

2. Calculate the program realization rate , the M&V project savings divided by the reported project savings for the sample

. Equation 8 . Program Realization Rate

Realization Rate kW h
, kW = ∑ kW h
, kW M & V ∑ kW h
, kW Reported 3. Calculate the evaluated program savings, the product of the program realization r ate and the program reported savings.
Equation 9 . Evaluated Program Savings

Evaluated Savings kW h
, kW = Realization Rate kW h
, kW ∙ kW h
, kW Reported The uncertainty and, therefore , the reliability of the program realization rate depend on the sample size and variance in the findings (described later in Chapter 11: Sample Design ) . These

are usually a function of the confidence and precision targets stipulated by regulators or administrators , and evaluation budgets. The s ample sizes for homogeneous lighting efficiency programs can range from as few as 12 for an 80/20 confidence/precision target to as many as 68 (or more) for a 90/10 target.

6.5 Data Requirements and Sources This section contains information on the fixture wattage, annual HOU , interactive cooling , and interactive heating factor parameters found in the algorithm equations. Data requirements are2 -16 described in Role of the Ligh ting Program Implementer and Role of the Evaluator , with additional detail in Measurement and Verification Plan

.
**6.5.1 Fixture Wattage**  The pro tocol recommends use of fixture wattage tables , developed and maintained by existing energy efficiency programs and associated regulatory agencies. The tables list all common fixture types , and most are updated as new fixtures and lighting technologies bec ome available.
The wattage values are measured according to ANSI standards 3 by research facilities working on behalf of manufacturers and academic laboratories.
In the wattage table
, each fixture and screw -in bulb is fully described and assigned a unique identifier. The implementer enters a fixture code into a lighting inventory form, which , if programmed, can search by a lookup function to show the associated demand. The evaluator then verifies or corrects the fixture type for the evaluation sample , and updat es the lighting wattage values.

The protocol recommends adopting a fixture wattage table, used by an established and recognized lighting efficiency program. As of May 2012, the following sources provide examples ( many others are available in most U .S. regions) :

• Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual 2011 , Massachusetts Device Codes and Rated Lighting System Wattage Table. Available from the Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council, www.ma

- eea c.org/index.htm . This is a slightly abbreviated and simplified table of common fixtures and their wattages.

• New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs 2010 , Appendix C Standard Fixture Watts. Available from the New York Department of Public Service : www.dps.ny.gov/TechManualNYRevised10-15- 10.pdf . This is a comprehensive (34 pages) list
, used by NYSERDA since the late 1990s , with recent data from California impact evaluation studies.

• Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER). Available from the California Public Utilities Commission at : www.deeresources.com . An exhaustive list of all paramet ers driving energy use and savings for a lengthy list of measures. References California codes and weather zones. Wattage tables are used by both the implementer and the evaluator. An excerpt from the New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savin gs from Energy Efficiency Programs is included in the Appendix to this protocol as an example of a wattage table.

**6.5.2 Hours of**  **U se**  The protocol requires the evaluator to measure operating hours for a sample of buildings and fixtures
, as described in Measurement Process

.

3 The ANSI 82.2

- 2002 test protocol specifies ambient conditions for ballast/lamp combinations in luminaires. The test is conducted on an open, suspended fixture. Actual fixture wattage will vary, depending on the installation (suspended, recessed) and housing type. Differences are small

— less than 5% (see DOE 1993 Advanced Lighting Guidelines).2 -17 This section describe s data sources and methods used by the program implementer for estimating HOU values for individual projects. Accurate estimates of the HOU parameter are needed for the implementer to report project and program savings reliably

. Accurate reporting by the implementer also result s in more accurate evaluated savings for a given sample size.

The protocol requires program participants to provide estimates of HOU values by usage group in their lighting inventory forms. The estimate should not be based on the building schedule alone, al though this may inform the estimate

. Instead, t he protocol recommends participants develop the HOU values using one of the following sources, with guidance from the program implementer :

• Lighting schedules in buildings with en ergy management systems or time clocks control ling lighting equipment. The project participant should interview the building manager to verify the schedules are not overridden. C ontrol schedules (or trend data) are reliable estimates of true lighting opera ting hours, but they are normally available only for larger, new er facilities

.

• Interviews with building managers. Building managers are usually familiar with lighting schedules, and can describe when lights are turned on and off for typical weekdays and weekends. They may not know about abnormalities such as newly vacant space s , how cleaning crews operate lights, or whether lights are actually turned off after hours. The protocol recommends interviewing two or more people familiar with a facility’s operation to verify scheduling assumptions.

• Tables of HOU values by building type provided by the program implementer. HOU values have been developed from impact evaluation and M&V stu dies for many commercial and nonresidential buildings. Like wattage tables, HOU tables are maintained by energy efficiency programs and associated regulatory agencies;

sources can be found using the same references provided for wattage tables. An excerpt f rom the New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs is included in the Appendix to this protocol as an example of a table of HOU values. Actual operating schedules vary widely for any given building type, and tabulated average values provide more approximate estimates with larger variations than values for fixture wattages. Also
, tabulated HOU values are giv en for entire buildings, not by usage groups within buildings. The protocol requires HOU estimates be entered into the inventory by usage group, which will vary from the building average. For these reasons , the protocol recommends use of building- specific lighting operating hours when the se are available, supplemented if necessary by tables of HOU values.

**6.5.3 Interactive**  **and Coincidence F**  **actors** Energy- efficient lighting equipment produces less waste heat in building conditioned spaces
, compared to baseline equ ipment. This results in a reduced cooling load and an increased heating load. Interactive factors

— terms IF c and IF h in Algorithms

— account for these add itional changes in energy use.2 -18 Interactive cooling effects are generally small for spaces conditioned for human comfort (2% to 6% for cooling in offices in New York City, for example. 4 ) They are also highly dependent on HVAC system types and efficiencies. For example, in a large office building in New York City, the IF c varies with the equipment: (1) with gas heat and no economizer, the IF c is 3.3%, (2) with an economizer, the IF c is 1.9%, and (3) with economizer and a variable air volume system, the IF c is 6.5%. In regions with mild or hot climates where cooling loads are higher than in New York City, IF c values will be larger than these examples.
Interactive heating effects may be up to 100%, meaning that the reduced waste heat caused by improved lighting efficiency must be supplied by a boiler or other heating system during the heating season. Electric efficiency programs often ignore interactive heating effects when territory’s heating systems are primarily nonelectric; e.g., natural gas or oil. For comprehensive programs with an all-fuels reporting responsibility, the increased heating energy can be included.
Interactive factors are usually too small to be measured accurately; instead, they are developed using computer simulations and the interact ive impacts are stipulated. Interactive effects are available from the same sources as fixture wattages and HOU.
Interactive effects can be significant in cold

- temperature conditioned spaces, such as freezers or refrigerated warehouses. For example, in Pe nnsylvania, the default interactive cooling factors are defined by space temperature r anges as follows : 5

• Freezer spaces ( -20 °F–27 °F) = 50%

• Medium- temperature refrigerated spaces (28 °F –40 °F) = 29%

• High

- temperature refrigerated spaces (47 °F –60 °F) = 18%

• Un cooled space (e.g. warehouse with no mechanical cooling) = 0%. Not all programs estimate , report, and evaluate interactive effects, and the decision is often a policy choice. Further, because programs are often energy specific (electricity or gas), the effect on other fuels is sometimes ignored. For example, electric energy efficiency programs might report interactive electric cooling savings, but omit interactive increases in gas heating energy.
CFs adjust the change in connected electric load from lighting efficiency projects for electric peak demand savings. Electric demand savings that occur during utility system peak periods help to lower utility capacity requirements, reducing the load on peak generation equipment that is usually the most costly to operate and improving system reliability. The value of peak demand generation is reflected in rate structures that charge customers for their demand during peak time -of-use periods.
CFs can range from a high of 1.0 down to 0.0, where 1.0 in dicates that 100% of a lighting project’s change in connected load occurs during the utility peak period. An example is the CF of

4 TecMarket Works. October 2010. “New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs,” Appendix D.
5 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. 2011. “Technical Reference Manual.” P. 138.2 -19 1.0 for commercial lighting efficiency projects in New York State. 6 Typically, dawn- to -dusk exterior lighting has a CF of 0.0.
CFs can be developed from lighting HOU meter data. The CF is the peak period energized lighting kW as measured by the meter data, divided by the total kW for the energy efficiency lighting project.

When accurate estimates of interactive values are avail able, the protocol recommends program implementers and evaluators use tables of IFs to report interactive effects for cooling and heating energy. The recommended sources for values of IFs, ranked by reliability, are:

• Computer simulations of typical buildings found in the program’s territory and weather zones

• Interactive factors developed for similar programs and climates

• A n average single value , developed from one or more table s of interactive factors for similar programs and climates. Because the interactive effect is usually small relative to the primary energy savings from a lighting efficiency project, program planners often borrow IFs developed for similar programs and climates.
The protocol also recommends using tables of CFs (including a ny interactive effects from reduced cooling loads) to report system peak coincident electric demand savings. If regulators or program administrators require greater reliability for evaluated demand reductions (as would occur for a program designed to incre ase capacity reserves), CFs should be developed from metered data. Like IFs, unique CFs can also be adapted from programs with similar customer and utility profiles.
A sample of IFs and CFs can be found in the documents listed in Resources

.

6 TecMarket Works. P. 110.2 -20 

### 7 Impact Eval uation Evaluations entail a detailed review of a sample of completed projects, concluding with an independent assessment of their savings. The ratio of program- claimed savings and evaluated savings for the project s (the realization rate) is used to adjust claimed savings for all completed projects (the program).
Evaluations are coordinated in conjunction with program milestones, usually at the end of a program year or cycle. The evaluation’s subject is the population of all projects completed up to the mi lestone.
It is preferable to begin evaluation activity before the program cycle ends, because difficulties and inaccuracies often occur when collecting data retroactively, particularly in attempts to backfill missing data, determine baseline data, or deal with poor customer recall of project details. This may require drawing a preliminary sample before the milestone date and then adjusting (adding to) the sample after the milestone date.
The evaluator uses the same algorithms and data as the program implementer (subject to review and site inspections), except that HOU values are based on measurements of actual lighting operating hours for all projects in the evaluation sample, and lighting inventories (including fixture types and counts) are corrected as n eeded based on on- site reviews of the sample projects

. The ratio of evaluator savings to program reported savings for the projects in the M&V sample is the program realization rate. Total reported program savings for the reporting period are then multipli ed by the program realization rate to determine program evaluated savings for the period.

7.1 Sample Design The protocol requires sampling to select :

• Projects from a program database for an impact study

• Inventory lines for deploying light loggers. Regulators normally prescribe the confidence and precision levels for the sample, or the implementer may impose them. (Chapter 11: Sample Design d escribes general sampling procedures and should be consulted when developing evaluation plans for lighting eff iciency programs.) The f ollowing details pertain specifically to lighting.

The protocol recommends s tratified sampling when selecting projects for an impact study because it usually results in smaller sample sizes as compared to simple random sampling

. Th e idea behind stratified sampling is to select subpopulations of relatively homogeneous projects such that the variance within each stratum is smaller than for the population as a whole , as explained in Chapter 11: Sample Design

.
A simplified stratified strategy is to rank all projects in the population to be studied by their reported savings (ranked from largest to smallest ) and to define three strata. The top stratum contains large projects that cumulatively account for 50% of reported savings, and the remaining projects are grouped into medium strata contributing 30% and small strata contributing 20%.2 -21 A more rigorous method is to use a stratified ratio estimation approach in which techniques are employed to define strata that minimize the expected vari ance in their realization rates , and thereby minimize the sample size

. Stratified ratio esti mation is fully explained in Chapter 11: Sample Design , which should be referenced when developing sampling plans.
Light-logger studies also use stratified samplin g for project s selected for M&V by selecting samples of fixtures for metering , with strata defined by usage groups. The desired confidence and precision interval (typically prescribed with an assumed coefficient of variation of 0.5) determines the sample size. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) M&V Guidelines 7 describe a detailed routine for selecting logging lines.
Oversampling by 10% to 30% is recommended , either to replace participants that cannot be scheduled for a site visit , or to provide a cushion against lost or failed loggers in HOU studies.

7 www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/mv_guide lines.pdf2 -22 

### 8 Other Evaluation Issues

8.1 Upstream Delivery As u pstream buy-down programs cannot access their individual customers , they lack the lighting inventory forms ( with associated data ) used to estimate savi ngs. Implementer s can use survey methods to estimate baseline fixture wattage s and HOUs

. Surveys require intercepting customers at the time of purchase to register their name s and phone numbers.
Implementer s can also draw on incentive and rebate program data by analyzing baseline fixtures and operating hours associated with fixtures promoted in the upstream buy-down program, thereby developing savings factors for upstream buy-down equipment.

8.2 New Construction Installed power (kW) savings for new construction projects are calculated by subtracting as-built building lighting power from the lighting power of a code- compliant alternative. Lighting power equals lighting power density (watts/ft 2 ) times building area. HOUs are determined using the

same methods as in incentive and rebate programs.

8.3 First Year Versus Lifetime Savings Th is protocol provides planners and implementers with a framework for reliable accounting of energy and demand savings resulting from lighting efficiency programs during the first year of measure installation.
Savings over the life of a measure usually will be less ( sometimes dramatically so ) than the product of first- year savings and measure life . The discount results from performance degradation and equ ipment failure or replacement. Lifetime savings are covered further in Chapter 13: Assessing Persistence and Other Evaluation Issues . However , because lifetime savings for lighting projects are strongly driven by f ederal standards and changes in the market, they are discussed here

. Beginning in July 2012, most T12 lamps will not meet f ederal efficacy (lumens/watt) standards, accelerating a long

- term trend toward T8 and T5 lamps and electronic ballasts. The effect is that first -year savings for T12 to T8 replacements can be assumed only for the remaining useful life of T12 equipment, at which point customers have no choice but to install equipment meeting the new standard.
For retrofit lighting programs, at the time when old equipment would be replace d, there is effectively a step up in the baseline and a step down in the annual savings for the replacement equipment. This leads to a dual baseline:

• An initial baseline with full first -year savings

• An efficient baseline with reduced savings for the rema ining effective useful life.
The f ederal standard prohibits the manufacture of T12 lamps with current efficacy ratings. However, it is anticipated that sufficient stock will be available in the market for several years for burnout replacement. Regulators and administrators will need to consider T12 availability before instituting a dual baseline as a result of the standard.2 -23 The protocol methodologies , which specif y tracking data for each installation, support the calculation of lifetime savings (including the use of a dual baseline ).

8.4 Program Evaluation Elements Building a foundation for a successful evaluation of a commercial, industrial, non- residential lighting program begins early in the program design phase. Implementer s support future evaluations by ensuring data required to conduct an impact study are collected, stored , and checked for quality. The se data include measured and estimated values available from past studies or equipment tests

. Implementer s must set data requirements before a program ’s launch to ensure that the information required to conduct the research will be available.2 -24 

### 9 Resources
Note: Th is protocol depends heavily on reliable estimates of fixture wattages and HOU , CF , and IF values. A rich body of publicly available research provides these data, which can be found in the resources listed below. Alt hough this is not an exhaustive list, it is representative . U sers should select the reference s that best match their market s and program needs.
The documents cited below have been produced through regulatory and administrative processes
, and, as they were developed with considerable oversight and review , they are considered reliable by each sponsoring jurisdiction for their intended applications. HOU, CF, and IF values have been developed from primary data collected during project M&V reviews or evaluation studies, or they are based on engineering analysis. Some of these references provide source documentation.
Fixture wattages are generally based on manufacturer s’ ratings , obtained during tests conducted according to ANSI standards, al though this is not well documented in these sources. Fixture wattages are independent of geographic location. Also, HOU values also tend to be consistent for non-residential building types regardless of location. The sources cited here can be used for these parameters in any service territory.
IF and CF parameters , on the other hand, are dependent on local conditions (weather and system load shape) and users should select carefully so that the referenced values reflect local conditions. Alternatively, local IF and CF parameters can be developed using computer simulations and system load shapes for the service territory where they will be used.
California Energy Commission. (CEC) (1993). Advanced Lighting Guidelines

. “Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER).” California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) . (2008). www.deeresources.com

. Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) . (2008). M&V Guidelines: Me asurement and Verification for Federal Energy Projects Version 3.0

. www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/mv_guidelines.pdf

. Massachusetts Program Administrators. (October 2011). Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual for Estimating Savings from Energy Efficiency Measures 2012 Program Year–Plan Version

. www.masssave.com

.
TecMarket Works. (October 2010). New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs— Residential, Multi -Family and Commercial/Industrial Measures . Prepared for the New York Public Service Commission. http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb.nsf/All/06F2FEE55575BD8A852576E4006F9AF7?OpenD ocument

. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation. (2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency Technical Reference Manual

. Prepared for the Public Utilities Commission o f Ohio

. http://amppartners.org/pdf/TRM_Appendix_E_2011.pdf

.2 -25 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. (2011). Technical Reference Manual , Appendix C. www.puc.state.pa.us/electric/Act129/TRM.aspx

.2 -26 

### 10 A ppendix

Table 3: Example Lighting Inventory Form

Project Name: Example Building Lighting Project #3 Facility Type: Office Site Name: Example Building Facility Location: NYC Utility Acct Number(s): XXX-XXXXXXXXXX Facility Square Feet 40,000 Type of Heating Equipment: Gas fired boiler Type of Cooling Equipment: Rooftop DX Date(s) Survey completed: Survey completed by (name): INSTRUCTIONS

PRE-INSTALLATION POST-INSTALLATION

Area Description Usage Group ID Heat? Cool? Pre Fixt. No. Pre Fixt. Code Pre Watts/Fixt Pre kW/Space Existing Control Post Fixt No. Post Fixt Code Post Watts/ Fixt Post kW/Space Proposed Control kW Saved Heating InterActive Factor Cooling InterActive Factor Baseline Annual Hours Proposed Annual Hours Annual kWh Saved Unique description of the location that matches the site
map Descriptive name for the usage
group Yes or No Yes or No Number of fixtures before the retrofit Code from Table of Standard Fixture Wattages Value from Table of Standard Fixture Wattages (Pre Watts/Fixt) * (Pre Fixt No.) Preinstallation control device Number of fixtures after the retrofit Code from Table of Standard Fixture Wattages Value from Table of Standard Fixture Wattages (Post Watts/Fixt) * (Post Fixt No.) Postinstallation control device (Pre kW/Space) - (Post kW/Space) Change in heating energy due to lighting project Change in cooling energy due to lighting project Existing annual hours for the usage
group Propsed annual hours for the usage
group [(Pre kW/Space * Baseline Annual Hours) - (Post kW/Space * Proposed Annual Hours)] * (1+Heat-IF)
Room 343 Office Yes Yes 8 2F40SEM 70 0.56 Switch 8 2F25EEE 43 0.34 Switch 0.22 - 0.03 2,500 2,500 558 Room 344 Office Yes Yes 3 2F40SEM 70 0.21 Switch 3 2F25EEE 43 0.13 0.08 - 0.03 2,500 2,500 209 Corridor Floor 3 Hallway Yes Yes 17 1F40SEE 38 0.65 Switch 17 1F25EEE 30 0.51 0.14 - 0.03 3,700 3,700 520 Women RR Flr 3 Restroom Yes Yes 4 110060 60 0.24 Switch 4 1C00185 20 0.08 0.16 - 0.03 3,700 3,700 612 Men RR Flr 3 Restroom Yes Yes 4 110060 60 0.24 Switch 4 1C00185 20 0.08 0.16 - 0.03 3,700 3,700 612

TOTAL 36.00 298.00 1.90 36.00 1.14 156.00 1.14 0.75 2,5102 -27 Table 4: New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs New York Department of Public Service Appendix C: Standard Fixture Watts (excerpt, page 270)

FIXTURE

CODE LAMP CODE DESCRIPTION BALLAST Lamp/ fix WATT/ LAMP WATT/ FIXT F42SSILL F28T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", Super T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, NLO (BF: .85

- .95) Electronic 2 28 48

F41SSILL/T4 F28T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", Super T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, NLO (BF: .85

- .95), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 28 47

F42SSILL

- R F28T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", Super T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85) Electronic 2 28 45

F41SSILL/T4

- R F28T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", Super T

- 8 lamp, IS Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 28 44

F42SSILL

- H F28T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", Super T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, HLO (BF:.96

- 2.2) Electronic 2 28 67

F42ILL/T4 F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, NLO (BF: .85

- .95), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 32 56

F42ILL/T4

- R F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 32 51

F42ILL

- H F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, HLO (BF:.96

- 1.1) Electronic 2 32 65

F42ILL

- R F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85) Electronic 2 32 52

F42ILL

- V F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, VHLO (BF>1.1) Electronic 2 32 79

F42LE F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp Mag

- ES 2 32 71 F42LL F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, NLO (BF: .85

- .95) Electronic 2 32 60

F42LL/T4 F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, NLO (BF: .85

- .95), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 32 59

F42LL/T4

- R F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 32 53

F42LL

- H F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, HLO (BF:.96

- 1.1) Electronic 2 32 70

F42LL

- R F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85) Electronic 2 32 54

F42LL

- V F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, VHLO (BF>1.1) Electronic 2 32 85

F42SE F40T12 Fluorescent, (2) 48", STD lamp Mag

- ES 2 40 86 F42GHL F48T5/HO Fluorescent, (2) 48", STD HO T5 lamp Electronic 2 54 117 F42SHS F48T12/HO Fluorescent, (2) 48", STD HO lamp Mag

- STD 2 60 145 F42SIL F48T12 Fluorescent, (2) 48", STD IS lamp, Electronic ballast Electronic 2 39 74

F42SIS F48T12 Fluorescent, (2) 48", STD IS lamp Mag

- STD 2 39 103 (Reference: NYSERDA Existing Buildings Lighting Table with Circline Additions from CA SPC Table)2 -28 Table 5: New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy E fficiency Programs 2010. Page 109. Facility Type Lighting Hours Facility Type Lighting Hours Auto Related 4,056 Manufacturing Facility 2,857 Bakery 2,854 Medical Offices 3,748 Banks 3,748 Motion Picture Theatre 1,954 Church 1,955 Multi

- Family (Common Areas) 7,665 College

– Cafeteria(1) 2,713 Museum 3,748 College - Classes/Administrative 2,586 Nursing Homes 5,840

College

- Dormitory 3,066 Office (General Office Types) (1) 3,100

Commercial Condos(2) 3,100 Office/Retail 3,748

Convenience Stores 6,376 Parking Garages 4,368 Convention Center 1,954 Parking Lots 4,100 Court House 3,748 Penitentiary 5,477 Dining: Bar Lounge/Leisure 4,182 Performing Arts Theatre 2,586 Dining: Cafeteria / Fast Food 6,456 Police / Fire Stations (24 Hr) 7,665 Dining: Family 4,182 Post Office 3,748 Entertainment 1,952 Pump Stations 1,949 Exercise Center 5,836 Refrigerated Warehouse 2,602 Fast Food Restaurants 6,376 Religious Building 1,955 Fire Station (Unmanned) 1,953 Restaurants 4,182 Food Stores 4,055 Retail 4,057 Gymnasium 2,586 School / University 2,187

Hospitals 7,674 Schools (Jr./Sr. High) 2,187 Hospitals / Health Care 7,666 Schools (Preschool/Elementary) 2,187 Industrial

- 1 Shift 2,857 Schools (Technical/Vocational) 2,187 Industrial

- 2 Shift 4,730 Small Services 3,750 Industrial

- 3 Shift 6,631 Sports Arena 1,954

Laundromats 4,056 Town Hall 3,748 Library 3,748 Transportation 6,456 Light Manufacturers(1) 2,613 Warehouse (Not Refrigerated) 2,602 Lodging (Hotels/Motels) 3,064 Waste Water Treatment Plant 6,631 Mall Concourse 4,833 Workshop 3,750

# Chapter 3: Commercial and Industrial Lighting Controls Evaluation Protocol The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

Stephen Carlson , DNV KEMA

Subcontract Report NREL/SR -7A30- 53827 April 20133 - 1 

### Chapter 3 – Table of Contents
1 Measure Description .............................................................................................................. 2 2 Application Conditions of Protocol ....................................................................................... 3 3 Savings Calculations .............................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Al gorithms ....................................................................................................................... 5 4 Role of the Lighting Control Program Implementer .............................................................. 7 4.1 Implementation Data Requirements ................................................................................ 7 4.2 Implementation Data Collection Method ......................................................................... 7 5 Role of the Evaluator ............................................................................................................. 9 5.1 Evaluator Data Requirements .......................................................................................... 9 5.2 Evaluator Data Collection Method .................................................................................. 9 6 Measurement and Verification Plan ..................................................................................... 10 6.1 IPMVP Option ............................................................................................................... 10 6.2 Verification Process ....................................................................................................... 11 6.3 Measurement Process ..................................................................................................... 12 6.4 Report M&V Savings .................................................................................................... 13 6.5 Data Requirements and Sources .................................................................................... 14 7 Other Evaluation Issues ....................................................................................................... 17 7.1 New Construction .......................................................................................................... 17 7.2 Coin cidence Factor ........................................................................................................ 17 8 Program Evaluation Elements.............................................................................................. 18 9 Resources ............................................................................................................................. 19 10 Appendix .............................................................................................................................. 20



### List of Tables Table 1: Required Lighting Control Data Fields

........................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Lighting Control Data Required by Evaluator

................................................................................ 9 Table 3: Metering Requirements for Various Lighting Control Strategies

................................................. 11 Ta ble 4: Lighting Control Savings Factors by Control Type

...................................................................... 15 Table 5: New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs New York Department of Public Service Appendix C: Standard Fixture Watts (excerpt, page 270)

........ 203 - 2 

### 1 Measure Description Th is Commercial and Industrial Lighting Controls Evaluation Protocol (the protocol) describes methods to account for energy savings resulting from programmatic installation of lighting control equipment in large populations of commercial, industrial, government, institutional, and other nonresidential facilities. This protocol does not address savings r esulting from changes in codes and standards, or from education an d training activities. 1 When lighting controls are installed in conjunction with a lighting retrofit project, the lighting control savings must be calculated parametrically with the lighting retrofit project so savings are not double counted. 2

An “energy efficiency measure ” can be defined as a set of actions and equipment changes ― compared to standard or existing practices― result ing in reduced energy use, while maintaining the same or improved service level s for customer s or process es

. In addition to delivering light levels required for activit ies or process es in facilities , lighting control measures shut off lighting fixtures when a space is unoccupied
, or operate lighting at reduced po we r when ambient light levels are high . F or retrofit installations
, the baseline condition typically equals the lighting operat ing at normal power levels or when the space is both occupied and unoccupied during normal business hours. 3 New construction baseline conditions

are generally provided by state and local building codes . Al though codes vary widely throughout the country, typically they require some form of control for most interior lighting . This document includes a detailed discussion of baselines

. Lighting control measures in commercial , industrial, and other nonresidential facilities include:

• Sweep controls/ energy management system s that shut off lighting at a set time
, typically after normal operating hours

• Lighting occupancy sensors ( OS ) that turn ligh ts on or off, based on space occupancy conditions

• Dimming control systems :

o Stepped dimming systems , such as dual ballasts (inboard/outboard)

o Dual ballast high/low high

- intensity discharge (HID) 4

o Continuous daylight dimming systems.

1 This protocol addresses only automated lighting control measures, which do not require behavioral actions by space occupants (such as “tuning” light levels for different tasks).
2 Typically, post

- lighting retrofit wattages are used to calculate the lighting controlled kilowatt ( kW ) value for lighting control savings calculations.
3 In this case “normal” refers to fixtures operating at full power, and is applicable for all forms of lighting control applications during business operating hours.
4 Such HID fixtures typically have only one lamp that can be operated at two different output levels by a two stage ballast; this differs from stepped dimming systems that dim by controlling lamps powered by a single ballast.3 - 3 

### 2 Application Conditions of ProtocolHistorically, lighting control equipment has accounted for a relatively small portion of costeffective, electric energy efficiency resources in the United States. However, use of lighting controls has been increasing due to building efficiency certificati on standards (such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ) and the increased prevalence of demand

response programs.
Typically, lighting controls do not provide a sufficiently large component of an energy efficiency program to warrant their own evaluation efforts
, so these measures tend to be included as small parts of commercial and industrial program evaluation. Thus, little effort has been expended to move beyond post- installation metering or applying a 30% control savings factor (CSF). 5

This evaluation protocol assumes a focus on lighting controls, and that primary data captured will be used to inform the evaluation, or to determine deemed savings in a technical reference manual. By following the methods presented here, evaluators can determine energy savings resulting from lighting controls installed through efficiency programs in a manner that is consistent across jurisdictions or regions. Resulting data will provide planners, policymakers, regulators, and others with sound, comparable information for use in comprehensive energy planning. 6

The protocol applies to i nstallation of c ommercial, industrial , and nonresidential lighting control measures in customer facilities ; installations result from energy efficiency programs, which have varying delivery methods, depending on target markets and customer types. Primarily, the delivery method can be distinguished by parties receiv ing incentive payments from a program. Although methods described in this protocol apply to all programs , issues with customer and baseline equipment data vary with each . Common program delivery types include:

1. Incentive and Rebate : Under this delivery method, administrators pay program participants in target markets for installing lighting control measures

. Participants receive an incentive payment , based on annual energy savings ($/kilowatt-hour [ kWh ] ) for each installed measure
, or based on demand savings ($/kW). Participants include design teams, contractors, building owners, and building managers . Savings can be estimated through one or more of the following techniques:

o S imple engineering calculations

o A measurement and verification (M&V) process that m easur es key parameters , such as equivalent full load hours (EFLH) , controlled fixture wattages , or a CSF as part o f project implementa tion

. Programs also may pay rebate s for specific lighting control equipment types (for example, ceiling -mounted OS ), with the program using assumptions about “ replaced

5 The 30% savings percentage for OS has been adopted and borrowed i n so many technical reference manuals and public savings documents that its exact origin is difficult to trac e. Table 4 in this document is an A SHRAE table of control savings factors
, and the values range from 0.10 to 0.40 depending on the type of control. 6 As discussed in Considering Resource Constraints in the “ Introduction ” of this UMP r eport, small utilities (as defined under the Small Business Administration regulations) may face additional constraints in undertaking this protocol. Therefore, alternative methodologies should be considered for such utilities.3 - 4 equipment.” Thus, increased administrative efficiency is exchanged for less certainty about baseline conditions and, therefore , savings. This type of program implementation approach is often referred to as a “deemed” savings approach where savings are developed on a per unit basis and very little site- specific information is required to determine the claimed ( ex ante) program savings estimate.

Incentive programs often collect more detailed baseline data than do rebate programs. This includes extensive data about controlled equipment wattages and hours of operation, which facilitate s determination of savings impacts, typically using a savings calculation based on these site

- specific data. Alt hough r ebate programs typically begin with useful information regarding the quantity of lighting control equipment, these programs do not always collect data about controlled fixture s, because it is not necessary to calculate the claimed program savings.

2. Direct Install : Using this delivery method, contractors engaged through a program install lighting control equipment in customer facilit ies

. The program s pay contractors directly , while customers receive a lighting control measure free or at a reduced cost

. Direct

- install programs target hard

- to

- reach customers

— typically small businesses

— overlooked by contract ors work ing through incentive and rebate programs. Direct

install programs typically do not focus on l ighting control measures , but they may be eligible measure s.

In addition to their distinctive delivery me thods, commercial, industrial, and nonresidential lighting programs (which include lighting controls) can be classified as targeting retrofit (serving existing facilities) or new construction markets. The program delivery types described above apply to existing building programs. New construction program s primarily employ incentives and rebates to acquire energy efficiency reductions.
New construction programs present evaluator s with a dilemma in establishing baselines for buildings that previously did not exist

. This problem can be addressed by referrin g to n ew construction energy codes for commercial, industrial, and nonresidential facilities (usually by referenc ing ASHRAE Standard 90.1 or the International Energy Conservation Code). The ASHRAE Standard defines lighting controls under section 9.4.1 ; these are mandatory for interior lighting in buildings larger than 5,000 ft 2

. 7 Other f ederal, state , and local standards may establish additional baseline constraints on lighting controls

.

7 ASHRAE 90.1, 2004, page 61 addresses mandatory provisions and exceptions for lighting controls in n ew ly constructed buildings.3 - 5 

### 3 Savings Calculations Project and program savings for lighting controls and other technologies result from the difference between retrofit use and use that would have occurred had the measure not been implemented (the baseline)

. The fundamental savings equation is :
Energy or Demand Savings = (Baseline Period Energy Use – Reporting-Period Energy Use) ± Adjustments

The equation’s adjustment term calibrates baseline and/or reporting use and demand to the same set of conditions. Common adjustments account for changes in schedules, occupancy rates, weather
, or oth er param e ters that shift between baseline and reporting periods. Adjustments

common ly are applied to heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning ( HVAC ) measures , but less

common ly to lighting measures (or adjustments are inherent in algorithms for calculating savings).

3.1 Algorithm s The following equations calculate primary energy savings for lighting control measures in commercial, industrial, and nonresidential facilities

. Equation 1 : Lighting Control Electric Energy Savin gs kWh Save lc = kW controlled * EFLH pre * CSF

where: kWh Save lc = Annual kWh savings resulting from the lighting control project

kW controlled = Sum ( Fixture Wattage * Quantity Fixtures) for controlled fixture s

EFLH pre = Annual equivalent f ull l oad hours p rior to application of controls
CSF = Control savings f actor is the annualized reduction factor calculated across the EFLH
Equation 1A : Lighting Control Savings Factor CSF = 1 - ( EFLH post / EFLH pre )

where: CSF = Control savings f actor is the annualized reduction factor calculated across the EFLH

EFLH pre = Annual equivalent f ull l oad hours p rior to application of controls

EFLH post = Annual equivalent f ull l oad hours a fter application of controls
When calculating the site level CSF using measured data for multiple control points
, the weighted average should be developed by using the kW controlled as the weighting factor.
Equation 2: Interactive Cooling Electric Energy Savings kWh interact - cool = kW cool x IF c x Hours cool3 - 6 Equation 3: Inter active Heating Electric Energy Savings kWh interact - heat = kW heat x IF h x Hours heat

where:

kWh interact – cool = Interactive cooling savings from the lighting control project

kW cool = Mean kW reduction coincident with the cooling hours

Hours cool = Hours when the space is in cooling mode

IF c = Interactive cooling factor, ratio of cooling energy reduction per unit of lighting energy; caused by reductions in lighting waste heat removed by an HVAC system

kWh interact –heat = Interactive heating savin gs due to lighting control project: a negative value

kW heat = Mean kW reduction coincident with the heating hours

Hours heat = Hours when the space is in heating mode

IF h = Interactive heat ing factor, ratio of heat ing energy in crease per unit of lighting energ y; caused by reductions in lighting heat removed by an HVAC system
Equation 4: Total annual energy savings kWh Save total = kW h Save lc + kWh interact – cool + kWh interact –heat3 - 7 

### 4 Role of the Lighting Control Program Implementer Successful application of the protocol requires standard data, collected in a prescribed format
, as part of the implementation process. The p rotocol also requires tracking project and program savings estimated on the basis of the standard data.
The implementer is responsible for ensuring collection of data required to track program activity and calculate savings at the project level

. The implementer also is responsible for maintaining a program activity record, including anticipated savings by project.

4.1 Implementation Data Requirements The p rotocol recommends that, for all projects, the program implementer collect and archive data needed to execute the savings algorithms

. These data include :

• Controlled fixture inventory, including fixture wattage

• Control led fixture quantities

• Controlled fixture b aseline lighting EFLH

• Control savings factor

• Usage group assignments

• Heating and cooling equipment types

• Interactive factor for cooling (optional)

• Interactive factor for heating (optional)

. Facilities ( or spaces within facilities where the project has been installed ) are classified as cooled/uncooled and heated/unheated, and information about heating and cooling equipment and fuel types for each should be recorded. This information is required to estimate interactive effects

.
4.2 Implementation Data Collection Method The protocol recommends participants collect and submit required data as a condition for program enroll ment

. The protocol also recommends the implementer specify data reporting format s , either b y supplying a structured form ( such as a spreadsheet ), or by specifying data fields and types used when submitting material to the program. The format must be electronic, searchable, and sortable , and must support combining multiple files into single tables for analysis by the implementer. Faxes, PDFs, and JPEG formats do not meet these criteria

. Microsoft Excel and comma- separated text files are acceptable formats

. The data reporting format should be structured to allow verification of project instal lation s. Each record or line in the report represents a collection of identical fixture types
, installed in an easily located room, floor, or space , and belonging to one usage group. Table 1 lists fields required in the data reporting format. 8

8 The data sources for these fields are described in section 6 .5 Data Requirements and Sources of this protocol

.3 - 8 Table 1: Required Lighting Control Data Fields

Field Note Location Floor number, room number

, and other des c riptions Usage group Location cooling Yes/no Conditioned floor area Square footage of conditioned space Location cooling type Water cooled chiller, air cooled chiller, packaged DX, etc. Location cooling fuel Electric, non

- elec t ric Location heating Yes/no Location heating type Boiler steam/hydronic, heat pump, forced air, strip heat, etc

. Location heating fuel Electric, non

- electric Controlled fixture type From lookup table supplied by implementer, manufacturers cut sheet Controlled fixture count Controlled fixture w attage From lookup table supplied by implementer, manufacturers cut sheet Pre

- control EFLH Requirement for pre

- metering depends on control type C SF Will be calculated using pre/post or post only data IF c Interactive factor for cooling, from lookup table, optional IF h Interactive factor for he a t ing, from lookup table, optional kWh save Will be calculated using pre/post or post only data Measure Cost Cost of measure in dollars Incentive Cost Cost of incentive in dollars

For each project, lighting contractors or other program participants should record:

• Types, quantities, and wattages of all lamps, ballasts and fixture types controlled by a lighting control measure

• All lighting control equipment types and locations throughout the facility. For lighting control measures reduc ing power outputs of fixture s, dimming controls must also be described so each increment of light reduction can have an appropriate kW value established. Daylight dimming systems should have ambient light sensor location s identified and minimum power levels specified so the system can be modeled using building simulation software, if necessary . (Sensor location is not required if using a spreadsheet savings estimation approach.)
The protocol recommend s integrating savings verification into the program administrative process, particularly for data tracking . Impact evaluations of lighting efficiency and lighting controls programs remain highly dependent on data developed in conjunction with the lighting retrofit construction process . These data should be collected and reported by the project contractor.
The administrator should employ a third

- party expert to conduct periodic
, systematic reviews and inspections of a sample of completed projects to verify t he accuracy of data from the lighting inventory forms. At first, t he sampling procedure should be implemented randomly on an approximately 10% fixed

- percentage basis so the contractor cannot predict projects to be inspected . In addition to requiring the co ntractor to correct discrepancies, the administrator may choose to impose penalties for egregious or repeated errors. Once a contractor has proven reliable, the sampling percentage can be reduced , but the random sampling procedure should be maintained.3 - 9 

### 5 Rol e of the Evaluator The evaluator’s role is to determine energy savings result ing from the operation of lighting control efficiency programs

. The procedure review s a sample of completed projects , including conducting on- site M&V activities, calculat ing a realization rate (the ratio of evaluator to implementer anticipated savings), and using the realization rate to adjust implementer

anticipated savings.

5.1 Evaluator Data Requirements The protocol recommends the program evaluator collect the same data as the implementer

. As described in M&V , the evaluator must have access to implementation lighting inventory forms and participant application material s for each project in the sample

.
5.2 Evaluator Data Collection Method Under the protocol, the implementer provides the evaluator with a copy of the program and project data tracking record for the evaluation review period. This record includes the fields shown in Table 1

. The implementer also provides all records for projects in the evaluation review sample , including application materials and site contact information.

The protocol recommends the evaluator collect additional M&V data during site visits conducted for the sample of evaluation review projects

.
Table 2 lists the data required for each project in the evaluation sa mple.

Ta ble 2 : Lighting Control Data Required by Evaluator

Field Note Location From i mplementer Usage group From i mplementer Location cooling From i mplementer, verified by evalu a tor Location cooling type From i mplementer, verified by evaluator Location cooling fuel From i mplementer, verified by evaluator Location heating From i mplementer, verified by evaluator Location heating type From i mplementer, verified by evaluator Location heating fuel From i mplemente r, verified by evaluator Controlled fixture type From i mplementer, verified by evaluator Controlled fixture count From i mplementer, verified by evaluator Controlled fixture wattage From i mplementer, verified by evaluator Pre

- control EFLH From i mplementer, could be measured by evaluator CSF Measured by evaluator IF c Interactive factor for cooling, from lookup table, optional IF h Interactive factor for heating, from lookup table, optional kWh save Will be calculated using pre/post or post only data3 - 10 

### 6 M easurement and Verification Plan The M&V plan describes how evaluators determine verified energy savings in a facility where a lighting controls efficiency project has been installed

. M&V results are applied to the population of all completed projects to determine program savings. All M&V activities in the protocol are conducted for a representative sample of completed projects . The evaluator is responsible for meeting M&V requirements in the protocol.

6.1 IPMVP Option The selection of the appropria te International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) evaluation method for reporting evaluated ( ex post ) savings is conti ngent on site

- specific criteria. The key factors for determining the method are the availability of whole premise interval metered data and preferably sub -metered lighting data, and the relative size of the savings impact attributable to the lighting control measure. When the savings impact for the lighting control measure is at least 5% , and preferably at least 10% of the energy usage for the available interval data , then IPMVP Option C–Whole F acility should be selected. 9 When Option C is selected , there must be both pre- and post- metered data available to evaluate the lighting control impacts. Because lighting controls often do not meet the relative impact criteria , the IPMVP Option A– Retrofit Isolation: Key Parameter Measurement approach is the most common method used to evaluate savings . K ey parameter s to be measured include EFLH pre and EFLH post , to ca lculate the C SF term in Equation 1. Accurately measur ing these variables typically requires determining lighting usage in the pre- control state , and may require measur ing usage in the postcontrol state. 10

Table 3 provides metering recommendations for measuring various types of lighting control

measures . In summary:

• Lighting sweep controls, energy manage ment systems , and time clock measures require pre- and post-installation metering to establish EFLH and CSF accurately

.

• OS measures can be determined effectively through pre- installation metering only if using a lighting event logger with infrared occupancy sensor capabilities

. 11

• Most dimming applications can be measured using post- installation data only when these are sufficiently accurate to assume uncontrolled kW would equal controlled lighting operating at full power.

• Event loggers typically are lighting loggers monitoring lighting on/of f operation s via a photocell; power loggers monitor power consumption of controlled lighting circuits.

9 In this case, the data could be either whole premise data or lighting end use data, which contain the savings attributable to the lighting control measure(s) as a portion of the data. In either case the savings impact must be at least 5% of the total usage observed in the data in order to quantify the impacts accurately using this method.
10 IPMVP Option A - R et rofit I solation requires the key savings variable be measured pre and post. However, when conducting M&V in an impact evaluation, it can be a challenge to obtain baseline data. The program administrator often does not collect the data, and evaluators commo nly do not become involved until after the project is installed.
11 These loggers monitor lighting on/off as well as whether the space is occupied or unoccupied. These data, coupled with the lighting latency factor, can be used to establish EFLH and CSF. Some companies maintain these data by building type and space, offering data that can be purchased: www.sensorswitch.com/Literature.aspx3 - 11 Table 3 : Metering Requirements for Various Lighting Control Strategies
Metering Re commendations

Lighting Control Measure Pre

Installation Post

Installation Metering Type Lighting Sweep Controls/ Energy Management System /Time Clock Yes Yes Event or Power Logger

Occupancy Sensors Yes Yes/No Event/Event and Occupancy Logger Stepped Dimming (Dual Ballasts) No Yes Event Logger Dual Ballast (Hi gh /Low HID) No Yes Power Logger Continuous Daylight Dimming No Yes Power Logger

Additionally , ASHRAE recommends that lighting levels be measured for lighting control

measures

— particularly dimming measures —to make sure that adequate lighting levels at the work area are maintained.

6.2 Verification Process Verification involves visual inspections and engineering calculations to establish an energy efficiency project’s potential to achieve saving s. The verification process determines the controlled fixture wattage and controlled fixture quantity parameters used to calculate the kW controlled variable in Equation 1

. The following descri bes activities involved in the process:

1. Select a representative sample of projects for review

. (See Chapter 11: Sample Design Protocol for guidance on sampling.)

2. Schedule a site visit with a facility representative for each project in the sample

. 3. Conduct an on

- site review for each project

. Inspect a representative sample of controlled lighting fixtures and lighting controls reported by the implementer and verify that the controls are operating as reported. (See the “ Sample Design ” protocol for guidance on sampling.)

a. Confirm or correct reported controlled fixture type s and wattages for each fixture in the sample.
b. Confirm or correct reported quantit ies for all controlled fixtures in the sample.

c. Confirm or correct the heating/cooling status and associated equipment for spaces in the sample.
d. Interview facility representatives to check baseline fixture control types and quantities reported for the sample . Confirmation or correction will be based on the interviews . When available, interviews are supplemented by physical evidence such as lighting controls installed on fixture types or in areas not changed by the project.

4. Update the lighting control inventory form for the sample, based on findings from the

on- site review

. At completion of the verification process, the evaluator will have confirmed or corrected fixture wattage and fixture quantity parameters used to calculate the kW controlled variable in Equation 1

.3 - 12 6.3 Measurement Process The measurement process involves using electronic metering equipment to collect data determin ing EFLH and CSF parameters in Equation 1 . Usually, equipment is installed temporarily during the measurement period; in some facilities , existing building automation systems monitor ing lighting ci rcuits may be employed . Lighting control measures particularly can be challenging to measure as they may require use of pre/post metering of either on/off operations or interval power consumption.
Meters and metering data used to measure lighting control operating characteristics either record a change of state (light on, light off), or continuously sample and record current or power on a lighting circuit or reduced light output of a fixture

. All data must be time -stamped for application in the protocol.

Temporary metering equipment, in the form of data loggers, is most common ly used for establishing lighting EFLH

. Change-of- state lighting data loggers are small (matchbox size d), integrated devices that include a photocell, microprocessor , and memory. The se data loggers are mounted inside fixtures. Each time lamps in the fixture s are turned on or off, the event is recorded and time stamped . Such lighting loggers are only suitable for monitoring on/off lighting controls, such as OS , lighting sweep controls/energy management systems , and stepped dimming systems (for example, inboard/outboard configurations, where controlled lamps can be isolated from uncontrolled lamps ). For lighting control systems that vary lighting power
, such as dimming systems o r dual ballast HID systems in which the lamps cannot be isolated, interval power of the lighting system must be monitored.
Data loggers continuously sampling and recording lighting operating hours information usually require an external sensor, such as a current transformer (CT) or photocell

. Data loggers with CTs can monitor amperage to a lighting circuit. Spot measurements of the circuit’s amperage with lights on and off establish es threshold amperages for on conditions. Similarly
, data loggers with an e xternal photocell can record light levels in a space

. Spot measurements of lumen levels with the fixtures on and off establish es light level threshold s for on conditions. Data loggers are commonly used for amperage measurement; continuous light level monitoring to determine hours of operation is less common.
Data logger failure s due to incorrect adjustment s, locations, or software launches occur

common ly

. The protocol recommends carefully following manufacturer’s recommendations.
Measurement involves metering lighting operating hours for a representative sample of controlled fixtures selected for verification

. Meters are deployed (or metering routines are established , if using an existing building management system [ BMS ]) during the verification site visit . T he process requires the following activities:

1. Meter operating hours for each circuit in the verification sample

.

a. If using light loggers, deploy loggers in one or more fixtures controlled by the circuit . Only one logger per last point of control is required; however, additional loggers are commonly deployed to offset logger failure or loss.3 - 13 b. If measuring amperage
, install the CT and data logger in lighting panels for the sampled circuit . The sampling interval should be 15 minutes or less

. Spot

measure amperage with lights on and off for the circuit leg with the CT . Record the amperage threshold for the lights-on condition.

c. If the lighting control measure is an on/off type of control (such as occupancy sensors) , an event type power logger can be used. Event power loggers record a change of state when the power is on and off and provide similar data as a change of state lighting logger. The sampling interval is irrelevant for event loggers because it captures tran sitions and data can be output at any interval desired.
d. If using a BMS, establish trends for lighting on/off status for each circuit in the sample . The sampling interval should be 15 minutes or less . Check that the BMS has sufficient capacity to archive re corded data, and that the metering task will not adversely slow the BMS response time

. 2. Check data logger operations. Before leaving the site
, spot

- check a few data loggers to confirm they are recording data as expected

. Correct any deficiencies , and, if they appear systemic , redeploy the loggers. If using BMS trends, spot-check recorded data.

3. Leave metering equipment for the monitoring period, which could include pre and post periods. The protocol recommends a monitoring period capturing the full range of facility operating schedules

. For facilities with constant schedules ( such as office buildings, grocery stores, and retail shops ), the protocol calls for metering a minimum of two weeks for pre periods and a minimum of four weeks for pos t periods

. Facilities with variable schedules will require additional time

. Facilities with seasonal schedules
, such as schools , should be monitored during active periods.

4. Analyze metering data. Calculate the percent

- on time for metered lighting equipment for each usage group. When pre-control data are collected for control systems , precontrol EFLH can be calculated directly , and pos t EFLH can be calculated as well

. In this case
, the CSF equal s 1 minus the ratio of post EFLH, divided by pre EFLH. For lighting control measures varying seasonally , such as continuous daylight dimming systems , it will be necessary to annualize metered data to account for daylight hours during the metering period so summer metering does not over-predict savings, or winter m etering does not under-predict savings. Similarly
, facilities with seasonal schedules
, such as schools , which should have been metered during active periods, have annual EFLH and CSF values adjusted to reflect operating schedules

.
6.4 Report M&V Savings Infor mation collected during the M&V processes can be used to calculate M&V project savings as follows:

1. Using results from the last step in the measurement process and the sample lighting inventory form from the verification process, update the inventory EFLH and CSF parameters and calculate M&V savings for the sample

. 2. Calculate the project realization rate : the ratio of M&V savings to savings reported by the implementer for the sample

.3 - 14 3. Calculate project M&V savings : the product of the project realization rate and project savings reported by the implementer.

4. Site level savings estimates are u sed to develop program level results and are weighted and expanded based upon the sample design to develop program level realization rates and statistical relative precision at the selected confidence interval

. 12

6.5 Data Requirements and Sources Data requirements are described in Role of the Lighting Control Program Implementer and Role of the Evaluator , with additional detail included in the M&V

. This section addresses information on the fixture wattage, EFLH , and CSF parameters in the algorithm equations

.
**6.5.1 Fixture Wattage**  The protocol recommends use of fixture wattage tables , developed and maintained by existing energy efficiency programs and associated regulatory agencies

. The tables list all common fixture types , and most are updated as new fixtures and lighting technologies become available. W attage values are measured according to American National Standards Institute standards 13 by research facilities working on behalf of manufacturers and academic laborat ories

. In the wattage table, each fixture and screw

- in bulb is fully described , and assigned a unique identifier

. The implementer enters a fixture code into the lighting inventory form, which automatically performs a lookup function to enter the associated demand into the form. The evaluator verifies or corrects the fixture type for the evaluation sample in a copy of the implementer’s inventory form, automatically updating lighting values.

The protocol recommends adopting a fixture wattage table used by a n established and recognized lighting efficiency program. As of May 2012, the following sources serve as examples:

• Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual 2011
, Massachusetts Device Codes and Rated Lighting System Wattage Table . Available from the Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council: www.ma -eeac.org/index.htm

. This is a slightly abbreviated and simplified table of common fixtures and their wattages

.

• New York Standard Approach for Estima ting Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs 2010, Appendix C Standard Fixture Watts. Available from the New York Department of Public Service: www.dps.ny.gov/TechManualNYRevised10-15- 10.pdf . This is a comprehensive (34 page) list used by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority ( NYSERDA ) since the late 1990s

.

• Database for Energy Efficiency Resources

. Available from the California Public Utilities Commission : www.deeresources.com

. An exhaustive list of all parameters

12 The confidence interval and testing criteria (one

- tail vs. two

- tail) can be different based upon jurisdictional requirements. For example, PJM requires relative precision of demand impacts be calculated at 90% confidence using a one

- tail test : Independent System Operator

- New England requires relative precision of demand impacts be calculated at 80% confidence interval using a two

- tail test, both calculations provide the same result.
13 The American National Standards Institute 82.2

- 2002 test protocol specifies ambient conditions for ballast/lamp combinations in luminaires. The test is conducted on an open, suspended fixture. Actual fixture wattage var ies
, depending on the installation (suspended, recessed) and housing type. Differences are small, less than 5% (see DOE 1993 Advanced Lighting Guidelines .)3 - 15 driving energy use and savings for a lengthy list of measures. References California codes and weather zones

. An excerpt from the New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs is included in the Appendix to this protocol as an example of a wattage table

. Wattage tables are used by implementer s and evaluators.

**6.5.2 EFLH**  **and CSF** EFL H and CSF greatly vary by application. The protocol requires evaluators measure pre- and/or post- EFLH (depending on the control type [ see Table 3 ] ) and calculate the CSF to minimize uncertainty.
The following section describes data sources and methods used by program implementers for estimating EFLH and CSF parameter s to reliably repo rt project and program savings. The protocol requires program participants to provide estimates of EFLH values by usage group and an estimate of CSF by control type in their lighting inventory forms. The estimate should not be based on the building schedule alone, al though this may be used to inform the estimate

. The protocol recommends participants develop EFLH and CSF values using one of the following sources, with guidance from the program implement er:

1. Lighting schedules in buildings with energy management systems or time clocks that control lighting equipment. Schedules should be checked by interviewing building managers to determine whether they are overridden

. When available , control schedules (or trend data) provide reliable estimates of true lighting operating hours.

2. Interviews with building managers

. Building managers are usually familiar with lighting schedules; they may not, however, know how lighting is controlled, and may not be a go od source of estimates for CSF values.

3. Tables of EFLH and CSF values by building type , provided by the program implementer

. 4. Combination s of interviews and tables

. To calculate and report project savings, t he protocol recommends lighting efficiency programs require contractors primarily use deemed EFLH -by- building type values , and use 30% or less for the CSF

. When EFLH values can be reliably estimated using site

- specific operating schedule data by lighting control usage group, these values should be used to calculate the pre

- control EFLH

. If the CSF value can be reliably calculated based on the control description, a calculated value should be used if the value does not exceed 50% of the published value. D eemed precontrol EFLH and CSF tables should be updated according to a continuous revision schedule so lighting programs using results from logger studies conducted for impact evaluation studies have current information

. Table 4 provides a list of lighting CSF s developed from ASHRAE 90.1 power adjustment factors.

Table 4 : Lighting Control Savings Factors by Control Type

Lighting Control Type C SF Light switch 0
No c ontrols 03 - 16 Lighting Control Type C SF Daylight controls (DC)

— continuous dimming 0. 3
DC

— multiple

- step dimming 0.2
DC

— ON/OFF 0.1
OS 0.3
OS w/DC

— continuous dimming 0.4
OS w/DC

— multiple

- step dimming 0. 3 5
OS w/DC

— ON/OFF 0.3 53 - 17 

### 7 Other Evaluation Issues

7.1 New Construction Lighting control savings for new construction projects ca n be difficult to calculate as it can be difficult to monitor pre -controls conditions. In some cases , one may override the controls, as to meter non- control conditions . When possible, EFLH and CSF ca n be measured using pre/post metering techniques. Overriding controls can also be used for retrofit and incentive programs, providing the site contact is cooperative and the extra site visit is considered in evaluation planning. 14

7.2 Coincidence Factor The following equation converts the change in connected load to a demand reduction, coincident with a facility’s utility peak period:
Equation 2 kW reduction, coincident = kW controlled x CSF coincident

where:

kW controlled = Sum (Fixture Wattage * Quantity Fixtures) for controlled fixtures

CSF coincident = the C SF calculated during the peak period and is equal to the EFLH post during the coincident period divided by the EFLH pre during the coincident period.
IF and CF parameters in Equation 3, Equation 4, and Equation 5 can be measured : (1) determined by measurement, (2) developed from a study of measured data, or ( more typically ) (3) deemed based on prior studies and computer simulations. Resources for IF and CF values are provided at the end of this document.

14 Ne w Construction baselines may be irrelevant as lighting controls have mandatory provisions in recent standards, such as A SH RAE Standard 90.1

- 2004, requiring some form of lighting controls. For programmatic savings, any controls mu st exceed minimum baseline controls.3 - 18 

### 8 Program Evaluation Elements Building a foundation for successful evaluation of a commercial, industrial, and nonresidential lighting controls program begins in the program design phase. Administrators support future evaluations by ensuring the data required to conduct an impact study have been collected, stored
, and checked for quality. The se data include measured and stipulated values available from prior studies or equipment tests

. Administrators must set data requirements before a program ’s launch

so that when data are ultimately reviewed through an impact eva luation, information required to conduct the research will be available

.3 - 19 

### 9 Re sources

Note: EFLH , CF, and IF values as well as individual fixture wattages can be found in the following references. (T he Pennsylvania reference includes an extensive table of fixture wattages. )
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). (2004) ANSI/ASHRAE/ IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 Energy Standard for Buildings Except L ow

- Rise Residential Buildings

.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) . (2008). Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER)

. www.deeresources.com

. Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). ( 2008). M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Federal Energy Projects V ersion 3.0. www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/mv_guidelines.pdf

. Massachusetts Program Administrators . (2011). Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual for Estimating Savings from Energy Efficiency Measures 2012 Program Year—Plan Version.

www.masssave.com

. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. (2011). Technical Reference Manual , Appendix C. www.puc.state.pa.us/electric/Act129/TRM.aspx

.
TecMarket Works . (2010). New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs

— Residential, Multi -Family and Commercial/Industrial Measures. Prepared for the New York Public Service Commission. www.dps.ny.gov/TechManualNYRevised10-15-10.pdf

. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation. (2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency Technical Reference Manual

. Prepared for the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio

. http://amppartners.org/pdf/TRM_Appendix_E_2011.pdf

. Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) . (2008). M&V Guidelines: Measurement and Verification for Federal Energy Projects Version 3.0. www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/mv_guidelines.pdf

.3 - 20 

### 10 Appendix

Table 5: New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings fro m Energy Efficiency Programs New York Department of Public Service Appendix C: Standard Fixture Watts (excerpt, page 270)

FIXTURE

CODE LAMP CODE DESCRIPTION BALLAST Lamp/ fix WATT/ LAMP WATT/ FIXT F42SSILL F28T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", Super T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, NLO (BF: .85

- .95) Electronic 2 28 48

F41SSILL/T4 F28T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", Super T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, NLO (BF: .85

- .95), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 28 47

F42SSILL

- R F28T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", Super T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85) Electronic 2 28 45

F41SSILL/T4

- R F28T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", Super T

- 8 lamp, IS Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 28 44

F42SSILL

- H F28T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", Super T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, HLO (BF:.96

- 2.2) Electronic 2 28 67

F42ILL/T4 F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, NLO (BF: .85

- .95), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 32 56

F42ILL/T4

- R F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 32 51

F42ILL

- H F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, HLO (BF:.96

- 1.1) Electronic 2 32 65

F42ILL

- R F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85) Electronic 2 32 52

F42ILL

- V F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Instant Start Ballast, VHLO (BF>1.1) Electronic 2 32 79

F42LE F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp Mag

- ES 2 32 71 F42LL F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, NLO (BF: .85

- .95) Electronic 2 32 60

F42LL/T4 F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, NLO (BF: .85

- .95), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 32 59

F42LL/T4

- R F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85), Tandem 4 Lamp Ballast Electronic 2 32 53

F42LL

- H F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, HLO (BF:.96

- 1.1) Electronic 2 32 70

F42LL

- R F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, RLO (BF<0.85) Electronic 2 32 54

F42LL

- V F32T8 Fluorescent, (2) 48", T

- 8 lamp, Rapid Start Ballast, VHLO (BF>1.1) Electronic 2 32 85

F42SE F40T12 Fluorescent, (2) 48", STD lamp Mag

- ES 2 40 86 F42GHL F48T5/HO Fluorescent, (2) 48", STD HO T5 lamp Electronic 2 54 117 F42SHS F48T12/HO Fluorescent, (2) 48", STD HO lamp Mag

- STD 2 60 145 F42SIL F48T12 Fluorescent, (2) 48", STD IS lamp, Electronic ballast Electronic 2 39 74

F42SIS F48T12 Fluorescent, (2) 48", STD IS lamp Mag

- STD 2 39 103 (Reference: NYSERDA Existing Buildings Lighting Table with Circline Additions from CA SPC Table)

# Chapter 4: Small Commercial and Residential Unitary and Split System HVAC Cooling Equipment- Efficie ncy Upgrade Evaluation Protocol The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

David Jacobson , Jacobson Energy Research

Subcontract Report NREL/SR -7A30- 53827 April 20134 - 1 

### Chapter 4 – Table of Contents
1 Measure Description .............................................................................................................. 2 2 Application Conditions of Protocol ....................................................................................... 3 2.1 Programs with Enhanced Measures ................................................................................. 5 3 Savings Calculations .............................................................................................................. 6 4 Measurement and Verification Plan ....................................................................................... 8 4.1 IPMVP Option ................................................................................................................. 8 4.2 Secondar y Options ......................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Verification Process ....................................................................................................... 11 4.4 Data Requirements ......................................................................................................... 12 4.5 Data Collection Methods ............................................................................................... 12 5 Sample Design ..................................................................................................................... 16 6 Program Evaluation Elements.............................................................................................. 17 6.1 Net

- to

- Gross ................................................................................................................... 17 7 References ............................................................................................................................ 18 8 Resources ............................................................................................................................. 204 - 2 

### 1 Measure Description A packaged system —often called a “rooftop unit” because it is usually installed on the roof of a small commercial building —puts all cooling and ventilation system components (evaporator, compressor , condenser, and air handler) in one enclosure or package

. The capacity of packaged systems typically ranges from 3 to 20 tons, al though a system can be more than 100 tons.
Split systems primarily are used for r esidences and very small commercial spaces . These systems place condensers and compressor s outdoors and place evaporators and supply fan s indoors. On average, s p li t systems have a capacity of less than 65,000 B tu/hr (5 .4 t ons ). 1 S mall systems are rated using the Air -Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ( AHRI ) standard 210/240, while the large systems are rate d using AHRI 340/360.

1 A ton equals 12,000 Btu/hr, or the amount of power required to melt 1 ton of ice in 24 hours.4 - 3 

### 2 Application Conditions of Protocol The specific measure described here involves improv ing the overall efficiency in air

conditioning systems as a whole (compressor, evaporator, condenser, and supply fan) . The efficiency rating is expressed as the energy efficiency ratio (EER)
, seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) , and int egrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER) . The higher the EER, SEER or IEER , the more efficient the unit is.

• EER is the Btu /hr of peak cooling delivered per watt of electricity used to produce that amount of cooling. Generally, the EER is measured at standard conditions (95 o F outdoor dry bulb, 67 o F indoor w et bulb), as determined by the AHRI Standard 210/240 (AHRI 2008).

• SEER is a measure of a cooling system ’s efficiency during the entire cooling season for units of less than 65,000 Btu /hr ( less than 5.4 tons). T he SEER , determined at part load, is measured at average conditions (82 o F)
, as established by AHRI 210/240- 2008.

• IEER is a measure of a cooling system’s efficiency during the entire cooling season for units of 65,000 Btu /hr (5.4 tons) and more , expressed in Btu/hr of cooling per watt of electric input. AHRI Standard 340/360 2007 defines IEER as “a single number figure of merit expressing cooling part- load EER for commercial unitary air

conditioning equipment and heat pump equipment on the basis of weighted operation at various load capacities .” It replaces the Integrated Part Load Performance (IPLV) in AHSRAE standard 90.1-2007. For many commercial unitary rebate programs offered in 2011 and 2012, units greater than 5.4 tons are qualified based o n the EER only, and IEER is not c aptured . Although IEER provides a more accurate measure of seasonal efficiency for larger units, it is not yet commonplace throughout the incentive program community

.
Table 1 presents a typical program offering for this measure. 2

2 MassSave Cool Choice Program, offered in 2012 by all Massachusetts Program Administrators. See www.masssave.com/~/media/Files/Professional/Applications

- and

- Rebate

Forms/Cool_Choice_MA_Form_fnl.ashx

.4 - 4 Table 1: Typical Incentive Offering for Air

- Cooled Unitary AC and Split Systems ( New Condenser and New Coil )

T his measure’s primary delivery channel is a rebate program
, usually marketed through program administrator staff s and heating, ventilati ng, and air -condition ing (HVAC) contractor partners

. Typically, these programs do not include early replacement incentives, except when unusually high use of air-conditioning occurs.

• Rebates for units installed in commercial settings are typically paid on the basis of dollars

- per

- ton of cooling, which can vary by the efficiency level achieved (CEE 2009).

• Rebates for residential units are often paid on a fixed rebate -per-unit basis to discourage oversizing and to promote high- quality installation practices.
The rebates apply (1) at the time of normal replacement due to age or failure or (2) for new constru ction applications.

When a unit is installed in new construction or replaces an existing unit that has fail ed or is near the end of its life, the baseline efficiency standard it must meet is generally defined by local energy codes, federal manufacturing standards, or ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for SEER- rated units ( less than 5.4 tons) and IEER- rated units (5.4 tons or greater). This protocol assumes more efficient equipment of the same capacity run s the same number of hours as the baseline equipment. It does not cover :

• E arly replacement retrofits

• Right- sizing initiative s

• Tune-ups

• Electronically commutated motors ( ECM ) retrofits on fans

• Savings resulting from installation of an economizer or demand controlled ventilation at the same time as installation of the new, high- efficiency equipment. Tons Min. SEER/EER for Incentive Incentive $/Ton Min. SEER/EER for Incentive Incentive $/Ton

< 5.4 < 65,000 Split 14.0 SEER & 12.0 EER $70 15.0 SEER & 12.5 EER $125

< 5.4 < 65,000 Packaged 14.0 SEER & 11.6 EER $70 15.0 SEER & 12.0 EER $125

≥ 5.4 to < 11.25 11.5 EER $50 12.0 EER $80 ≥ 11.25 to < 20 11.5 EER $50 12.0 EER $80

≥ 20 to < 63 10.5 EER $30 10.8 EER $50 ≥ 63 N/A N/A 10.2 EER $50 ≥ 135,000 to < 240,000 ≥ 240,000 to < 760,000 ≥ 760,000 Efficiency Tier Unit Size Level 1 Level 2

Btuh

≥ 65,000 to < 135,0004 - 5 2.1 Programs with Enhanced Measures Many program administrators offer other cooling measures in conjunction with higher EER/SEER/IEER cooling units . These measures include dual enthalpy economizers , demand controlled ventilatio n, and ECMs for ventilation fans as a retrofit or a n upgrade option at the time of replacement

.
Other programs , particularly residential , also focus on high-quality installation by requiring the work to meet Air Conditioning Contractors of America ( ACCA ) Quality Installation (QI) standards , which encompass proper duct sealing (ACCA 2007)

.
The evaluation methods addressed in this protocol do not include—on a standalone basis— savings result ing from these other measures . However, some overlap may occur with the evaluation, measurement, and verification ( E M&V ) of high-efficiency cooling system upgrades, particularly with demand controlled ventilation , ECMs , and dual enthalpy economizer s.

**2.1.1 Economizers**  Economizers work by bringing in outside air for ventilation and cooling, when outside conditions are sufficiently cool. In some jurisdictions, many of the newer packaged or split systems have temperature or dry bulb-based economizers, as required by code or by standard practice. Units with temperature

- based econom izers can be included in samples as a random occurrence, reflected in approximate ly rough proportion to their penetration in the population.

A d ual-enthalpy econo mizer —a more sophisticated type, controlling both temperature and humidity

— bring s in outside air when the outside conditions are sufficiently cool and dry. These units tend to reduce the run hours of high- efficiency air conditioners as compared to units without economizers
, thus reducing potential savings from more efficient units. Although dualen thalpy economizers usually are not required by code, s ome utilities prov ide an incentive for the m. If programs offer additional ince ntives for dual- enthalpy economizers
, savings for those measures should not be estimated using the protocol described here.

**2.1.2 Demand Controlled Ventilation**  Demand controlled ventilation ( which uses a CO 2 sensor on return air to limit the intake of outside air to be cooled ) can reduce the run hours for unitary and split systems. Un its that receiv e rebates for demand controlled ventilation should not use this protocol, which assumes the operating hours remain constant.

**2.1.3 Right** 

**- Sizing**  The savings estimated for this measure do not include the effects of right

- sizing initia tives
, which match outputs of cooling systems with cooling loads of facilit ies (thereby optimizing systems’ operation s)

. Th e high- efficiency upgrade measure described here assumes both the base or code-compliant units and the high- efficiency unit s installed are the same size . Thus, the savings achieved through right- sizing initiatives must be determined using a more complex analysis method than is described here

.4 - 6 

### 3 Savings Calculations The c alculat ion of gross annual energy savings for this measure, as defined by a large number of
t echnical r eference m anuals (TRM s) (Massachusetts Program Administrators 2011 ,United Illuminating Company and Connecticut Lighting and Power Company 2008, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation 2010) , uses the following algorithms.
Equation 1 ( for units with a capacity of 5.4 tons or more )

kWh Saved = (Size kBtu/hr) * (1/EER baseline – 1/ EER installed ) * ( EFLH )

Equation 2 (f or units having a capacity of fewer than 5.4 tons )

kWh Saved = (Size kBtu/hr) * (1/SEER baseline – 1/SEER installed ) * (EFLH)

w here:

kWh Saved = kilowatt-hour s saved Size k Btu /hr = cooling capacity of u nit EER baseline = e nergy efficiency ratio of the baseline unit, as defined by local code EER installed = e nergy efficiency ratio of the specific high

- efficiency unit SEER baseline = s easonal energy efficiency ratio of the baseline unit, as defined by local code SEER installed = s easonal energy efficiency ratio of the specific high-efficiency unit EFLH = equivalent full -load hours for cooling

Alt hough at this time, many efficiency providers use Equation 2 with EER for units of greater than 5.4 tons, the protocol recommends using the more accurate measure of seasonal efficiency, IEER , shown in Equation 3.
Equation 3 (for IEER)

kWh Saved = (Size kBtu/hr) * (1/IEER baseline – 1/IEER installed ) * (EFLH)

w here:

IEER baseline = Integrated energy efficiency ratio of the baseline unit, defined to be minimally compliant with code, which is usually based on ASHRAE 90.1-2010 IEER installed = Integrated energy efficiency ratio of the specific high -efficiency unit

Note that for many programs currently offered, only EER is required to qualify units 5.4 tons or greater

. For smaller units
, SEER is almost always available , and it should be used for the calculation of annual energy savings.
This formula assumes some simplifications: ( 1) baseline units and high-efficiency units are of equal size ( that is , no downsizing or “rightsizing” due to increased efficiency ); and ( 2) base line4 - 7 and high- efficiency unit s have the same operating hours. Alt hough this may not be the case f or a given cooling load, these simplifications have been determined reasonable in the context of other uncertainties

.4 - 8 

### 4 M easurement and Verification Plan When choosing an option, consider the following factors :

• The equation variables used to calculate savings

• The uncertainty in the claimed estimates of each parameter

• The cost
, complexity , and uncertainty in measuring each of those variables. When calculating savings for u nitary HVAC , the goal is to take unit measurements as cost

effectively as possible , so as to reduce overall uncertainty in the savings estimate. Thus, us e these primary components :

• U nit size

• Efficiency of the base unit and the installed unit

• Annual operating hours for energy savings

• Coincidence factor (CF) for demand savings.

4.1 IPMVP Option The recommended approach entails two steps: (1) U se one of the equations provided above with manufacturer rated values for capacity and efficiency ( using industry -approved methods); and (2) incorporate program- specific measured values for the operating hours. (This approach most closely resembles International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol ( IPMVP ) Option A: Partial Retrofit Isolation/Metered Equipment.)
Option A can be considered the best approach for the following reasons :

• T he key issue for replace -on- failure /new construction programs is the usage of baseline equi pment, defined as the current code or prevailing standard . However
, this cannot be measured or assessed for participating customer s because , by definition, lower

- efficiency baseline equipment w as neve r installed. T he unit replaced is often old and below current requirements and is not the appropriate baseline. A nonparticipant group installing baseline equipment could be used , but only one known study has attempted this to date (KEMA 2010). For most situations, finding valid nonparticipants through random-digit dialing and performing extensive metering is simply too costly, given the savings level this measure contributes to typical portfolio s. 3

• Regarding the use of pre/post- billing analysis ( IMPVP Option C) for participants , the same issue applies

— pre

- install ation does not represent the baseline. Even without using pre/post-billing analysis, one might try using monthly billing data to determine cooling energy for a fa cility and then calculate facility

- level full -load hours for use in the equations. Howe ver, this method is not recommended because cooling electric ity

3 This generally represents a small percentage of total commercial and industrial portfolio savings; primarily due to code, most new equipment is already relatively efficient.4 - 9 usage cannot be easily disaggregated from total monthly electric usage with the accuracy required

. As more residential and small commercial customers get kilowatt (kW) interval data (hourly or smaller time intervals), estimating cooling hours from whole- building data may become more feasible for very simple cases, but such methods are error -prone; feasibility will depend strongly on building size and type, HVAC system configuration, and the profiles of other loads.

**4.1.1 Capacity**  M easur ing cooling capacity is extremely expensive and would only result in replicat ing information already provided in a manner overseen by a technical standards group ( AHRI ). Thus, for a unit’s peak cooling capacity (size), use the manufacturer’s ratings, as these have generally been determined through an industry-standard approved process at fixed operating conditions. Although s ome variation may occur in the output of individual rebated units, it is assumed that on average, units perform close to AHRI rating s.

**4.1.2 Efficiency Rating**  For determining the efficiency levels of base units and installed units, an industry accepted standard alternative to in situ measurement is available through manufacturers’ ratings. (Also, p erforming in situ measur ing i s extremely cost ly .)

**4.1.3 Equivalent Full** 

**- Load Hours**  The EFLH variable must be measured or estimated for the population of program participants. Operating hours are specific to building types and to system sizing and design practices . Typical design practice tends to result in oversizing (using a larger

- than -needed unit). In general, the greater the oversizing
, the fewer the operating hours , and the less efficiently a unit operates.
Two primary methods exist for developing hours of use for the equations in Savings Calculations

— creating a building simulation or conducting metering. The recommended approach favors using some actual measurement rather than relying exclusively on simulationbased estimates.

D etailed bu ilding simulation models can be developed for a wide variety of building types, system configurations, and applicable weather data. Such analysis usually results in an extensive set of look-up tables for operating hours listed by building type and weather zone. Various TRMs use this approach, including New York and California (Te cMarket Works 2010 ) ( Itron, Inc. 2005). In California
, DEER look -up tables contain 9,000 unique combinations of unit types, building vintages, climate zones
, and building types

. This approach is used to establish program planning estimates when measuremen ts a re not available
, but it does not include measurements to account for oversizing practices or the types of building populations served by the actual programs. Thus, the recommended approach entails meter ing demand (kW) for a sample of units to develop EFLH estimates ( KEMA 2010).

Note that the energy consumption of the compressor(s), condenser fan(s), and evaporator (i.e. supply) fan(s) are used to calculate the EFLH, but only when the compressor and condenser actually supply cooling.4 - 10 M easurement of en ergy co nsumption can be used to validate building simulation models. However
, in practice , the cost of metering the sample sizes required for developing data for all building types and weather zones would be cost-prohibitive and thus has not been attempted. In a California study, results from approximately 50 units in three climate zones were used to develop realization rates to calibrate the simulation approach to metered data , but not to determine EFLH for combinations of building t ypes, climate zones , and system types (Itron, Inc. and KEMA 2008).
Measuring energy consumption involves on- site inspections , where unit-level power me tering is performed for a wide range of temperature, occupancy, and humidity conditions. The r esulting data can be analyze d to determine energy consumption as a function of outdoor wet -bulb or dry

bulb temperatures . These data can be extrapolated to the entire year by using typical meteorological year (TMY) data.
Dividing annual energy consumption (kWh) by the peak rated kW serves as a proxy for EFLH. The peak rated kW is defined as a unit’s peak cooling capacity at AHRI conditions in kBtu/hr and divided by the EER. Metering used to determine the annual kWh consumption should be based on either (1) a true power (kW) meter and integration of power over time; or (2) an energy meter, which perfo rms the integration internally. Such metering should include the compressor(s), condenser fan(s), and supply fan(s). If true power kW or energy metering proves too cos tly, amperage data may be acceptable if they are supplemented with spot power measurements under a variety of loading conditions.
When taking m easurements, consider these factors: (1) Use a random sample of units spread across building types and (2) strat ify the sample by climate zone ( if the territory has a wide range of temperature and humidity conditions) and unit size s. Note that u nit

- size stratification may not be required if unit sizes fall within a narrow range.
Although a sufficiently large random sample would likely capture the predominant building types of interest, we recommend check ing distribution s of building types in the sample relative to the population and then adjusting or redrawing the sample, as needed, if a n adequate distribution does not result.

4.2 Secondary Option s More extensive measurements than those described above may be justified when (1) typical operating conditions are significantly different than conditions for which the equipment has been rated or (2) the savings for this measu re make up a significant portion of total portfolio savings. For example, extensive measurements may be appropriate in very hot and dry climates (such as the Southwest), where the dry -bulb temperature is often higher than the 95 o F used for EER ratings and the humidity is very low, compared to conditions for SEER ratings. Navigant (Navigant 2010) has shown that performance in hot, dry climates differs significantly from manufacturer s ’ standard conditions.
Another complicating issue is performance at low loading for large units , with multiple compressors running in parallel. In such cases , low -loading performance is higher than expected from typical SEER ratings. I f a part -load rating is available that matches operating conditions4 - 11 reasonably well
, use SEER or IEER in place of EER for simplified equations calculat ing energy savings in conjunction with metered estimates of full- load hours.
In cases such as these where more extensive measurement is justified, consider the following steps :

1. Meter equipment to d etermine runtimes in high and low stages of operation.

2. Aggregate and normalize runtime data for weather effects to create a typical hourly runtime shape that corresponds with a typical set of weather conditions

. 3. Collect detailed performance data for a representative selection of equipment of various IEER/IPLV
, EER
, or SEER.
4. Calculate hourly kWh/ton using detailed performance data and runtimes for each hour for each piece of equipment.

5. Sum the hourly kWh/ton over the full year to calculate annual kWh/ton an d then average hourly kWh/ton over the peak period to calculate peak kW/ton.

6. Fit a mathematical function to determine kWh/ton = f(SEER or IEER, EER) and kW/ton = f(SEER or IEER, EER)

. 7. Apply the mathematical functions for kWh/ton and kW/ton to the population ’s energy- efficient and baseline cases to determine savings for each piece of equipment. An alternative for jurisdictions with detailed TRMs (such as New York) is the option used by Itron and KEMA in California , which involved measurement for a sample of units and development of a relationship between metered EFLH and that predicted by simulation models (Itron, Inc. and KEMA 2008). Expressed as a realization rate, such a relationship can be used for all unmetered sites to adjust simulation

- based EFLH values. This alternative approach, however, is very expensive and, for equivalent funding, using the recommended approach can result in obtaining measure ment data from five to 10 times more pieces of equipment. ( Other measurement options are discussed in various A SH RAE publications [ ASHRAE 2000 ] [ASHRAE 2002 ] [ASHRAE 2010].)

If all detailed measurements fall beyond an evaluation ’s available budget, program administrator s can use available EFLH data from studies conducted for similar climate zones and building types

. This approach , however, involves no actual measurements to reflect typical system sizing and design practices, building types, or weather in a region or service territory. 4

4.3 Verification Process The k ey data to be verified are (1) the size of the unit rebated and (2) the efficiency of the installed unit. V erifi cation can be performed through:

4 As discussed in the Considering Resource Constraints section of the “ Introduction ” chapter to th is UMP r eport, small utilities (as defined under the U.S. Small Business Administration [ SBA ] regulations) may face additional constraints in undertaking this protocol. Therefore, alternative methodologies should be considered for such utilities.4 - 12 • A desk review of invoices and manufacturers’ specification sheets ( which should be required for rebate payment)

• An on- site a udit of a sample of participants ( usually the same participants selected for the end- use metering
, discussed above ). Cooling capacity and efficiency are measured by manufacturers under standard conditions ; however, the EFLH is site -dependent and not measure d. Thus, the major uncertainty arises in the EFLH
, so metering should concentrate on that quantity.
If savings can be determined as a function of building type s, then verification of building types on applications can be conducted through on- site vi sits or telephone surveys.

B aseline efficiency can be assumed to be that of a code- compliant unit in the service territory. D ifference s in efficiency between code -compliant units and standard practice would be reflected in the calculation of an appropriate net- to -gross ratio.

4.4 Data Requirements M inimum d ata required for evaluati ng a unitary HVAC rebate program are :

• Size (in Btu /hr or tons) of each unit installed

• Efficiency (in EER, SEER, or IEER) of each unit installed

• Assumed baseline efficiency for each category of units (from prevailing code or standard)

• Location of each unit, corresponding to specific weather station disaggregation used for analysis of metered data

. Metered data used in the evaluation consists of the EFLH developed for each weather zone, which is derived as the ratio of the annual kWh divided by the peak kW.
Using the appropriate equation in Savings Calculations , determine the savings for this measure with these data :

• The installed cooling capacity

• The EER , SEER, or IEER rating ( from manufacturers ’ data ) of the baseline unit and the installed unit

• The measured EFLH

.
4.5 D ata Collection Method s Given the relative size of savings for this measure in a typical portfolio

— one dominated by other higher- savings measures —the collection of data (which is comparatively costly) can best be conducted jointly with other program administrators in a state or region with similar weather conditions.
In the past 15 years, a number of studies have examined commercial unitary HVAC EFLH and load shapes of note (KEMA 2011) (SAIC 1998) (Itron, Inc. and KEMA 2008 ) ( KEMA 2010).4 - 13 Further, at least two st udies have examined full -load hours of residential central air -conditioning systems (KEMA 2009) ( ADM 200 9). The method this protocol recommends has been based on work described in the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships ( NEEP ) EM&V Forum study (KEMA 2011), which, if conducted on a regional basis across multiple program administrators
, balance s rigor and cost.

As discussed
, unit sizes and climate zones provide variables for developing a sampling framework. Large units tend to run for more hours and exhibit higher peak coincidence than small units (ranging from 3 tons to 15 ton s) . Large units also tend to use multiple compressors and are controlled differently than sm aller , single-compressor units.

If a program predominantly rebates unit s smaller than 15 tons in size (o r if the specific prescriptive program is limit ed to unit s smaller than 15 tons), only one size category is necessary

. Similarly, if all units in the service ter ritory or region studied have essentially the same temperature and humidity conditions ( for example , one large city), sampling by climate

zone is not needed

. Thus, i f unit size and climate zone are not required sampling dimensions for represent ing the population, then sampling by predominant building type alone may be possible. Otherwise
, sampli ng by combinations of climate zone, size , and building type may prove im practical.

**4.5.1 Metering**  Metering should capture integrated true root mean square ( RMS ) kW power measurements at 15 minute intervals during at least half of the typical cooling season for the region, being sure to include either the spring or fall shoulder period s. If budget allows, metering should extend from the time units typical ly come on in spring until units are no longer needed in fall. Where budgets are constrained and timing allowed is not sufficient, the evaluator may meter for less time but should assure that the monitoring captures the preponderance of operating conditions to minimize the extent to which extrapolation must be performed outside the range of conditions captured. For high internal gain situations where cooling is needed year round, metering should include some portion of the warmest weather and coldest weather months.

If the evaluation is also designed to capture oversizing practices of the newly installed units
, mo re detailed cycling patterns beyond the determination of EFLH , and/or demand savings factors , data should be captured in 1- minute intervals (as data storage and budget constraints allow ). Regardless of which metering intervals are used , d ata will be aggreg ated to one -hour averages for use in the model specified below because publicly- available weather data are generally available in hourly formats

. If budgets do not allow for measurement of kW using amperage and voltage measurements, using amperage measurements alone to determine EFLH and demand savings factors may be justified and is preferable over using values from studies conducted by other progr am administrators for similar climate zones and building types as described above. Direct kW measurements are preferable and the methods below assume kW measurements are taken. If amperage measurements are use d, slight modifications to the formulas below f or calculating EFLH are required.4 - 14 The kW measurements should encompass the energy consumption of the compressor, condenser, evaporator, and supply fans. However, these measurements should only be used in the computation of the EFLH , when the compre ssor an d condenser are actually running and supplying cooling. The accuracy of kW measurements should be ± 2%, as recommended by Independent System Operator ( ISO ) New England (ISO -New England, Inc. 2010).
After collecting the kW data, perform a unit- level regress ion of the unit power against predictor variables such as real

- time weather data and whether the specific hour fell within the second or third hot day in a row. The predictor variables selected should provide the most significant independent variables for use as inputs to estimate the weather -normalized annual kWh consumption, and to extrapolate consumption outside the metering period. T he result will be an 8760 kW load profile for that specific unit using the predictor variab les. The following model functional form has been successfully used for this analysis in Northeast climates (KEMA 2011). M odification s to this model may be justified by the climate conditions and evaluation scope: 5

(2)
Where, for a particular HVAC unit :

L dh = load on day d hour h , day= 1 to 365, hour = 1 to 8760 in kW THI dh = t emperature -humidity index on day d hour h w(d) = 0/1 dummy indicating day type of day d , Monday = 1, Sunday =7, Holiday = 8 g(h) = 0/1 dummy indicating hour group for hour h , hour group = 1 to 24 H 2d = 0/1 dummy indicating that hours in day d are the second hot day in a

row H 3d = 0/1 dummy indicating that hours in day d are the third or more hot day in a row

α β Ch β Hh β w(d) β g(h) = c oefficients determined by the regression β 2h , β 3h = h ot day adjustments, a matrix of coefficients assigned to binary variables (0/1) for hours defined for 2 nd and 3 rd consecutive hot days ; matrix variables are unique to each hour in each hot day

ε dh = residual error

The THI in °F can be defined as:

Where:

OSA db = outside dry bulb temperature in °F DPT = outside air dew point temperature in °F

5 For example
, in hotter climates, the variable for consecutive hot days may not be needed or
, in more humid climates, the dry bulb temperature and humidity may need to be separated dhdhdh hg dwdh Ch dh HHhgdw THI L εβ β β β βα +++ + + += 3322 )( )( )()(



### 15 3.0 5.0 +×+×= DPT OSA THI db4 - 15 Note that this particular functional form is just an example of w hat has been successfully used

. However, this protocol is not suggesting that using this specific regression model is a requirement. Other e xamples of modifications include using a variable for the presence of economizers or using log functions with independent variables. The success o f the model should be measured by diagnostics such as signs for coefficients and comparison of measured power to modeled power via root mean squared error (RMSE), R-square for the model, and the mean bias

error

. The following equation provides an EFLH calcu l ation for the overall load shape or for each unit metered:

EFLH = � � Estimated Hourly Load ( kW ) Connected Load ( kW ) � 8760

h=1

The connected load is defined as the unit ’s max imum kW recorded or peak cooling capacity at AHRI conditions in k Btu /hr divided by the EER.

The HVAC unit’s rated cooling capacity can be obtained from the unit make and model numbers, which should be required to be entered in the tracking system

. Although the EFLH is calculated with reference to a peak kW derived from EER
, it is acceptable to use these EFLH with SEER or IEER. S ome inconsistency occurs in using full- load hours with efficiency ratings measured at part loading , but errors in calculation are thought to be small relative to the expense and complexity of developing hours-of- use estimates precisely consistent with SEER and IEER.

The EFLH for the population can be determined by multiplying the EFLH for each metered unit by the appropriate weighting factor, ref lect ing that unit’s contribution to the total population’ s cooling capacity.
Explicit 8760 load shape data are not always needed. T his information , however, can be helpful for on- peak energy or demand savings calculations when (1) the time period in which the peak demand is being calculated differs among participants in a particular metering study or (2) the definition changes after primary data are collected . If the study has produced data for all hours of the year, these data can easily be reanalyzed for different on-peak energy and peak demand definitions.4 - 16 

### 5 Sample Design Evaluators will d etermin e the required target s for confidence and precision levels, subject to spec ific regulatory or program administrator requirements. In most jurisdictions, the g enerally accepted confidence level s should be designed to estimate EFLH with a sampling precision of 10% at the 90% confidence interval. If attempting to organize the population into specific subgroups (such as building types or unit sizes ), it may be appropriate to target 20 % precision with a 90 % confidence interval for indiv id ual subgroups, and 10% precision for the large total population.
In addition to sampling error s, errors in measurement and modeling can also occur . In general, these errors are lower than the sampling error ; thus
, sample sizes commonly are designed to meet sampling precision levels alone.

S ample size s for achieving this precision level should be determined by estimating the coefficient of variation (CV), calculated as the standard deviation divided by the mean. CV s generally range from 0.5 to 1.0 6 , and the more homogeneous the population, the lower the likely CV. After the study is completed
, the CV should be recalculated to determine the actual sampling error of the metered sample.

As discussed , units should be sampled based on climate zone s and unit size s, if sufficient variation occurs in these quantities. Alternative ly, the most prevalent building types can be sampled if the program administrator’s database tracks building types accurately . One overall EFLH average can be developed if most units lie with in a single climate zone and have a narrow range in capacity

. Many customers taking advantage of unitary HVAC rebate pro grams have multiple air

conditioning units rebated simultaneously. Consequently, the sampling plan must consider whether a sample can be designed for specific units, groups of units by size, or all units at a given site. It is also important to c onsider th e resources needed to schedule and send metering technician s or engineers to a given site. Once those fixed costs have been incurred, meter ing multiple units at a site becomes an attractive option.

D ecision s on how best to approach site (facility) sampling versus unit sampling depend on the degree of detail in the information available for each unit rebated. In many cases , rebate applications and tracking systems only record the total number of units in each size category, rather than the s pecific i nformation on the location of each unit. For these instances , develop a specific rule that calls for random sampling of a fixed percentage of units at a given site

.
Based on these considerations , sampling should be conducted per- customer site or application
, with a sp ecifi ed minimum number of units sampled at a given site. A reasonable target is two or more units in each size category at each site with multiple units

.

6 At a CV of 0.5, the sample size to achieve a 10% precision with a 90 % confidence inte rval is 67. At CV of 1.0, the sample size is 270.4 - 17 

### 6 Program Evaluation Elements To assure the validity of data collected, establis h procedures a t the beginning of the study to address the following i ssues:

• Quality of an acceptable regression curve fit (based on R 2 , missing data, etc.)

• Procedures for filling in limited amounts of missing data

• Meter failure (the minimum amount of data from a site required for analysis )

• High and low data limits (based on meter sensitivity, malfunction, etc.)

• Units to be metered not operational during the site visit (F or example, determine whether this should be brought to the owner’s attention or wh ether the unit be metered as is .)

• Units to be metered malfunction during the mid-metering period and have (or have not) been repaired at the customer’s instigation

. It is recommended to add to the sample an additional 10% of the number of sites or units to account for data attrition. 7

At the beginning of each study
, determine whether metering efforts should capture short

- term measure persistence . T hat is, decide how the metering study should capture the impacts of nonoperational rebated equipment (due to malfunction, cooling no longer needed, equipment never installed, etc.) . For non-operational equipment, these could either be treated as equipment with zero operating hours, or a separate assessment could be done of the in- service rate

. 8

One key issue is h ow to extrapolate data beyond the measurement period for units that may be left on after the primary cooling season ends. To address this and other unique operating characteristics , conduct s ite interviews with facility managers or homeowners (for resident ial units) , as c ustomers often know when units have been and are typically turned off for the season. Th ese i nterview data can be used to override regression analysis indicat ing usage in the offseason , provided the customer can be certain the unit has not operated

.
In analyzing year

- round data from a mid

- Atlantic utility , KEMA found that once the THI fell below 50 o F, most units shut off for the season. Th at information enabled KEMA to apply this rule to other sites in the NEEP EM & V Forum study, result ing in a more realistic estimate of fall and winter cooling hours than was obtained by applying only regression results.

6.1 Net

- to

- Gross A separate cross

- cutting protocol to determine applicable net

- to -gross is planned for Phase 2 of the Uniform Methods Project.

7 In KEMA’s study for the NEEP EM & V Forum, approximately 9% of metered units were removed due to data validity problems (KEMA 2011).
8 The “ Residential Lighting ” p rotocol further discusse s in

- service rate s.4 - 18 

### 7 References

ADM. (November 2009). “Residential Central AC Regional Evaluation.” Prepared for NSTAR Electric and Gas Corporation, National Grid, Connecticut Light & Power, and United Illuminating.
Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) . (2007). Standard 5 (ANSI/ACCA 5 QI-207) HVAC Quality Installation Specification.

Air -Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI). (2008). ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008 with Addendum 1, Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equ ipment.
American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). (2000). Compilation of Diversity Factors and Schedules for Energy and Cooling Load Calculations, ASHRAE Research Report 1093.

ASHRAE . (2002). Guideline 14-2002 Measurement of Energy and Demand Savings . (Revision 14-2002R in process).

ASHRAE. (2010)

. Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial Buildings. Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). (2009). Commercial Unitary AC and HP Specifications, Unitary Air Conditioning Specification . Effective January 16, 2009. www.cee1.org/com/hecac/hecac

tiers.pdf

.
ISO -New England, Inc. (June 2010). ISO New England Manual for Measurement and Verification of Dema nd Reduction Value from Demand Resources Manual (M

- MVDR)

. Itron, Inc. ( December 2005). 2004- 05 Database of Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) Update. Prepared for Southern California Edison.
Itron, Inc. and KEMA. ( December 31, 2008). 2004/2005 Statewide Express Efficiency and Upstream HVAC Program Impact Evaluation. Prepared for the California Public Utility Commission, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and Southern California Gas Company. www.calmac.org/publications/FINAL_ExpressEfficiency0405.pdf

. KEMA. (2009). Pacific Gas & Electric SmartACTM 2008 Residential Ex Post Load Impact Evaluation and Ex Ante Load Impact Estimates, Final Report. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric. March.
KEMA. ( February 10, 2010). Evaluation Measurement and Verification of the California Public Utilities Commission HVAC High Impact Measures and Specialized Commercial Contract Group Programs 2006-2008 Program Year. www.calmac.org/publications/Vol_1_HVAC_Spec_Comm_Report_02- 10 -10.pdf

.4 - 19 KEMA. ( August 2, 2011). C&I Unitary HVAC Load Shape Project

. Pr epared for the Regional Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Forum facilitated by the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP).
Massachusetts Program Administrators. ( October 2011). Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual for Estimating Savings from Energy Efficiency Measures 2012 Program Year—Plan Version.
Navigant. (June 2010). “The Sun Devil in the Details: Lessons Learned from Residential HVAC Programs in the Desert Southwest.” Presented at Counting on Energy Programs: It’s Why Evalua tion Matters . Paris, France: International Energy Program Evaluation Conference.
Regional EM&V Methods and Savings Assumption Guidelines . ( May 2010.) Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) EM&V Forum.

SAIC . (1998). New England Unitary HVAC Research Final Report . Sponsored by New England Power Service Company, Boston Edison Company, Commonwealth Electric, EUA Service Company, and Northeast Utilities.

TecMarket Works . (October 15, 2010). New York Standard Approach for Estimating Energy Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs - Residential, Multi -Family and Co mmercial/ Industrial Measures . Prepared for the New York Public Service Commission. http://efile.mpsc.state.mi.us/efile/doc s/16671/0026.pdf

. United Illuminating Company and Connecticut Lighting and Power Company. (October 2008). UI and CL&P Program Savings Documentation for 2009 Program Year

. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation. (August 6, 2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency Technical Reference Manual Including Predetermined Savings Values and Protocols for Determining Energy and Demand Savings

. Prepared for the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio

. http://amppartners.org/pdf/TRM_Appendix_E_2011.pdf

.4 - 20 

### 8 Resour ces

Consortium for Energy Efficiency ( CEE ). (January 2010). Information for CEE Program Administrators on the New Part Load Efficiency Metric for Unitary Commercial HVAC Equipment

. www.cee1.org/com/hecac/Prog_Guidance_IEER.pdf

. Regional EM&V Methods and Savings Assumption Guidelines . ( May 2010.) Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) EM&V Forum.

# Chapter 5: Residential Furnaces and Boilers Evaluation Protocol The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

David Jacobson , Jacobson Energy Research

Subcontract Report NREL/SR -7A30- 53827 April 20135 - 1 

### Chapter 5 – Table of Contents
1 Measure Description .............................................................................................................. 2 2 Application Conditions of Protocol ....................................................................................... 3 3 Savings Calculations .............................................................................................................. 5 4 Measurement and Verification Plan ....................................................................................... 8 4.1 IPMVP Option ................................................................................................................. 8 4.2 Verification Process ......................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Data Requirements ........................................................................................................... 9 4.4 Coll ecting Data .............................................................................................................. 10 5 Discussion of Methodology ................................................................................................. 11 5.1 More Refined Approach ................................................................................................ 13 6 Sample Design ..................................................................................................................... 16 6.1 Program Evaluation Elements........................................................................................ 16 6.2 Net -to Gross ................................................................................................................... 16 7 References ............................................................................................................................ 17 8 Resources ............................................................................................................................. 18 9 Appendix .............................................................................................................................. 19 9.1 Simplified Formulas for Calculating Savings From Upgrading the Efficiency of a Residential Gas Furnace or Boiler .......................................................................................... 195 - 2 

### 1 Measure Description The high- efficiency boiler and furnace measure produces gas heating 1 savings resulting from installation of more energy- efficient heating equipment in a residence . Such equipment, which rang es in size from 60 k Btu /hr to 300 k Btu /hr, is installed primarily in single

- family homes and multifamily buildings with individual heating systems for each dwelling unit. This protocol does not cover integrated heating and water heating units which can be used in lieu of space heating only equipmen t.

1 High

- efficiency equipment can also be f ueled by propane; however, for this protocol to be applied, bills must be provided on a monthly basis.5 - 3 

### 2 Application Conditions of Protocol Table 1 shows typical mid

- level efficiency program rebate offering s for this measure

. 2

Table 1: Mid

- Level Qualifying Efficiency and Rebate Values

Measure Efficiency Requirement Rebate Amount Natural gas forced

- air furnace 92% to 93.9% AFUE $150 Natural gas forced

- air furnace 94% to 95.9% AFUE $300 Natural gas forced

- air furnace 96% or higher AFUE $400 Natural gas boiler 83.5% to 90.9% AFUE $300 Condensing natural gas boiler 91% or higher AFUE $500

A more aggressive program may offer the rebates shown in Table 2

. 3

Table 2: Higher- Level Qualifying Efficiency and Rebate Values

Measure Efficiency Requirement Rebate Amount Natural gas forced

- air furnace with ECM 96% or higher AFUE $800 Natural gas forced

- air furnace with out ECM 95% or higher AFUE $500 Natural gas hot water boiler 96% or higher AFUE $1

, 500 Natural gas hot water boiler 90 % to 95 .9% AFUE $1

, 000

The specific measure described in this protocol improves upon the efficiency of residential furnace and boilers in terms of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE ’s ) annual fuel u tilization

e fficiency ( AFUE ) rating . AFUE, the most widely used measure of seasonal thermal efficiency for residential

- sized heating equipment, is defined as the amount of useful heat delivered from a unit into a heating system for distribution , compared to the amount of fuel supplied to the unit on an annual basis. Units with efficiency levels in excess o f 90 % generally rely on extracting additional energy ―typically that lost up a flue

― by condensing water vapor out of flue gas. Generally, this is accomplished using large r heat exchangers and a redesigned exhaust system to accommodate lower flue gas exit temperature s.

The me asure primarily target s customer s purchasing new equipment, usually for the following

reasons:

• Acquiring a new home

• Converting to gas from oil or other fuel

2 CenterPoint Energy's high

- efficiency heating system rebate program offered in 2011. See www.centerpointenergy.com/services/naturalgas/residential/efficiencyrebatesandprograms/heatingsystemrebate s/MN/

. 3 MassSav e/GasNetworks 2012 High Efficiency Heating and Water Heating Rebates for Residential Customers. See www.masssave.com/~/media/Files/Residential/Applications%20and%20Rebate%20Forms/2012%20GN%20Re bate.ashx

.5 - 4 • Replacing equipment at the end of its normal life or upon failure

• Major remodeling of an existing home

. The program design assumes c ustomers participating in a residential furnace and boiler program would purchase new equipment that meets applicable codes or standard practice s. Therefore codes or standard practices prov ide the baseline from which savings can be calculated ( rather than using the equipment being replaced as the baseline ). The program seeks to encourage installation of higher -efficiency equipment by paying a ll or a significant portion of incremental cost s for upgrading to such units.
Rebate programs , often used for such measure s, are usually marketed through a utility (or other program administrator staff ) and its heating and plumbing contractor partners . Typically, r ebates

are paid at a specified dollar amount per unit, depending on efficiency level s. (For residential equipment, size generally does not play a role, due to the narrow size range .)
Residential purchasers of new furnaces can also receive incentives for installing electronically commutated motors (ECM s) in place of standard efficiency motors on furnace fans or hot water distribution pumps . This protocol, however, does not cover ECMs , which primarily provide electricity savings . This protocol also does not cover add-on boiler control measures, such as outdoor temperature reset controls, as these often are used for retrofits of existing boilers

. Some comprehensive residential programs assist customers in determining the appropriate or “right” siz e of the unit to be installed relative to the pr edicted load of the home. As most residential boiler and furnace programs do not offer these services

― and because the modeling becomes much more complex for programs that do― this protocol does not take into account the changes in capacity from such efforts.5 - 5 

### 3 Savings Calculations Key issues in determining savings for this measure are :

• W hat data are collected at the time of installation or application for incentives ?

• W hat data can be easily collected during an evaluation?

• What assumptions are made about baseline equipment

- sizing practice s?
As previously described, the installed unit ’s AFUE reflects its efficiency level . Typically, t he AFUE rating is collected for each unit rebated
, as incentive payments are contingent on receiving verification that the u nit meets program requirements . However, the efficiency of the baseline unit is not typically tracked.
For determining unit- specific savings or overall average savings per unit , many common formulas calculat ing savings use unit size or “ capacity ” in their derivation s. With air

conditioning units, the size or capacity ratings always are provided in cooling output ( Btu /hr or tons) delivered from units. For heating equipment, however, both the rate of heat delivered from the system ( that is, the outp ut capacity ) and the rate of energy the unit consumes (the input capacity) often are provided. P rogram administrators strive to be specific in their request s for the capacity ratings of incented heating units, however, the two rat ings often are confused. Also, customers or plumbing and heating contractors sometimes fail to provide the information

. Input and output capacity ratings generally are provided as peak capacity and not annual average numbers represented by AFUE

.

• For non-condensing boile rs and for both condensing and non- condensing furnaces
, the ratio of peak input and peak output come very close to the AFUE . Thus, nameplate data can approximate relative annual performance

.

• For condensing boilers, peak capacity does not indicate annual performance well because units perform better at part -load conditions.

Thus, for the most efficient boilers ( usually condensing units ), it is not valid to assume the approximation of the ratio of rated peak input to output capacities is proportion al to the AFUE

. This difference carries implications regarding which formulas can be used to calculate savings.

C apacity values are needed for unit- specific calculations of gross savings , but when they are not supplied on rebate form s, program administrators often use the manufacturer -provided capacity information embedded in specific model numbers. 4 However, the capacity indicated in model number nomenclature usually provides the input capacity in kB tu /hr rather than the output capacit y. Due to difference s in the capacity information provided by program participants

― and how this affects derivation of formulas for calculat ing savings

― the recommended formula is presented in two forms ; which one is used depends on the capacity value provided. ( The

4 For example, the York YP9C0 60 B12MP12C is 60,000 Btu/hr input capacity, and the York YP9C 100 C12MP12C is rated at 100,000 Btu/hr input capacity.5 - 6 Appendix to this chapter provides d erivations for calculati ng savings through these two methods.)

• The first derivation assumes data collected regarding unit size is input capacity

.

• The second derivation assumes size data collected is output heating capacity

. Generally, input capacity ( rather than output capacity) is more readily available, and the recommended formula for calculating savings is based on the following assumption s:

• Input capacity (Btu/hr) remain s the same for the baseline unit and the installed unit

.

• Annual full-load operating hours, operating hours, and output capacity differ for each unit. (T his is a reasonable assumption, given that if input energy remains the same, and the installed unit more efficient ly converts input energy to output energy, the

more efficient unit will run for fewer hours .)

In th ese circumstances , use Equation 1 to calcu late savings from a high-efficiency unit replacing a baseline -efficiency unit:
Equation 1 Savings b – e = Capacity input -e * EFLH e-installed * [( AFUE e / AFUE b ) – 1]

w here:
Capacity input -e = peak heating input capacity of both the baseline and installed unit

EFLH e-installed = equivalent full -load hours of the installed high- efficiency unit

In some cases , program managers collect the output capacity (or what program manager s interpret as output capacity ). 5 The alternative formula for calculating savings has been based on

an assumption that runtimes (and, therefore , output capacities) are the same for high- efficiency units and baseline units . However , input capacit ies of baseline units differ for base - and highe fficiency unit s. 6
, 7 That formula, based on the rated output capacity, is shown in Equation 2:
Equation 2 Savings b – e = Capacity output * E FLH * (1/ AFUE b – 1/ AFUE e )

w here:

5 On some rebate forms , the field simply says the “capacity” ; it does not specif y whether it is input or output capacity

. 6 This implies the same annual heating load on the home for the base and the installed unit.
7 This assumes input capacities for the base and high

- efficiency units are different (that is, the installer, knowing the unit is more efficient―or relying on the ratings―will install a unit with smaller input requirements for the higher

- efficiency unit). This makes engineering sense but, again, it depends on whether input or output ratings are used.5 - 7 Capacity output = heating output capacity of both the baseline and installed high

- efficiency

unit

E FL H = full -load equivalent hours of the baseline and installed high- efficiency unit

AFUE b = annual f uel u tilization efficiency of the baseline code compliant/standard practice unit

AFUE e = annual f uel u tilization efficiency of the high- efficiency unit

Note that the Capacity output * E FL H equals the annual heating (Btu or therms) loss of a home to be met by the furnace or boiler. It does not represent the peak design load (Btu/hr) used by HVAC contractors to size a system to meet the peak heating load

.
An alternative formula for calculati ng savings uses results from multiply ing Equation 2 by AFUE b / AFUE b and noting Capacity output / AFUE b = Capacity input -b. Equation 3 Savings = Capacity input -b * EFLH* [1– ( AFUE b / AFUE e )]

w here:
Capacity input

- b = heating input of the baseline unit

As the baseline unit’s input heating capacity rarely is known, this equation is seldom used correctly . The equation is discussed here bec ause it is s ometimes used incorrect l y, in that the output heating capacity is substituted for the base unit’s input capacity. Given the issues discussed above regarding rated peak output capacity of condensing boilers not being related to the AFUE, do not use Equation 2 or Equation 3 when calculating the savings from condensing boilers.5 - 8 

### 4 Measurement and Verification Plan When choosing an option, consider the following factors :

• The equation variables used to calculate savings

• The uncertainty in the claimed e stimates of each parameter

• T he cost
, complexity , and uncertainty in measuring each of those variables. 8

4.1 IPMVP Option As gas energy efficiency programs have shorter histor ies than electric energy efficiency programs, considerably fewer impact evaluation s have been conducted for either gas programs as a whole or for specific measures ( such as replacement s of boiler s and furnaces). A thorough literature search for detailed evaluations of furnace replacement and boiler efficiency programs resulted in a very limited number of studies ( NMR and Cadmus 2010 ) ( KEMA 2009) ( KEMA 2008). Thu s, less information is available to inform the development of a recommended protocol, compared to many other measures

. Given the large sample sizes required and the high costs of gas submetering, it is not feasible to conduct d irect gas submetering of a sufficiently large sample to represent varying types of equipment (boiler s and furnaces with varying efficiency levels) and different home and homeowner characteristics . Fortunately, the possible end uses for gas in homes are limited, making disaggregation of whole-house gas billing data into heating and non-heating components very reliable . Consequently, the methods used to evaluate this program to date have involved whole-house gas billing data.
Option C i s the recommended IPMVP option for this measure: whole- facility regression analysis combined with site -level data on the capacity and efficiency of an installed unit. The methods of Option C entail combining a billing analysis with the equations presented above, which produc es the most useful results at a reasonable expense . The methodologies can provide updated deemed savings results or updated parameters for use in typical technical reference manual ( TRM ) equations, as listed in e quations 1 through 3. This is based on:

• The p otential variables in the equations used to calculate savings (as previously discussed )

• The cost and complexity in measuring each of those variables

• The availability and relevance of billing data. The p rima ry variables for determining savings for high- efficiency boiler and furnaces are :

1. The installed unit size or capacity in Btu /hr ( either input or output)

2. The AFUE rating of baseline unit

8 As discussed under the section Considering Resource Constraints of the “ Introduction ” chapter to th is UMP

r eport, small utilities (as defined under the U.S. Small Business Administration ( SBA ) regulations) may face additional co nstraints in undertaking this protocol. Therefore, alternative methodologies should be considered for such utilities.5 - 9 3. The AFUE rating of the install ed unit

4. The annual equivalent full -load operating hours, determined from methods discussed below. The key issue for evaluating time-of- replacement/replace -on-burnout/new construction programs is that b aseline equipment cannot be measured or assessed for the same customer install ing new equipment, as only high- efficiency units have been installed . Thus, the key challenges presented in evaluating this measure entail determining (1) what a customer would have installed in the program ’s absence and (2) how much energy the baseline equip ment would have used.

The methods described below combine whole-building billing analysis with the savings equations provided above to calculat e the evaluated gross savings for this measure.

4.2 Verification Process The first step of the protocol entails verif ying key program data collected on typical rebate form s, includ ing the size ( Btu /hr) and efficiency (AFUE) of the high- efficiency unit i nstalled

. Such data can be verified using a desk review of invoices and manufacturer specification sheets (which should be required for rebate payment) or through an on- site audit of a sample of participants to verify the quality of self- reported information

. If efficiency and unit capacity are not collected for each participant, it is recommended that program applicat ion requirements be modified to include these important data.
Generally, the s ize and efficiency ratings for baseline unit s cannot be verified. However, the baseline efficiency is assumed to be the code

- compliant AFUE rating in the service territory for a unit of the same size a s the high- efficiency unit . D ifference s between the code -compliant units and the standard practice should be reflected in calculation s of appropriate net- to

- gross ratio s. If the net- to

- gross is not considered within the specif ic jurisdiction, use the efficiency noted in standard practice.

The standard installation practice for each category of furnaces and boilers can be determined through conducting detailed interviews with HVAC contractors and plumbers (when possible) and collecting shipment data from regional distributors.

4.3 Data Requirements The key d ata to be collected for impact evaluations of furnace and boiler upgrade programs are :

• Type of unit (natural gas furnace, condensing hot water boiler, or steam boiler )

• Capacity of the unit in input or output Btu /hr, depending on the algorithm selected to calculate savings ( As discussed, input capacity is preferred , and it is important to be explicit regarding whether the specified capacity is input or output.)

• E fficienc y of the installed unit in AFUE

• Assumed baseline efficiency for each type of equipment

• Type of housing unit (single- family
, multifamily having one to four units, multifamily having more than four units)5 - 10 • Location of each unit in terms of city or ZIP code an d state
, if multiple climate zones are analyzed (The location will be used to calculate heating degree days for weather normalization .)

• Post

- installation billing data for a minimum of 12 months . ( If available
, a full 12 months of pre-installation data should be compiled for the preferred analysis method, discussed below .)

4.4 Collecting Data

**4.4.1 Capacity Ratings**  For a unit’s heating capacity, use ratings from the manufacturer ’s specifications , which general ly

are determined through Air -Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ( AHRI ) 9 and DOE -approved standards for input and output capacity. As information already has been provided in an industry -approved manner, m easur ing input or output capacit ies through metering would be redundant. Although some variation may occur in an individual rebated unit ’ s capacity, it is reasonable to assume that, on average , a unit ’s perform ance will be close to the manufacturer ’ s ratings

. As noted, an issue exists regarding the capacity (input or output) captured for each unit in the program tracking system and whether this can be easily determined during an evaluation. Because input capacity is more readily available

― and for high-efficiency condensing boilers
, the relationship between the two capacities does not equal AFUE ―use E quation 1 . (T he basis for the methodology is discussed below .)

**4.4.2 Efficiency Levels**  Similar to capacity, the efficiency level s of baseline and installed units would be extremely costly and difficult to field -verify over th e heating season . Use the information on labels and the AHRI ratings for efficiency (an industry- accepted standard available in an online directory ). 10

**4.4.3 Equivalent Full** 

**- Load**  **Hours of Operation** Most equations use t he number of equivalent full

- load hours of o peration as a variable for calculat ing savings. Depending on the evaluation methodology selected ( as discussed below ), this variable is either calculated as a product of the billing analysis

- based evaluation , or it is not used at all in determining average savings per installation (also described below ).

In some evaluations, direct m easurement of operating hours has been attempted by metering furnace fan s, but the technique has not been widely used. As many furnaces and boilers currently have more than one stage, the fan and pump hours do not always indicat e the full -load hours needed for a calculation using full capacity as a variable

.

9 Often listed as Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association ( GAMA ) in the manufacturer’s literature. The Air

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute and GAMA merged in 2007 to form AHRI.
10 www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx5 - 11 

### 5 Discussion of Methodology The methodology used to calculate savings for each unit and, if required
, to calculate the corresponding E FL H, begins with Equation 1, provided here again

. This a ssumes that the input Btu/hr would be the same for the baseline unit and the installed unit and that annual full- load operating hours, EFLH, and output capacity could be different

. Equation 1

Savings = Capacity input -e * EFLH e-installed * [( AFUE e / AFUE b ) – 1]

w here:
Capacity input -e = heating input of both the baseline and installed unit in Btu/hr

EFLH e-installed = equivalent full -load hours of the installed high- efficiency unit
Assuming the g as used for h eating = n ormalized annual heating consumption of the high efficiency (NA H e ), determined from a billin g analysis ( as discussed below ), then:
Equation 4 Savings = NA H e *[( AFUE e /AFUE b )– 1]
Assuming the AFUE is both available for a high percentage of units installed and accurately represents the efficiencies of baseline unit s and installed unit s over the year, this formula, combined with sufficient post- installation billing data
, allows calculation of savings using a billing analysis

.
The analysis offers an advantage over a simple deemed savings formula with estimated capacity and AFUE , in that the billing analysis has been based on actual heating consumption data. Such consumption data reflect the home’s size , the unit’s capacity , the building shell’s efficiency and the operational schedules

.
The a nalysis must first develop post- installation , normalized annual heating consumption ( NA H e ). Chapter 8: Whole

- Building Retrofit protocol addresses t he recommended approach for this process
, discuss ing a two -staged approach based o n individual premise analysis

. That approach begins by developing premise

- specific estimates of overall n ormalized annual consumption ( NAC ), which is the combination of the end-use consumption of heating and other gas- baseline load ( such as cooking and water heating ).

Step 1 ( analyzing the i ndividual p remise) and Step 2 (applying the Stage 1 model ) within Chapter 8: Whole- Building Retrofit p rotocol provide guidance on models and on how to derive overall NAC from model results

. (See Equation 5.)
Equation 5

NAC e = α *365 + β H H 0

NAH e provides the equation’s heating

- related component , shown in Equation 6.5 - 12 Equation 6

NAH e = β H H 0

Where :
β H = heating slope in therms or hundred cubic feet (CCF) of natural gas per heating degree day

H 0 = the average normal heating degree days

α . = non-heating usages in therms of CCF per day
Generally, premise

- level NA H e is aggregated to a program- average NA H e for each category of boiler or furnace measure and then analyzed to develop an estimat ion of savings for each category

.
Once NA H e has been determined for each home or individual boiler or furnace studied, the savings can be easily calculated u sing Equation 4 if th e AFUE is available for each installed unit and the assumed baseline AFUE is estimated

. Savings can be specified in a manner as granular as the participation data allow. For example, savings could be disaggregated into the following categories :

• W arm air furnaces with ECMs between 92% and 94% efficiency

• H ot water boilers between 88% and 92% efficien cy and with input capacities between 60,000 and 80,000 Btu /hr

• S team boilers more than 150,000 Btu /hr.
If a n evaluation seeks to update var iables in a TRM
, use either Equation 1 or Equation 2:
Equation 1

Savings = Capacity input- e * E FL H e * [( AFUE e / AFUE b ) – 1]

or
Equation 2

Savings = Capacity output -e * E FL H e * (1/AFUE b – 1/ AFUE e )

I n each case, EFLH e can be determined by Equation 7:
Equation 7

EFLH e = NA H e / Capacity input-e
.
The equation used is determined by:5 - 13 • W hether the program collects Capacity input , Capacity out put , or both as part of the application and data collection process

• What kind of equipment has qualified for incentives.
As previously discussed, equations using output capacity do not work for condensing boilers due to relationship s between rated output capacity and AFUE

.
Because these equations do not work universally for all types of equipm ent and the input capacity often is embedded in the model number’s nomenclature, Equation 1 is the prefer r ed way to calculate average savings per unit, assuming AFUE estimates accurately capture relative diff e rences in efficiency

.
S teps for calculating savings for each category of furnace and boiler are :

1. Determine the annual post- installation heating consumption NAH e 2. M ultiply the NAH e by the percent age of increase in efficiencies of installed versus baseline units.
If using a TRM of the form Equation 1 or Equation 3, determine the EFLH for that category of equipment and then use the equation with the capacity and installed efficiency of each unit installed to det ermine the saving of each unit. Alternatively, use the average capacity and average installed efficiency to determine the category average savings.

5.1 More Refined Approach The approach presented above is limited in that it does not contain (1) an analysis of pre-versuspost changes in consumption resulting from a furnace or boiler replacement or (2) actual measurement of actual efficiencies

. That is, the approach is not grounded in any measurement of change in consumption resulting from the purchase of a new unit ; instead, it relies on the post consumption data and the ratio of baseline to high-efficiency AFUEs.

The post-only billing analysis also does not capture any potential “take

- back” effect

. In this instance, t ake

- back could occur when participants purchas e a more energy

- efficient model than the baseline unit tha t participants otherwise wou ld have, and then they “take” some of the actual or perceived savings to increase their comfort through higher thermostat settings.
A simple pre/post analysis is not possible because pre- replacement consumption data do not supply the appropriate baseline for a time -of- replacement program . P re/post analysis , however, result s in the consumption change between the installed high-efficiency unit and the older existing unit. If one can reasonabl y determin e the efficiency of the replaced unit in terms of AFUE re placed , savings can be estimated using the three AFUEs:

AFUE replaced = AFUE of the unit that was replaced

AFUE e = AFUE of the high- efficiency unit

AFUE b = AFUE of the baseline efficiency unit5 - 14 T he difference in normalized annual heating ( NA H) between the existing or replaced unit and the high-efficiency unit ( ∆ NA H e-replaced ) can be determined through a billing analysis of participants

. 11 The Pooled Fixed -E

ffects approach section of Chapter 8: Whole -Building Retrofit protocol discusses the model specification producing an average ∆ NA H e-replaced . A s with the premise -level modeling, the model’s heating-correlated parts capture heating consumption.
For the general pooled f ixed -e ffects model, the key components are H im (heating degree days)
, P m (post-period indicator, capturing pre-post change) and I ki (the measure indicator variable)

. These combin e to estimate the change in heating consumption between pre- and post- installation periods. The change in normalized annual heating consumption is cal culated as shown in Equation 8:
Equation 8

∆ NAH k = γ Hk H 0k + Σ q γ Hkq H 0k x qk
where the data, model structure, and estimation pr ocedures are as described in Chapter 8: WholeBuilding R etrofit

.
The two

- stage, site

- level mo deling approach discussed in Chapter 8: Whole- Building Retrofit can also provide a suitable estimate of average ∆ NAH k , which may be calculated as the difference in pre- and post- heating components of site- level models for participants and a comparison group. However, s eparate components of the site

- level models are less stable than the overall NAC

. Thus, for installations of furnaces and boilers without domestic hot water, ∆ NA C k should be close to ∆ NAH k and better determined than the heating

- only ∆ NAH k
. Using equations for ∆NA H e-b and for billing analysis -determined savings ∆ NA H e-replaced , the following derivation provides an enhanced method for calculating savings, based on a change in consumption captured through billing analysis rather than through post- onl y consumption.
Assuming:
Equation 9 Savings e – replaced = ∆NA H e-replaced = NA H e *[( AFUE e /AFUE replaced ) – 1]
Equation 10

NAH e = ∆NAH e-replaced /[( AFUE e /AFUE replaced ) – 1]
Equation 4 Savings e – b = NA H e *[( AFUE e /AFUE b ) – 1]
Equation 11 Savings e – b = ∆NA H e-replaced * ( AFUE e /AFUE b ) – 1) / [( AFUE e /AFUE replaced ) – 1]

11 A gain, the approach recommended for this process is discussed in the “ Whole

- Building Retrofit ” p rotocol

.5 - 15 Equation 12 Savings e – b = ∆NA H e-replaced * (1/AFUE b – 1/ AFUE e ) / (1/AFUE replaced – 1/ AFUE e )

T he efficiency of the replaced unit, AFUE replaced , can be determined through surveys of installation contractors

. Ideally, the s urveys would cover the age and efficiency of the measure

. In many cases
, contractors will not know the efficiency o f the model replaced , however, the process of estimating the efficiencies can be helped by information regarding the age of the units, or examples of specific models, manufacturer s, and capacities

. 12

The accuracy of this method is highly dependent on the quality of the AFUE replaced estimate

. Contractor s may tend to underestimate the efficiency of units replaced to justify the sale of more efficient units. This under estimate of the replaced unit efficiency would underestimate savings from going from a new baseline to high efficiency unit. When using a contractor survey , verif y the responses with on- site visits in which the efficiency of the older unit b eing replaced can be assessed.

As with methods based exclusively on post- installati on heating consumption, the savings for each unit can be determined using Equation 9 , including only estimates of AFUE and postinstallation billing data. Again , the average savings can be broken down as finely as participation data allow . Savings could be separated out for major equipment types (hot water boiler, steam boiler, and warm

- air furnace, with or without ECM), efficiency (AFUE, condensing or noncondensing), and size categories ( Btu /hr ranges) , as listed in the typical program offerings above.
The preferred method does not lend itself to determining the EFLH to be used in typical TRM equations, but rather to calculating average therm or MMBtu savings by category. If use of a simplified TRM is necessary , Equation 13 or Equation 7 can be used with the average capacity of each unit to determine E FL H.
If average of the Capacity input is known for each category
, then:
Equation 13

E FL H = Savings e – b / [ Capacity input * ( AFUE e / AFUE b ) – 1)]

or
Equation 7

EFLH = NAH e / Capacity input-e
.

12 Preston’s guides provide a good resource for efficiency spec ifications on old units : www.prestonguide.com

.5 - 16 

### 6 Sample Design In general, the evaluator will d etermin e the required target confidence and precision levels
, subject to spec ific regulatory or program administrator requirements

. In most jurisdictions , the generally accepted level should be designed to estimate the category

- level savings or EFLH at a precision level of 10% at the 90% confidence interval. That said
, as no physical measurements

are involved, this protocol seeks to use data from all participants receiv ing rebates

. Consequently, sampling error will be as low as the availability of billing, capacit y, and efficiency data permit . T raditional sampling will not occur, unless large data gaps emerge in efficiency or capacity . For the preferred method, using pre- and post-bi lling data and efficiencies only and assuming the installed AFUE is collected for each participant , the availability of billing data presents the only limitation.
The billing analysis itself will have errors in the development of heating consumption and changes in heating consumption , but the precision of those regression- based estimates can be calculated

. The target for these estimates should be better than +/ - 10% at a 90% confidence level

. As the analysis generally includes all participant s with availab le billing
, the efficiency and capacity data -sampling errors are essentially eliminated
, and the primary error results from the billing analysis and the assumptions in the development of the equations provided in this protocol.
Errors in the accuracy of efficiencies and capacities provided by manufacturer s versus actual values in the field will not be determined as part of this protocol , given the cost s of measurement , but they are assumed to be small
, relative to error s in the billing analysis.

6.1 Program E valuation Elements At the study’s onset, procedures need to be established f or data validity . The key i ssues to address are :

• Clear determination whether capacity data collected are input or output

• The number of months of billing data from a site that are considered to be the minimum needed for analy sis

• The procedures for filling in limited amounts of missing billing data

.
6.2 Net

- to Gross A separate cross

- cutting protocol to determine applicable net

- to -gross is planned for Phase 2 of the Uniform Methods Project

.5 - 17 

### 7 References

KEMA. (2008). Puget Sound Energy’s Residential Energy Efficient Furnace Program Impact Evaluation

. KEMA. (June 11, 2009). New Jersey’s Clean Energy Program Residential HVAC Impact Evaluation and Protocol Review. www.njcleanenergy.com/files/file/Library/HVAC%20Evaluation%20Report%20

- %20Final%20June%2011%202009.pdf

. NMR and Cadmus. (2010). High Efficiency Heatin g and Water Heating Equipment Process and Impact Evaluation . Conducted for Gas Networks, a group of New England gas utilities offering energy efficiency programs.5 - 18 

### 8 Resources

Fels, M.F. (1986). “PRISM: An Introduction.” Energy and Buildings . (9); pp. 5-18. www.princeton.edu/~marean/publications/prism_intro.pdf

. Massachusetts Program Administrators. (2011). Massachusetts Technical Reference Manual for Estimating Savings from E nergy Efficien cy Measures 2012 Program Year—Plan Version

. New Jersey Board of Public Utilities New Jersey Clean Energy Program. ( July 2011). Protocols to Measure Resource Savings

. www.njcleanenergy.com/files/file/Library/NJ%20Protocols%20Revisions%207-21- 11_Clean.pdf

. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP) EM&V Forum. (2010). “Regional EM&V Methods and Savings Assumption Guidelines.”

Verm ont Energy Investment Corporation. (2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency Technical Reference Manual

. http://amppartners.org/pdf/TRM_Appendix_E_2011.pdf

.5 - 19 

### 9 Appendix

9.1 Simplified Formula s for Calculating Savings F rom Upgrading the Efficiency of a Residential Gas Furnace or Boiler

**9.1.1 Constant Input**  **Btu /hr for**  **Baseline and Installed Units**  The following applies when the input Btu /hr is available from the tracking database.

The m ajor simplifying assumption is this : Input Btu /hr for the baseline and the high- efficiency unit would be the same, as is usually the case

. Some contractors install smaller unit s if th ose units prove more efficient , but many installers use a unit with the same input Btu /hr size

. For new construction, one must assume baseline and high -efficiency units would be the same size.
Assuming a building has the same annual heat loss Q loss , regardless of the heating-unit efficiency , then:

Q loss = a nnual heat loss in Btu

Capacity input = furnace or boiler input heat rate Btu /hr

Then:

Q loss = Capacity input * EFL H b * AFUE b
Q loss = Capacity input * EFLH e * AFUE e
Where:

EFLH b = equivalent full-load run hours of baseline (hrs)

EFLH e = equivalent full-load run hours of efficient unit (hrs)

AFUE b = e fficiency of baseline unit %

AFUE e = e fficiency of efficient unit %

Then:

EFLH b * AFUE b = EFLH e * AFUE e

EFLH b = E FLH e * AFUEe / AFUE b Savings result from the difference in gas heating consumption between the baseline unit and the efficient unit :
Savings = Capacity input * EFLH b - Capacity input x EFLH e

= Capacity input * EFLH e * ( AFUE e / AFUE b ) – Capacity input x EFLH e

= Capacity input * EFLHe *(( AFUE e / AFUE b ) – 1)5 - 20 To use the normalized annual heating ( NA H) of gas for heating from billing data , via a degree day- based regression analysis or end

- use metering , apply this equation:

NA H e = Capacity input * E FL H e Substituting the above into the savings equation produces:

Savings = NA H e * [( AFUE e / AFUE b ) – 1]

So savings can be calculated using the above equation without the input heating capacity (if not known). Alternatively, the NAH e can be divided by the i nput capacity to calculate an EF LH e , which can be used with the efficiencies to calculate savings using:

Savings = Capacity input * EFLHe * ( AFUE e / AFUE b ) – 1)

**9.1.2 Constant Output**  **Btu /hr for**  **Baseline and Installed Units**  The following applies when output Btu /hr is available from the tracking database; however, it does not apply to condensing boilers.

AFUE = Useful Heat Delivered Out of Boiler or Furnace / Gas Input Capacity = Capacity output / Capacity in put Savings = Change in input for a given heating load

Input Energy b = Annual Heating Load / AFUE b
Input Energy e = Annual Heating Load / AFUE e Assuming annual h eati ng loads served are the same for baseline and high-efficiency equipment, and output capacities (Capacity output -e ) of unit and hours are the same for each unit:
Annual Heating Load = Capacity output -e * EFLH

Then :
Savings = Input Energy b – Input Energy e = Annual Heat Load / AFUE b – Annual Heat Load / AFUE e

= Annual Heat Load * (1/ AFUE b – 1/ AFUE e )
= Capacity output * EFLH * (1/ AFUE b – 1/ AFUE e )
Rearranging :
Savings = Capacity output * EFLH / AFUE e * [( AFUE e / AFUE b ) – 1]
Noting that:
Capacity output / AFUE e = Capacity input -e and NA H e = Capacity input -e * EFLH e5 - 21 Yields the same equations as above:
Savings = NAH e * [( AFUE e / AFUE b ) – 1]
So again, savings can be calculated using the above equation , without requiring output or input heating capacity (if not known ), or the NAC e can be divided by the input capacity to calculate an EFLH
, which can be used with the efficiencies and output capacity to calculate savings using:
Savings = Capacity output * EFLH e * (1/ AFUE b – 1/ AFUE e )

# Chapter 6: Residenti al Lighting Evaluation Protocol The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

Scott Dimetrosky , Apex Analytics, LLC

Subcontract Report NREL/SR

- 7A30

- 53827 April 20136 - 1 

### Chapter 6 – Table of Contents
1 Measure Description .............................................................................................................. 2 2 Application Conditions of Protocol ....................................................................................... 3 3 Savings Calculations .............................................................................................................. 4 4 Measurement and Verification Plan ....................................................................................... 5 4.1 Number of Measures Sold or Distributed ........................................................................ 5 4.2 Delta Watts ....................................................................................................................... 6 4.3 Approaches for Estimating Baseline Wattage ................................................................. 6 4.4 Recommended Approach ................................................................................................. 7 4.5 Replacements of Efficient Lighting Products With Newer Efficient Lighting Products10 4.6 Uncertainty Regarding the Baseline and the Need for Ongoing Research .................... 11 4.7 Annual Operating Hours ................................................................................................ 12 4.8 Metered Data Collection Method ................................................................................... 14 4.9 Using Secondary Data.................................................................................................... 16 4.10 Snapback/Rebound or Conservation Effect ................................................................... 17 4.11 In

- Service Rate ............................................................................................................... 17 4.12 Interactive Effects With Heating, Ventilating, and Cooling .......................................... 20 5 Other Evaluation Issues ....................................................................................................... 21 5.1 Cross

- Customer Class Sales .......................................................................................... 21 5.2 Cross

- Service Area Sales (Leakage) .............................................................................. 21 5.3 Estimating Cross

- Customer Class and Cross

- Service Area Sales ................................. 22 6 Program Evaluation Elements.............................................................................................. 23 7 References ............................................................................................................................ 24 8 Resources ............................................................................................................................. 26



### List of Tables Table 1: Strengths and Limitations of Alternative Delta Watts Estimation Approaches ............... 9 Table 2: Estimated Baseline Wattage for Lumen Equivalencies .................................................. 10 Table 3: Estimated CFL Hours of Use from Recent Metering Studies ........................................ 13 Table 4: Estimated First

- Year, In

- Service Rates from Recent Evaluations of CFL Upstream Lighting Programs ........................................................................................................................ 186 - 2 

### 1 Measure Description In recent years, r esidential lighting ha s represented a significant share of ratepayer -funded electricity energy efficiency savings. The majority of these savings have been achieved by promoting the purchase and installation of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), both standard “twister” bulbs and specialty CFLs such as reflectors, A -Lamps, globes, and dimmable light s. S ome energy efficiency programs have also promoted ENERGY STAR lighting fixtures. M ore recently
, programs are introducing solid

- state light -emitting diode ( LED ) lamps.
The future of savings claims from residential lighting programs is u ncertain , due to the provisions of the 2007 Energy Independence and Se curity Act (EISA). This legislation requires that most screw -based light bulbs become approximately 28% more energy- efficient during the period from 2012 through 2014, as measured by the efficacy in units of lumens per watt (W). EISA requirements take effe ct in phases, beginning with 100- W equivalents in 2012, 75-W equivalents in 2013, and 60- and 40- W equivalents in 2014. To add further uncertainty regarding the baseline, the federal spending bill approved in December 2011 eliminated enforcement of the EISA standards through at least September 2012.6 - 3 

### 2 Application Conditions of Protocol Residential lighting measures are typically delivered by program administrators through four mechanisms :

• Upstream B uy -D own/ Mark-D own . The mo st common approach to achieve residential lighting savings has been through “upstream” incentives to either manufacturers to buy down (or have retailers mark down ) the cost of lights for consumers. This delivery mechanism offers the discount at the time of purchase (that is, at the point of sale) and thus does not require any application or paperwork from the end- use customer.

• Direct I nstallation

. Many program administrators who offer residential audit programs also provide direct installation of CFLs at the time of the audit. In most programs, the audit is offered at either no cost or at a highly discounted cost to the customer, and there is usually no additional cost for the CFLs.

• Giveaways

. A number of program administrato rs have provided CFLs free of charge to residential customers through the mail, at customer service offices, or at community, religious, or local government events. In some programs, the CFLs are mailed to customers only upon request. In other programs, th e CFLs are distributed without prior customer request. The amount of customer information collected at the time of giveaway events varies, with some program administrators requiring full name and contact information and other program administrators not requiring any.

• Coupons

. S ome program administrators have relied on instant (point-of- sale) or mail

in coupons as the incentive mechan ism for residential lighting products. These coupons typically require that customers fill out their name and contact information to obtain the product at the discounted price or to receive the rebate

. Although this Residential Lighting Evaluation Protocol appl ies to all of these delivery mechanisms, the strateg ies for collecting and analyzing the data necessary to calculate the savings tend to vary. Where necessary, this protocol highlights and provides more detail regarding specific differences. Also, p rogram administrators may need to prioritize their evaluation resources on particular combinations of measures and delivery strategies based on criteria such as the contribution to savings and the assessed uncertainty of those savings estimates . (For example, uncertainty can occur with programs that have not been evaluated for a while or that have shifting baselines .)6 - 4 

### 3 Savings Calculations 1
Gross e nergy first

- year savings from residential lighting measures can be calculated through a number of different algorithms. The approach recommended is based on the following general algorithm:
Equation 1

kWh saved = NUM MEAS * ( ∆W/1
, 000) * H RS * ISR * INTEF

w here:

kWh saved =f irst

- year electricity savings measured in kilowatt -hours

NUMMEAS =number of measures sold or distributed through the program

∆W =delta watts = b aseline wattage minus e fficient lighting product wattage

HRS =a nnual operating hours

ISR =i n- service rate

INTEF =c ooling and heating interactive effects
The recommended techniques for estimating each of these parameters , based on either primary or secondary data, are described in this chapter

.

1 As presented in the “Introduction ” chapter , the methods focus on energy savings and do not include other parameter assessments such as net

- to

- gross, peak coincidence factor (or demand savings), incremental cost, or measure life.6 - 5 

### 4 M easurement and Verification Plan The savings from residential lighting measures should be calculated through a mix of measured and estimated parameters . This approach, which is similar to Option A of the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol ( IPMVP ), is recommended because the values for some parameters can be directly measured through metering (such as annual hours of use) , while others parameters (such as delta watts for upstream lighting programs) need to be estimated through other techniques.

4.1 Number of Measures Sold or Distributed The number of measures sold or distributed through a program should be collected by the administrator or a third

- party implementation contractor. Data should be compiled in electronic format in a database that tracks as much detail as possible regarding the measure s delivered . For example, for an upstream program, this should include detailed information for each transaction:

• Product s hipm ent dates from manufacturer to retailer , where applicable

• Detailed produ ct information

o Bulb type (for example, CFL, LED )

o Wattage

o Style and features (for example, twister, reflector, A -Lamp, globe, dimmable)

o Manufacturer and product identifier (for example, UPC or SKU codes)

o Rated lumens

• Number of products incented (for example, number of packs and bulbs per pack)

• Date incentive paid

• Dollar value of incentives paid

• Company name receiving incentive

• Location where products were ultimately sold (including retailer name address, city, state, and ZIP code)

• Final retail sales price of product, if available

• Company contact information ( store manager or corporate contact name and phone number)

• Assumptions regarding any parameters to savings estimates

. Similar details should be collected for programs using other delivery strategies. For example :

• Data collected for an audit program would include information about the date installed, the numbers and types of products installed, the wattage of the replaced bulb and location (room type) , and contact information for the installation.

• D ata collected for giveaway programs should contain at least the customer contact information and the quantity/type of product given away.6 - 6 At a minimum, t he evaluation should include a basic verification of savings, whereby the evaluator (1 ) sums up the detailed transactions and (2) attempts to replicate the calculation of total claimed savings for the specific time period in which the savings were claimed
, such as a program year or cycle.
Discrepancies between claimed and verified number of measures should be treated as adjustments to the number of program measures. In other words, if the total number of measures distributed does not match the number of measures claimed by a program administrator, the number of measures assumed sold or distributed should be adjusted accordingly. ( That is , if the number of measures claimed by a program administrator does not match what is in the detailed tracking data, the tracking data should be regarded as correct .)

4.2 Delta Watts Delta watts represent the difference between the wattage of the efficient lighting measure and the wattage of the assumed baseline measu re. As noted, the wattage of the efficient measure should be available from the program tracking database. Wher e possible

― such as with direct installation programs

― the program implementation contractor should record the wattage of the particular lamp that the program measure is replacing

. Typically, this is done at the time of the audit, when the existing measure i s replaced with the efficient measure. However, t his is not possible f or most program delivery strategies, so baseline wattage often needs to be estimated. In addition, the baseline assumptions need to incorporate the transition to EISA standards beginning in 2012.

4.3 Approaches for Estimating Baseline Wattage Recent studies have used a number of approaches for estimating baseline wattage, including :

• Self -Report. This approach uses customer surveys after the installation to collect the wattage that was used before the energy- efficient lighting was installed

.

• In -Home I nspections to Examine Wattage of E quivalent F ixtures

. Using this approach, the implementation contractor e xamin es the labeled wattage of bulbs in similar fixtures in each home to estimate the wattage that was used before the energyefficient lighting was installed

.

• M ultipliers

. This approach a ssumes that the baseline is a multiple — for example, three to four times the wattage

— of the efficient measure , so that one value (one multiplier) is used across all program bulbs

.

• Manufacturer Rating

. Most energy- efficient lighting products prominently list the replacement wattage assumptions o n the box (see Figure 1 ). Manufacturers are also required to include detailed information regarding lamp output and efficacy as part of the “Lighting Facts” label that is now required on all retail lamp packaging. ( www.ftc.gov/os/2010/06/100618lightbulbs.pdf )

• L umen Equivalence. EISA standards include lumen ranges and assumptions reg arding the equivalent wattage of incandescent lights.6 - 7 Figure 1 . Example of Manufacturer Rated Baseline Wattage
**Source: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_lumens**

4.4 Recommended Approach Each of these approaches has a number of strengths and limitations (see Table 1 ). Weighing each of these, the Residential Lighting Evaluation Protocol recommends using a lumen equivalency approach to estimate delta watt s for conditions where the baseline wattage cannot b e collected by the program implementation contractor at the time of measure installation. This approach is recommended because (1) it provides consistency with the EISA requirements and (2) most manufacturers’ rated baseline wattage is already based on sim ilar lumen categories

. 2

Alternatively, for studies that have sufficient budget to screen for a statistical sample of recent CFL purchasers, the self -report approach may be used to estimate delta watts (as well as other purchase attributes, including location and price). The Residential Lighting Evaluation Protocol recommends, however, that the consumer recall approach apply these time limits:

2 When the assumed baseline from the lumen equivalency approach differs from the manufacturer

- rated baseline wattage, this is typically due to a lower

- lumen bulb rated as a higher assumed baseline. For example, the manufacturer rates a bulb as a 120

- W replacement, but the lumen output is more typical of a 75 -W bulb. In these cases, consumers may “bin shift” up to a higher wattage of efficient product to get the light output they expect. Thus, the method recommends using the more conservative and lower assumed baseline wattage rather than what is printed on the box. Equivalent wattage6 - 8 • A maximum of a six -month “window” (and preferably a three-month “window”) for standard spiral CFLs

• Up to a year for specialt y CFLs and LEDs , as these have far lower incidence but represent larger purchase decisions.
Note the self -report approach does offer the advantage of capturing consumer “bin-shifting.” 3

3 A literature review did not reveal any studies that assess the magnitude of bin shifting, although forthcoming studies conducted by Navigant Consulting and the NMR Group found some evidence that customers purchased a higher

- wattage bulb than the r ecommended replacement.6 - 9 Table 1: Strengths and Limitations of Alternative Delta Watts Estimation Approaches
Approach for Estimating Baseline Wattage Strengths Limitations Recent Studies Using Approach Estimated Incandescent to CFL Ratio 4

Customer self

report Capture customer intentions and bin shifting Potentially low recall and social desirability bias Duke Energy Residential Lighting Program (2010) 4.25

Examining equivalent fixtures Actual recording of baseline wattage for existing measures Difficult to truly identify equivalent fixtures; high cost to conduct statistically representative

on

- site study 2006

- 2008 California Upstream CFL Program 3.6

Standard multipliers Low effort, low cost, accuracy derived from empirical program data and, perhaps, better funded studies Determining the appropriate multiplier for the program is difficult without basing it on another approach, or relying on other studies. The resulting estimate can be biased depending on the distribution of bulb type and wattages. Mid

- Atlantic Technical Re ference Manual (TRM) (Vermont Energy Investment Corporation 2011)

Ohio TRM (Vermont Energy Investment Corporation 2010) 3.95

4.25

Manufacturer rated baseline wattage Widely available, relatively inexpensive to implement; based off of wattage rating on package, often prominently displayed on the product Some cases where the marketed baseline wattage exceeds the equivalent lumen output which may lead to “bin shifting” Wisconsin Focus on Energy 2007 Residential Lighting Program 4.0

Lumen equivalence Widely available, relatively inexpensive to implement; in most cases matches marketed baseline wattage, matches up with EISA standards May provide conservative estimate in cases where marketed baseline wattage exceeds rated lumen output ComEd PY3 Residential Lighting Program N/A

4 The incandescent

- to

- CFL wattage will vary, based on both the types of bulbs promoted ( for example , standard vs. specialty) and the typical program CFL wattage. In addition, this ratio is sometimes shown as the ratio of the delta watts to CFL. (For example, the Mid

- Atlantic TRM [ technical reference manual ] recommends a delta watts

- to

- incandescent ratio of 2.95).6 - 10 Table 2 provides the assumed baseline wattage based on lumen range and incorporates the timing of EISA requirements as the new baseline standards

.

Table 2: Estimated Baseline Wattage for Lumen Equivalencie s Lumen Range 2011 Baseline 2012 Baseline 2013 Baseline 2014 Baseline 1490―2600 100

- W 72

- W 72

- W 72

- W 1050―1489 75

- W 75

- W 53

- W 53

- W 750―1049 60

- W 60

- W 60

- W 43

- W 310―749 40

- W 40

- W 40

- W 29

- W Note: Shading represents initial year of EISA phase

- in requirements
While there may be “sell through” of existing product during the phase- in years, the Residential Lighting Evaluation Protocol recommends using the new baseline values for the entire year in which they take effect unless research shows significant “sell through” periods . (S ee the Uncertainty Regarding the Baseline and the Need for Ongoing Research sec tion later in this chapter ). 5

In addition, baseline wattage should be calculated for each lamp in the tracking database. The total estimated delta watts, therefore, is calibrated to the actual type and number of measures sold or distributed through the program.
There are two additional points of clarification for this approach:

• For lumens above or below these ranges, the marketed baseline wattage reported on the product should be used. In other words, lumens above the ranges in Table 2 might qualify for a 150-W baseline.

• EISA has a number of exceptions, including three-way bulbs, candelabras, and reflectors. 6 In these cases , the baseline wattage should continue to be the 2011 standard incandescent wattage based on the lumen equivalence.

4.5 Replacements of Efficient Lighting Products With Newer Efficient Lighting Products This method ology assumes that at the time of measure failure
, the consumer has the choice of install ing an energy- efficient lighting product or a standard- efficien cy lighting product, regardless of what was previously installed. In areas with long history of CFL promotion

― and as market penetration increases for CFL s or other high- efficiency lighting product s
― there is a higher probability that some fraction of the energy

- efficient lighting products distributed through programs are being used to replace installed CFL s that fail.

5 EISA requires an even more efficient lighting standard in 2020 that is on par with current CFL efficacies. The life cy cle savings of CFLs, therefore, should terminate for any remaining years beginning in 2020, and the life cycle savings for LEDs should incorporate this upcoming baseline change.

6 Note, however, that certain ER and BPAR reflector lamps ha ve separate EISA requirements that took effect in July 2012, and should be used as the baseline for any program equivalent lamps.6 - 11 There are two approaches available to address this issue.

• The first is to assume the baseline is the federal standard (for example , EISA) , even if the consumer had previously installed a CFL or LED. In this approach t he CFL

- to

CFL replacement scenario is assumed to be handled under investigation of program attribution, where it is more likely that consumers replacing CFLs with other CFLs may be freeriders (Nexus Market Research, Inc. et al. 2009). 7

• The second is to revise the baseline wattage assumptions to reflect the share of in

kind replacement of CFLs. This approach requires the collection of data on the proportion of high-efficiency lamps distributed through the program that are replacing existing CFLs. To avoid underestimating program savings , the Residential Lighting Evaluation Protocol recommends that only one, rather than both, of these adjustments be applied. For jurisdictions that do not include any application of a net- to

- gross adjustment, this would require using the second approa ch —conducting a market characterization study to determine the baseline and the percentage of high- efficiency lighting products that are replacing CFLs.
Finally, a s more efficiency programs promote LEDs in the future , further research will be required to investigate the likelihood that energy efficiency minded consumers are replacing CFLs with LEDs.

4.6 Uncertainty Regarding the Baseline and the Need for Ongoing Research The recommen ded protocol acknowledges uncertainties around the residential lighti ng m arket in the next few years. These uncertainties deal with the types and prices of future lighting products that will be available on the market . Another source of uncertainties regards consumer reactions to the requirements and new products—for example, potential product hoarding, “bin jumping” to different incandescent wattage levels, and how quickly retailer s sell through the existing product inventories.
The uncertainty around EISA was further heightened in December 2011 with the passage of the fiscal year ( FY ) 2012 omnibus spending bill, which included a rider that halted funding for the U.S. Department of Energy to enforce the new standards. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), representing more than 95% of the U.S. lighting manufacturing industry, issued a press release after the passage of the bill stating that they did not support it. NEMA also points out that (1) American manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in transitioning to

7 The New England Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation , January 20, 2009 found that 43% of respondents (24 out of 56) stated that t he CFLs recently purchased and not installed were intended for use to replace incandescent lighting. That is, 57% of the respondents intended to use the stored CFLs to replace existing CFLs when they failed. While this was used to discount the delta watts, if those respondents who are already intending to replace CFLs with CFLs are presumably counted as freeriders, then program attribution should already incorporate any necessary adjustments.6 - 12 energy- effic ient lighting and (2) EISA gave state attorneys general the authority to enforce the standards.

Th us, in cases where actual pre

- program measure wattage is not available, the Residential Lighting Evaluation Protocol recommends that the EISA standards continue to be adopted as the new baseline . However, program administrators having adequate resources should conduct ongoing monitoring and research to determine whether the delta watts assumptions reflect actual market conditions during the phase- in of the EIS A requirements, and use a lagged approach to phasing in the requirements. In particular, research in California

— where the standards take effect one year in advance of the rest of the United States —may be informative for determining retailer and manufactur er reactions to EISA.

4.7 Annual Operating Hours Hours of use (HOU) represent s the estimated hours per year that the energy

- efficient lighting product will be used. Recent studies have shown a wide range of estimated HOU for CFLs , from a low of 1.5 to a high of 2.98 hours per day (see Table 3 ). A myriad of factors affect differences in the expected number of hours that energy- efficient lighting products are us ed per year, including differences in demographics, housing types and vintages, CFL saturation, room type, electricity pricing, and even annual days of sunshine . As a result , extrapolation of data from one region has not proven successful in accounting for these influencing factors (Navigant Consulting and Cadmus Group, Inc. 2011). 8

Based on these disparate results, this protocol recommends that program administrators collect primary data through a metering study for residential lighting measures.

8 For example, Cadmus’ analysis of metered CFL hours of use, con ducted as part of the evaluation of 2010 EmPOWER Maryland Residential Lighting and Appliances Program, revealed a significant difference in average daily hours of use as compared to extrapolating the hours of use from the ANCOVA model developed as part of the evaluation of the 2006

- 2008 California Upstream Lighting Program.6 - 13 Table 3: Estimated CFL Hours of Use from Recent Metering Studies Region Publication Year Author Sample Size (Homes) # of Efficient Bulbs Metered Estimated Average Daily HOU

California (PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E service areas) 2010 KEMA, Inc. (KEMA, Inc. and Cadmus Group, Inc. 2010) ≈1,200 N/A 1.9

California (PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E service areas) 2005 KEMA, Inc. (KEMA 2005) 375 983 2.3

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut 2009 Nexus Market Research, Inc. et al. (Nexus Market Research, Inc. et al. 2009) 157 657 2.8

Illinois 2012 Navigant Consulting 67 527 2.7

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont 2004 Nexus Market Research, Inc. and RLW Analytics, Inc. 2004 NA ≈75 3.2

Maryland (EmPOWER) 2011 The Cadmus Group, Inc. and Navigant Consulting (Navigant Consulting and Cadmus Group, Inc. 2011) 61 222 3.0

North Carolina, South Carolina 2011 TecMarket Works and Building Metrics (TecMarket Works and Building Metrics 2011) 34 156 2.5 (North Carolina) 2.7 (South

Carolina)

Ohio 2010 Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (from Duke Energy) N/A N/A 2.8

Pacific Northwest 2010 Northwest Regional Technical Forum, based on CA, 2010 KEMA, Inc. N/A N/A 1.9 for existing homes, 1.5 for new homes6 - 14 4.8 Metered Data Collection Method Metering should be based on the following factors and associated guidelines, which are described in this section :

• Logger type

• Length of metering period

• Information collected on site

• Data integrity

. **Logger Type**  **4.8.1** Change-of- state loggers are preferred over periodic readings because they can capture short intervals and switch rates ( the number of times lights are turned on and off). In addition, current

sensing meters (rather than light

- sensing meters) are one approach for outdoor conditions in which amb ient light can potentially inflate the estimated hours of use.

**Length of M**  **etering P**  **eriod 4.8.2**  Due to the seasonality of lighting usage, logging should (1) be conducted in total for at least six months and (2) capture summer, winter, and at least one shoulder season

— fall or spring

. At a minimum, l oggers should be left in each home for at least three months ( that is, two waves of three -month metering will attain six months of data). All data should be annualized using techniques such as sinusoidal modeling to re flect a full year of usage. 9

**Information C**  **ollected On Site**  **4.8.3** In -home lighting audits should be conducted for all homes participating in the metering study. The audits should record the number and type of high- efficiency lighting products by fixture and room type. It is highly recommended that a full socket inventory be conducted to allow for an estimate of saturation of high- efficiency lighting equipment. In addition, on -site information specifically related to the logger placements should also be collected, including room type, window orientation, fixture type, notes about possible ambient light issues, etc.

**Data Integrity 4.8.4**  All metered data need to be thoroughly cleaned to check for errant and erroneous observations. For example, downloaded data need to be clipped at the moments of installation and removal to eliminate extraneous readings, any loggers that are broken or removed from the fixtures by residents should be removed from analysis, and the data need to be examined for “flicker” ( that is , very frequent on/off cycling).

9 Sinusoidal modeling assumes that hours of use will vary inversely with hours of daylight over the course of a year. Sinusoid modeling shows that (1) hours of use change by season, ref lective of changes in the number of daylight hours and weather and (2) these patterns will be consistent year to year, in the pattern of a sine wave. An example of this approach is provided in the evaluation of the 2006

- 2008 California Upstream Lighting Pr ogram evaluation.6 - 15 **Metering Sample Design 4.8.5**  Ideally, metering is conducted for large samples of all major lighting types (including incandescent baseline lamps and fixtures); however, in practice, most evaluations do not have adequate resources for a scope of this size . Consequently, to optimize the allocation of moderate evaluation resources, target the metering to select lighting measures —typically CFLs—that represent the majority of savings in a residential lighting program. For measures representing a small percentage of savings (such as LEDs in more recent programs) , the overall HOU should be estimated by examining the CFL hours of use for similar rooms and fixture types.
Given the difficulty of identifying program bulbs in an upstream program, loggers may be placed on energy- efficient bulbs in a random sample of homes that have installed similar measures, even if those measures are not definitely known to be part of a mark-down or buy-down. For homes that have many energy -efficient lighting products, a subsample of fixtures may be selected , so long as they are selected randomly within the home . For example, if a home selected for a metering study has CFLs in 10 fixtures , meters can be placed on three to five randomly select ed fixtures. 10 This will both minimize the invasiveness in homes that are highly saturated with energy-efficient lighting products and allow for a more cost

- effective approach to include a larger sample of homes in the study.
The total number of loggers installed should be determined based on the desired levels of statistical confidence and precision, assuming a coefficient of variation (CV) based on recent studies of programs with similar CFL saturation (using maturity of program as a proxy, if necessary) and housing characteristics (Cadmus 2010) (Navigant Consulting and Cadmus Group, Inc. 2011). 11

Following metering and annualization of results, the distribution of loggers by room type should be compared to the actual distribution of energy- efficient lighting products per room type , as col lected at the time of the audit

. The h ours of use should then be weighted to reflect the actual distribution of lighting products by room type. For example, if 10 % of the loggers are installed in kitchen fixtures , but the audit data reveal s that 15 % of all CFLs are installed in kitchens, the data from the loggers in kitchens should be weighted up by 1.5 when calculat ing total hours of use.
In addition, the demographic and household characteristics of the metering sample should be compared with the characteristics of the total population of homes believed to have purchased energy- efficient lighting products . (This information can be collected through telephone surveys.) I f significant differences appear and there is a l arge enough sample to support re-

10 A number of studies, including the evaluation of the California Upstream Lighting Program, provide publicly available examples of how to randomly select fixtures for metering.

11 Recent Cadmus studies for Ameren Illinois and EmP OWER Ma ryland found CVs of approximately 0.6; however, the CV could be higher for mature programs where CFLs are in a wider selection of fixtures with more variable hours of use. Actual sample size should exceed the required number by at least 10% to allow for attrition due to data cleaning.6 - 16 weighting based on such characteristics, the results should be weighted to reflect these differences.

4.9 Us ing Secondary Data While metering is the recommended approach, p rogram administrators who are just launching a program—or do not have sufficient resources to conduct a metering study—may use secondary data from other metering studies

. 12 This p rotocol recommends using the following criteria when selecting and using secondary data to estimate hours of use:

• Similarities in service territories

• Maturity of program or measure saturation

• Appropriate sample size

• Length of metering period

• Adjustments to reflect hours of use by room type.

**Similarities in S**  **ervice T**  **erritories 4.9.1**  Selecting a similar service territory based on geographic pr oximity and as many common demographic and household characteristic s as possible will increase the likelihood that the secondary data provide a valid , reasonable, and accurate estimate

. **Maturity of P**  **rogram or M**  **easure S**  **aturation 4.9.2**  Hours of use are expected to drop as the saturation of energy- efficient products increases, resulting in the installation of these products in less -used fixtures. Saturation is typically tied to the maturity of the program. In other words, regions with longer-running ener gy efficiency programs that have higher saturation rate s are expected to have lower hours of use. 13 Using secondary data from programs of similar maturity levels will increase the data’s applicability

. **Sample S**  **ize 4.9.3**  The number of observations varies considera bly between studies, so the sample size , standard

errors , and precision levels at equivalent confidence levels should be compared across studies

. **Length of Metering Period 4.9.4**  Studies that capture both winter and summer usage may be more appropriate for estim ating overall annual use.

12 As discussed in Considering Resource Constraints in the “ Introduction ” chapter to th is UMP r eport, small utilities (as defined under the U.S. Small Business Administration [ SBA ] regulations) may face add itional constraints in undertaking this protocol. Therefore, alternative methodologies should be considered for such utilities.

13 For example, hours of use in California dropped from an average of 2.3 hours per day in the 2004

- 2005 program year study to 1.9 hours per day in the 2006

- 2008 program year study. CFL socket penetration (the percentage of sockets containing CFLs) increased from 9% in the 2004

- 2005 study to 21% in the 2006

- 2008 study.6 - 17 **Adjustments to R**  **eflect H**  **ours of**  **U se by**  **R oom**  **T ype**  **4.9.5** Extrapolating data from one region to another should be conducted by calibrating to the different levels of measure saturation by room type. If possible, the hours of use by room type from a secondary data source should be weighted by the room type distribution of CFLs for the region under study.

4.10 Snapback/Rebound or Conservation Effect “Snapback” or “rebound” refers to changes in use patterns that occur after the installat ion of an energy-efficient product and result in reducing the overall measure savings. For example, when residential lighting customers use a CFL for more hours per day than they used the replaced incandescent bulb, this constitutes snapback. This behavior change may be due to factors such as the cost savings per unit of time from the CFL or a concern that turning CFLs on and off shortens their effective useful life ( al though it is unlikely most consumers are aware of this effect on life). S ome customers , however, might have lower hours of use after installing a CFL, perhaps due to a corresponding desire to reduce energy consumption.
Due to the nature of residential lighting programs, it is not typically possible to conduct metering both before and after installation of energy- efficient lighting. Therefore, the Residential Lighting Protocol does not recommend adjusting for snapback/rebound effects in the hours of use estimates. 14

4.11 In

- Service Rate The in

- service rate represents the pe rcentage of incented residential lighting products that are ultimately installed by program participants. In

- service rates vary substantially based on the program delivery mechanism, but they are particularly important in giveaway or upstream programs wher e the customer is responsible for install ation and the customer may not have requested the more energy- efficient lamps

. For upstream programs, three factors —as shown in Table 4—have led to first- year, in

- service rates well below 100%: (1) the often deeply discounted price, (2) the inclusion of program multipacks, and (3) the common practice of waiting until a bulb burns out before replacing it.

14 Although surveys can be used to estimate potential snapback behavior, these efforts are considered more qualitative. Also, surveys cannot easily capture the relationship of hours of use between multiple fixtures. For example, after a retrofit, a home owner may consciously choose to use a fixture for more hours

— rath er than a standard

- efficiency fixture

— as a strategy to save additional energy.6 - 18 Table 4: Estimated First- Year , In

- Service Rate s from Recent Evaluations of CFL Upstream Lighting Programs Region Publication Year Author Percentage of CFLs Installed in Program Year* Arizona (APS service area) 2008 Navigant Consulting 90%

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont 2009 Nexus Market Research Inc., et al. 76%

Illinois 2012 Navigant Consulting and Itron, Inc. 71%

* Based on program year only, not years subsequent to the program year or several years in a multiyear program

cycle.
The Residential Lighting Protocol recommends that in

- service rates be estimated using different methods, as determined by the delivery mechanism :

• For direct installation programs , conduct verification ( such as telephone survey or site visits) to assess installation and measure persistence , regardless of whether working bulb s were removed before they failed

.

• For giveaway or coupon programs , conduct verification when customer contact information is available. Also, ask respondents whether (1) the installation location was within the relevant service territory and (2) the measure was installed in a home or business . (If the installation was in a business , ask about the type of business.)
If customer information is not available
, rely on either secondary data (such as for a similar program where customer information was collected) or, if necessary, on the in -home audit approach ( described in the next bullet).

• For upstream programs , calculate in

- service rates through an in -home audit. Because program bulbs cannot be eas ily identified, the in

- service rate can be calculated as the number of installed bulbs purchased in a recent 12-month period divided by the total number of bulbs purchased in the same 12-month period. If the sample size of homes with bulbs purchased in the recent 12 -month period is insufficient to provide the necessary levels of confidence and precision, apply a long- term , in- service rate using all bulbs
, regardless of the time of purchase

.

• Although the in-home audit is the recommended approach, a telephon e survey can be used when program administrators are just launching a program or do not have sufficient resources to conduct an in-home audit. T o minimize recall bias, the callers should focus questions only on products purchased in the recent 12-month period rather tha n the period covering the long

- term , in

- service rate . (Studies have shown that respondents tend to have better recall about the percent age of bulbs purchased and installed within the past 12 months , as compared to the percent age of bulbs that has ever been purchased and installed .) Although first- year , in

- service rates for upstream programs are less than 100 %, recent studies have demonstrated that consumers plan to install virtually all of the incented bulbs; however,6 - 19 they someti mes wait until an existing bulb burns out. 15 As a result, program administrators have been able to take credit in one of two ways for savings that occur in years following the year that the incentive was paid: 16

• Discount F uture Savings. In this method, all of the costs and benefits are claimed during the program year, but the savings (in terms of avoided costs, kWh, or kW) from the expected future installation of stored program bulbs are discounted back to the program year using a societal or utility discount rate.

• Stagger T iming of Savings C laims

. In this method, all of the expenses are claimed during the program year, but the savings (and, therefore
, the accompanying avoided cost benefits ) are claimed in the years in which the program measures are estimated to be installed. To calculate the installation rate trajectories, the Residential Lighting Evaluation Protocol recommends using the findings from the evaluation of the 2006-2008 California Residential Upstream Lighting Programs, which estimated that 99 % of program bulbs get installed within three years, including the program year. 17 Because the study examined three years of program activity , it does not specifically include the percentage of bulbs installed by the year following program activity ; it only estimates the total after three years . Therefore, program administrators should assume the bulbs that will be installed in future years are split equally between one and two years following the program year, calculated as:

ISR PY 2 = 99%

− ISR PY 1 2

ISR PY 3 = 99%

− ISR PY 1 2

where:

ISR =i n- service rate
As noted in the delta watts discussion, this methodology does not adjust for CFL- to

- CFL replacement, which will likely be handled by assessments of program attribution.

15 For example, the evaluation of the Program Year 2 Commonwealth Edison Residential ENERGY STAR Lighting Program found that about 90% of customers with CFLs in storage were wa iting until a working incandescent or CFL burned out before they installed the stored CFLs (Table 3

- 6).

16 The selection of which approach to use will depend upon the study purpose and regulatory requirements.

17 Few studies have attempted to quantify installation rate trajectories, and these protocols recommend this as an additional area for further research.6 - 20 4.12 Interactive Effects W ith Heati ng, Ventilati ng , and Cooling CFLs and LED lamps give off less waste heat than incandescent bulbs, which affects heating, ventilati ng , and cooling ( HVAC ) energy requirements. These effects vary based on space conditioning mode , saturation of space heating and cooling technologies and their relative efficiencies and climate zones

. The influence of climate zone on interactive effects depends on a variety of house- specific factors . Taking all of these factors into account, the net impact on lighting energy cost savings could be positive, negative, or neutral (Parekh et al. 2005) (Parekh 2008). In cooling- dominated climates , the interactive effects are positive, result ing in additional savings due to decreased cooling load. However, in heating- dominated climates , the interactive effects are negative
, with decreased savings due to increased heating load.

Because of the potential impacts of interactive effects, the Residential Lightin g Evaluation Protocol recommends these effects be included in evaluations of resi dential lighting programs. 18 One approach is to estimate these effects through the use of simulation models, examining a mix of typical housing types ( such as different vintages ) and reflecting the estimated saturation, fuel shares, and size/efficiency of HVAC equipment ( that is , the percent age of homes that have air

conditioning or electric versus gas heat)

. If necessary, secondary sources

— such as the Residential Energy Consumption Study (RECS)— can be used to estimate these inputs. Other recent approaches include a billing analysis (Brunner et al. 2010).
Some regions have developed interactive effects calculators based on such simulations ( for example, in California, the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources ( DEER ) 19 and the Regional Technical Foru m ( RTF ) in the Northwest. Such regional collaboration can minimize the cost of determining the interactive effects for those regions that do not already have such a tool.
If regional collaboration is not an option and the program administrator do es not have the resources to complete the simulations
, the Residential Lighting Evaluation Protocol recommends using a value from an existing resource, but ensuring that at least the climate (heating and cooling degree days) and, ideally , the latitude
, HVAC system types
, and saturations are similar between the program administrator’s territory and the territory from which the data are taken

.

18 Note that interactive effects are only relevant for bulbs installed in conditioned spaces. Thus, exterior lights will not have HVAC interactive effects.)

19 www.deeresources.com/DEER2011/download/LightingHVACInteractiveEffects_13Dec2011.xls6 - 21 

### 5 Other Evaluation Issues The incentive structure of u pstream lighting programs does not inherently allow for assurance s that each purchaser of a program bulb is a residential customer in the sponsoring program administrator’s service territory . Therefore, some program bulbs may go to non- residential customers or to customers served by other utilities. T hese parameters are discussed i n this section

.
5.1 Cross

- Customer Class Sales Non -residential customers typically use lighting products for more hours per day than do residential customers . Typically, non -resident ial customers also have higher peak coincidence factors. Therefore, lighting products incentivized through a residential lighting program but that are installed in non

- residential sockets may lead to higher savings than those assumed through the methods outlined above.
The typical approach to estimating th is parameter has been thro ugh customer intercept surveys, where customers who purchase lighting products participate in a short survey —asking about intended installation location and facility type— at the time of sale

. This parameter has also been estimated through surveys with stor e managers ( ask ing them to estimate the percentage of bulbs sold to non- residential customers ) or with the owners of small businesses ( asking them where they typically purchase lighting products).
The Residential Lighting Evaluation Protocol recognizes several key limitations in estimating this parameter, including:

• Customer intercepts may not represent all program sales . Conducting customer intercept surveys can be expensive , and they are typically conducted only in highvo lume stores ( such as Home Dep ot, Lowe’ s, Wal m art, etc. ). In some cases, these surveys are conducted only during high-volume promotions. Also, because some retailers refuse to allow the surveys to be conducted, the surveys may not be representative of total program sales. Accuracy from intercepts is further challenged because business owners and contractors (1) may be a minority of purchasers, (2) may purchase more units per visit than residential purchasers, and (3) may not purchase during the same time as the average residential purc haser.

• Surveys lack high reliability

. Store managers usually do not have detailed information on program bulb purchasers, so their estimates of sales to non- residential customers may be unreliable. Surveys of small business customers also face challenges, as there is nonresponse bias ( that is , calling a small business and not getting cooperation from the business decision maker to take a survey) . Additionally
, quantifying the number and type of bulbs purchased by channel may have recall bias.

5.2 Cross

- Service Area Sales (Leakage) Recent studies have also attempted to estimate the number of program bulbs sold to customers outside of the program administrator’s service territory . This is commonly referred to as

“ leakage ” or “ spillage. ”6 - 22 Th is p rotocol recognizes several key limitations in estimating this parameter, including:

• Cross -R egion Sales. Many neighboring service territories are now targeted by residential lighting programs; thus, there is less of an incentive to shop outside one’s

own service territory to purchase less -expensive lighting products. In some cases, leakage of program bulbs occurs in both directions across service territory boundaries , which may offset the effec t in either or both territories

.

• Many programs now limit participating retailers , so that leakage is minimized

. Many program administrators now require retailers participating in upstream programs to be located far enough within the service territory or to be surrounded by a certain percentage of population of program customers as to minimize potential leakage.

5.3 Estimating Cross

- Customer Class and Cross

- Service Area Sales Based on the limitations of estimating these parameters

— and the fact these parameters may offset each other ( that is , the increased savings of sales to non- residential customers may be at least partially offset by leakage) —this protocol recommends excluding these parameter estimates from impact evaluations of upstream residential lighting programs.

F or program administrators who are using intercepts for other purposes ( including an assessment of program attribution ), questions regarding the intended location and business type can be included in surveys. However, the results should be used cautiously with the following adjustments:

• The r esults should be weighted to ref lect the percentage of program bulbs represented by those distribution channels. For example, if intercept surveys are conducted at retailers that represent 75% of program bulbs, the findings should be assumed to reflect 75 % of program bulb sales. For those distribution channels that have not received intercept surveys , the evaluator should first assess how the cross

- customer class and cross

- service area sales might differ and then apply extrapolated values.

• Intercept surveys should be conducted at retailer storefronts that represent a mix of likely leakage (based on the distance to adjacent service territories). Alternatively, the results should be weighted to reflect the actual mix of retailer risk of leakage.6 - 23 

### 6 Program Evaluation Elements
R esidential lighting programs offer a variety of measures through multiple delivery strategies, with the upstream CFL programs currently being the most ubiquitous. Program administrators who offer a variety of measures and rely on a variety of delivery stra tegies may need to prioritize their evaluation resources based on criteria such as contribution to savings and assessed uncertainty.
Savings should be assessed through a mix of primary and secondary data, using IPMVP Option A (Retrofit Isolation: Key Param eter Estimates). Key areas needing ongoing and additional research are :

• Assumptions regarding baseline wattage as EISA standards take effect and as LEDs become a larger source of program savings (For example, customers who would have installed a CFL, rathe r than a program-incented LED, in absence of the program).

• Installation trajectories for measures that are not installed in the first year

.6 - 24 

### 7 References

Brunner, E. J. ; Ford, P.S.; McNulty , M.A.; Thayer, M.A. (2010). “Compact Fluorescent Lighting and Resid ential Natural Gas Consumption: Testing for Interactive Effects .” Energy Policy

. (38 :3); pp. 1288-1296. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509008313

. Cadmus Group, Inc. ( December 2010). Lighting and Appliance Evaluation— PY 2 . Prepared for Ameren Illinois.

KEMA , Inc. and Cadmus Group, Inc. ( February 8, 2010 ). Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting Program . Prepared for California Public Utilities Co mmission, Energy Division. www.calmac.org/publications/FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_Vol2_CALMAC.pdf

.
KEMA , Inc. (February 25, 2005 ). CFL Mete ring Study . Prepared for California’s InvestorOwned Utilities (P acific Gas and Electric Company [PG &E ], Southern California Edison [ SCE ], and San Diego Gas and Electric [ SDG&E ]).
Navigant Consulting and Cadmus Group, Inc. (January 15, 2011). EmPOWER Maryland 2010 Interim Evaluation Report . Prepared for Baltimore Gas and Electric, Potomac Electric Power Company, Delmarva Power and Light ( DPL ), Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative ( SMECO ), and Allegheny Power ( AP ).

Nexus Market Research, Inc. and RL W Analytics, Inc. (October 2004 ). Impact Evaluation of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont 2003 Residential Lighting Programs . Prepared for The Cape Light Compact, State of Vermont Public Service Department for Efficiency Vermont, National Grid, N ortheast Utilities, NSTAR Electric, Unitil Energy Systems, Inc.

Nexus Market Research, Inc. , RLW Analytics, Inc., and GDS Associates. (January 20, 2009). Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Evaluation . Prepared for Markdown and Buydown Program Sponsors in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. www.env.state.ma.us/dpu/docs/electric/09-64/12409nstrd2ae.pdf

. Parekh, A.; Swinton, M.C.; Szadkowski, F.; Manning, M. (2005 ). Benchmarking of Energy Savings Associated with Energy Efficient Lighting in Houses

. National Research Council Canada. NRCC -50874. http://nparc .cisti

- icist.nrc

cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=shwart&index=an&req=20377557

.
Par ekh, A. (2008). “Do CFLs Save Whole-House Energy?” Home Energy Magazine
, November/December 2008. pp. 20-22.

TecMarket Works and Building Metrics . (February 15, 2011 ). Duke Energy Residential Smart $aver CFL Program in North Carolina and South Carolina: Results of a Process and Impact Evaluation

. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation. (August 6, 2010). State of Ohio Energy Efficiency Technical Reference Manual . Prepared for the Pub lic Utilities Commission of Ohio. http://amppartners.org/pdf/TRM_Appendix_E_2011.pdf

.6 - 25 Vermont Energy Investment Corporation. ( July 2011 ). Mid

- Atlantic Technical Reference Manual
, Version 2.0 . Facilitated and Managed by Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. http://neep.org/uploads/EMV%20Forum/EMV%20Products/A5_Mid_Atlantic_TRM_V2_FINA L.pdf

.6 - 26 

### 8 Resources

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). (2000). Research Project 1093 Compilation of Diversity Factors and Schedules for Energy and Cooling Load Calculations. ASHRAE Research Report.

ASHRAE. (2002). Guideline 14-2002: Measurement of Energy and Demand Savings

. ASHRAE. (2010). Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial Buildings

. ASHRAE. (TBD). Guideline 14-2002R (Revision of Guideline 14 , currently in process, publication date TBD).

Gla cier Consulting. ( March 6, 2008 ). Analysis of Delta Watts Values for CFLs Rewarded Through the Residential Lighting Program During FY07 . Prepared for the State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission. www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf/1215.pdf

. Navigant Consulting and Itron. (December 21, 2010). Plan Year 2 Evaluation Report: Residential E NERGY S TAR Lighting . Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company.
PA Consulting Group and NMR Group. (April 22, 2010). Focus on Energy Evaluation 2009 CFL Savings Analysis

. RLW Analytics, Inc. and Nexus Market Research. ( April 22, 2005). Extended Residential Logging Results . Prepared for National Grid.

# Chapter 7: Refrigerato r Recycling Evaluation Protocol The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

Doug Bruchs and Josh Keeling , The Cadmus Group, Inc.

Subcontract Report NREL/SR

- 7A30

- 53827 April 20137 - 1 

### Chapter 7 – Table of Contents
1 Measure Description .............................................................................................................. 2 2 Application Conditions of Protocol ....................................................................................... 3 3 Savings Calculations .............................................................................................................. 4 4 Gros s Savings......................................................................................................................... 5 4.1 Measure Verification (N) ................................................................................................. 5 4.2 Annual Energy Consumption (EXISTING_UEC) ........................................................... 5 4.3 Part

- Use Factor (PART_USE) ....................................................................................... 12 4.4 Refrigerator Replacement .............................................................................................. 14 5 Net Savings .......................................................................................................................... 16 5.1 Freeridership and Secondary Market Impacts (NET_FR_SMI_kWh) .......................... 16 5.2 Induced Replacement (INDUCED_kWh) ..................................................................... 21 5.3 Spillover ......................................................................................................................... 23 5.4 Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 23 6 Summary Diagram ............................................................................................................... 26 7 Other Ev aluation Issues ....................................................................................................... 27 7.1 Remaining Useful Life ................................................................................................... 27 7.2 Freezers .......................................................................................................................... 27 8 Resources ............................................................................................................................. 28



### List of Figures Figure 1: Secondary Market Impacts ............................................................................................ 21 Figure 2: Savings Net of Freeridership and Secondary Market Impacts ...................................... 21 Figure 3: Induced Replacement .................................................................................................... 23 Figure 4: Refrigerator Recycling Net Savings Evaluation Protocol: Summary Diagram ............ 26



### List of Tables Table 1: Example UEC Calculation Using Regression Model and Program Values ................... 11 Table 2: Part

- Use Factors by Category ......................................................................................... 12 Table 3: Example Calculation of Historical Part

- Use Factors ...................................................... 13 Table 4: Example Calculation of Prospective Program Part

- Use ................................................. 14 Table 5: Determination of Discard and Keep Distribution ........................................................... 187 - 2 

### 1 Measure Description
R efrigerator recycling programs are designed to save energy through the removal of old -butoperable refrigerators from service

. By o ffering free pickup, providing incentives, and disseminating information about the operating cost of old refrigerators, the se programs are designed to encourage c onsumers to:

• Discontinue the use of secondary 1 refrigerators

• Relinquish refrigerators previously use d as primary units when they are replaced ( rather than keeping the old r efrigerator as a secondary unit)

• Prevent the continued use of old refrigerator s in another household through a direct transfer (giving it away or selling it) or indirect transfer (resale on the used appliance market)

. Commonly implemented by third-party contractors (who collect and decommission participating appliances), t hese programs generate energy savings through the retirement of inefficient appliances. The decommissioning process captures environmentally harmful refrigerants and foam and enables the recycling of the plastic, metal, and wiring components.

1 Secondary refrigerators are units not located in the kitchen.7 - 3 

### 2 Application Conditions of Protocol The se brief descriptions indicate the range of designs currently seen in recycling programs:

• Some recycle both primary and secondary refrigerators.

• Some accept only secondary refrigerators.

• Some impose restrictions on vintage eligibility.

• Some are offered in conjunction with point-of- sale rebates to encourage the purchase of ENERGY STAR

- rated refrigerators

.

• Some are offered as part o f low-income, direct

- install programs that install high

efficiency replacement units. 2 The evaluation protocols described in this document, which pertain to all program variations listed, cover the en ergy savings from retiring operable- but

- inefficient refrigerators . This proto col does not discuss the potential energy savings associated with the subsequent installation of a high- efficiency replacement refrigerator (which may occur as part of a separate retail products program). 3

2 L ow

- income, direct

- install programs target refrigerators that otherwise would have continued to operate and replace them with comparably sized, new, high

- efficiency models. T h erefore, the basis for estimating savings from these types of programs is different from the other program variations noted. This difference is discussed further in the Savings Calculations section of this chapter

. 3 As discussed under the section Conside ring Resource Constraints of the “Introduction” chapter to this UMP Report, small utilities (as defined under the U.S. Small Business Administration [SBA] regulations) may face additional constraints in undertaking this protocol. Therefore, alternative methodologies should be cons idered for such utilities.7 - 4 

### 3 Savings Calculations The total g ross energy savings 4 (kWh/year) achieved from recycling old -but-operable refrigerator s is calculated using the following general algorithm :
Equation 1 GROSS _kWh = N * EXISTING_UEC * PART

_ USE

Where :

GROSS

_ kWh = Annual electricity savings measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh)

N = The n umber of refrigerators recycled through the program
EXISTING_UEC = The a verage annual u nit energy consumption of participating refrigerators

PART_USE = The portion of the year the average refrigerator would likely have operated if not recycled through the program
Due to the considerable potential for freeridership in appliance recycling programs in general, this protocol includes a discussion of net savings. For this protocol, the net adjustment accounts for current early replacement and recycling practice. T he t otal n et energy savings (kWh/year) is calculated as follows:
Equation 2 NET_kWh = N* (NET_FR_SMI_kWh – INDUCED_kWh )

Where:
NET_FR_SMI_kWh = Average per -unit energy savings net of naturally occurring removal from grid and secondary market impacts

INDUCED

_ kWh = Average per

- unit e nergy consumption caused by the program inducing participants to acquire refrigerators they would not have independent of program participation 5

The recommended techniques for estimating each of these parameters are described below.

4 The evaluation protocol methods focus on energy savings; they do not include other parameter assessments such as peak coincidence factor (demand savings), incremental cost, or measure life.

5 That is, the program caused cus tomer s to buy a new unit when they otherwise would not have. More information regarding induced replacement is included in this protocol’s Net Savings section.7 - 5 

### 4 Gross Savings Th is section provides instructions for determining the parameters required to estimate a refrigerator recycling program’s total gross savings (GROSS_ kWh ).

The key parameters are :

• Measure Verification ( N)

• Annual Energy Consumption ( EXISTING_UEC )

• Part Use Factor (PART_USE ).

4.1 Measure Verification (N ) The program administrator or the third -party implementation contractor should record the number of refrigerators recycled through a program. Ideally, the d ata for all participating refrigerators are compiled electronically in a database that tracks the following information (at a minimum) :

• Age (in years, or year of manufacture)

• Size (in cubic feet)

• Configuration (top freezer, bottom freezer, side-by-side, or single door)

• D ate the refrigerator was remov ed

• Complete customer contact information

. This protocol recommend s that early in the evaluation process, the evaluators review the program databases to ensure they are being fully populated and contain sufficient information to inform subsequent evaluation activities.

Self

- reported verification of program recycling records via a survey of randomly sampled participants has proven to be a reliable methodology. Survey efforts should include a sufficient sample of participants to meet the required level of statistical significance. When no requirements exist, this protocol recommends a sample that achieves, at minimum, 90% level of confidence with a 10% margin of error. Past evaluations have shown that participants typically have little difficulty confirming the number of units recycled and the approximate date the removal took place (Cadmus 2010).

4.2 Annual Energy Consumption (EXISTING_UEC ) To determine the a verage per

- unit a nnual energy consumption , use a regression

- based analysis that relies on either :

• M etering a sample of participating units or

• Using m etered data collected as part of other recycling program evaluations that occurred within the previous five years (when evaluation resources do not support primary data collection)

. Deemed savings, as determined through either of these approaches
, may be used but need to be updated a t least every three years to account for progr am matur ation

.7 - 6 This protocol strongly recommends that evaluators conduct a metering study
, if possible. As this method is the preferred evaluation approach, the remainder of this section outlines the best practices for (1) implementing a metering study and (2) us ing the results to estimate annual energy consumption and, subsequently, energy savings.

**4.2.1 About In**  **S itu Metering**  Historically, recycling evaluations have primarily relied on unit energy consumption ( UEC ) estimates from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) testing protocols (DOE 2008). 6 However, recent evaluations indicate that DOE test conditions (for example, empty refrigeration and freezers cabinets, no door openings, and 90 ̊F test chamber) may not accurately reflect UECs for recycled appliances (A DM 2008, Cadmus 2010). As a result, evaluations have increasingly utilized in situ (meaning “ in its original place ” ) metering to assess energy consumption.

In situ metering is recommended for two reasons:

• It factors in environmental conditions and usage patterns within participating homes (for example, door openings, unit location, and exposure to weather) , which are not explicitly account ed for in DOE testing

.

• Most of the DOE

- based UECs that are publicly available in industry databases were made at the time the appliance was manufactured
, rather than when the unit was retired. Using testing data from the time of manufacture requires that assumptions be made about the degree of an appliance ’s degradation. I n situ metering is conducted immediately prior to program participation ( that is, at the time of the unit’s retirement) , so making a similar type of adjustment or assumption i s unnecessary. In summary, while the DOE testing protocols provide accurate insights into the relative efficiency of appli ances (most commonly at their time of manufacture ), in situ metering yields the most accurate estimate of energy consumption (and
, therefore , savings) for old-but- operable appliances.

4.2.1.1 Key Factors for In Situ Metering The following factors should be considered when implementing an in situ metering study:

• Sample Size. The recommended levels of statistical significance
, which dictate the necessary sample size, are outlined in Chapter 11: Sampl e Design

. I t is recommended that evaluators assume a minimum coefficient of variation of 0.5 to ensure that a sufficient sample is available to compensate for attrition issues that routinely occur in field measurement. 7 For refrigerator s , th ese attrition issues may include simple meter failure, relocation of the unit during metering , and atypical usage (for example, the refrigerator is prematurely emptied in preparation for program pickup). This protocol recommends that evaluators educate study participants (and provide written leave-

6 E valuations have also used forms of billing analysis; however, the protocol does not recommen d billing analysis or any other whole

- house approach. The magnitude of expected savings

― given total household energy consumption and changes in consumption unrelated to the program

― could result in a less certain estimate than could be obtained from end -use specific approach.

7 For a broader discussion of the coefficient of variation see the “ Sample Design ” chapter.7 - 7 behind materials) about not relocating the refrigerator or otherwise using the unit in any manner inconsistent with historical usage.

• Stratification

. The program theory assumes that the majority of recycled appliances would have been used as secondary units had they not been decommissioned through the program. 8 However, some units may continue to operate as a primary unit within the same home. To account correctly for di fferen ces in usage pattern s between the usage type categories ( for e xample, primary and secondary refrigerators) , it is critical to stratify the metering sample to represent the different usage types. 9

For programs evaluated previously, information may be available about the proportion of refrigerators likely to have been used as primary versus secondary units. If so, that information can be leveraged to develop stratification quotas for the metering study. Once established, s trict quota s should be enforced during the recruitment process, because participants who recycle secondary appliances are typi cally more willing to participa te in a metering study than those who recycle primary appliances

. Participants who are recycling their primary appliance are typically replacing them
, and they are often unwilling to deal with the logistics related to rescheduling the delivery of their new unit.

A dditional stratification is not critical, d ue to the high degree of collinearity between refrigerator age, size, and configuration. However, when sufficient evaluation

resources are available
, targeting a sample of appliances with less -common characteristic s can reduce collinearity and increase the final model’s explanatory power.

• Duration

. To capture a range of appliance usage patterns , meters need to be installed for a minimum of 10 to 14 days. 10 Collecting approximately two weeks ’ worth of energy-consumption data ensures that the metering period covers weekdays and weekends. Longer metering periods will provide a greater range of usage (and more data points), but the duration need s to be balanced with the customers ’ desire to have the refrigerator removed and recycled.

• Equipment

. To capture information on compressor cycling, record the data in intervals of five minutes or less

. If the meters ’ data capacity pe rmits, shorter intervals (of one or two minutes) are preferable. When possible, meter t he following parameters ; however, i f metering efforts are limited
, prioritize the parameters in this order:

o Current and/ or power

8 This includes several scenarios: The refrigerator may continue as a secondary appliance within the same home, be transitioned from a primary to secondary appliance within the same home, or become a secondary unit in another home.

9 This protocol recommends s tratification by usage type even for programs that only accept secondary units as primary units are typically still recycled throu gh these programs (via gaming or confusion about requirements)

. 10 The previously cited evaluations in California (ADM, April 2008 and Cadmus, February 2010) both collected metering data for a minimum of from 10 to 14 days.7 - 8 o I nternal refrigerator and /or freezer cabinet temperature

o A mbient temperature

o Frequency and duration of door openings. 11
Not all of the aforementioned meter ed value s are used to determine energy consumption . Some help identify potential problems in the metering process and, thus, increase the quality of the data. (For example, a comparison of ambient room temperature to internal cabinet temperature can be used to determine if the appliance was operational throughout the entire metering period.) This protocol recommends that evaluators perform similar diagnostics on all raw metering data before including

an appliance in the final analysis dataset.

• Seasonality

. Previous metering studies have shown that the e nergy consumption of secondary appliances in unconditioned spaces differs by season

― especially in regions that experience extreme summer and/or winter weather

. 12 As a result, metering needs to be conducted in waves on separate samples . By capturing a range of weather conditions using multiple metering waves (which include winter and summer peaks, as well as shoulder seasons) , it is possible to annualize metering results more accurately

. If it is not possible to meter appliances during multiple
seasons, then annualize the metered data using existing refrigerator load shapes (utility

- specific, when available) to avoid producing seasonally biased estimates of annual unit consumption.

• Recruitment

. When arrang ing for metering, evaluators must contact participating customers before the appliance is remo ved. By work ing closely with the program implementers (who can provide daily lists of recently scheduled pickups), evaluators can contact those custo m ers to determine their eligibility and solicit their participation in the metering study.

This protocol recommends providing incentives to participants. Incentives aid in recruitment because they both provide recognition of the participants’ cooperation and offset the added expense of continuing to operate their refrigerator during metering

. Once participants are recruited, the evaluator and the implementer should collaborate in schedul ing the participants’ pickup after all of the metering equipment is removed.

• Installation and Removal

. Evaluators can ins tall and remove all metering equipment, or, to minimize costs, program implementers can perform these functions. However
, when program implemente rs are involved in the metering process, the evaluator must

11 The previously cited evaluati on (Cadmus, February 2010) employed the following metering equipment: HOBO U9

- 002 Light Sensor (recorded the frequency and duration of door openings), HOBO U12

- 012 External Data Logger (recorded the ambient temperature and humidity), HOBO U12

- 012 Internal Data Logger (recorded the cabinet temperature), HOBO CTV

- A (recorded the current), and the Watts up? Pro ES Power Meter (recorded energy consumption).

12 Forthcoming Michigan Energy Efficiency Measure Database memo by Cadmus regarding Consumers Energy and DTE Energy appliance recycling programs.7 - 9 still independently conduct all sampling design and selection, recruitment, metering equipment programming, data extraction, and data analysis.

T o ensure installations and removals are performed correctly , evaluators should train the implementer s’ field staff members and, ideally , accompany them on a sample of

s ites . If time and evaluation resources permit, evaluators should verify early in the first wave the proper installation of metering equipment at a small sample of participating homes Thus, any installation issues can be identified and corre ct ed.

Because the metering process requires an additional trip to customer home s, evaluators need to compensate the implementers for their time. Consequently, the evaluators should contact implementers as early as possible to determine the viability of th is approach and agree upon the appropriate compensation.

• Frequency

. Because the characteristics of recycled refrigerators change as a program mature s and greater market penetration is achieved, metering should be conducted approximately every three years. Savings estimates that rely exclusively on metering data older than three years reflect the current program year inaccurately

. This is most commonly due to changes in the mix of recycled appliances manufactured before and after the establishment of appliance

- related standards (including various state, regional, or federal standards) between program years . The main impact of these changes is a long

- term downward effect on the savings associated with recycling programs.

**4.2.2 About Regre**  **ssion Modeling** To estimate the annual UEC of the average recycled refrigerator, th is protocol recommends that evaluators use a multivariate regression model (s) that relates observed energy consumption to refrigerator characteristics

. Evaluators should employ models that u s e daily or hourly observed energy consumption as the dependent variable. Independent variables should include key refrigerator characteristic s or environmental factors determined to be statistically significant. Th is functional form allo ws the coefficient of each in dependent variable to indicate the relative influence of that variable (or appliance characteristic) on the observed energy consumption, holding all other variables constant. This approach allows evaluators to estimate the energy consumption of all participating appliances based on the set of characteristics maintained in the program’s tracking database.
In estimating UEC , both time and cross- sectional effects must be accounted for. This can be done one of two ways:

• Use mode l that estimates simultaneously the impacts of longitudinal (time) and cross

sectional effects on energy consumption. This approach is recommended if the sample size is reasonably large and if units are observed across both summer and winter peak periods.

• Use a set of time

- series models

. I f metering is done during only one or two seasons, us e a refrigerator load shape from a secondary source to extrapolate the annual UEC for each7 - 10 metered refrigerator

. Then apply a regression model using the entire metering sample to predict annualized consumption as a function of cross- sectional variables.

Once model parameters are estimated , the results may be used to estimate UEC for each refrigerator recycled through a program, based on each unit’s unique set of characte ristics. An example is provided later in this section.

T he exact model specification ( a set of appliance characteristics or independent variables ) yielding the greatest explanatory power varies from study to study, based on the underlying metering data. Th us, this protocol does not mandate a certain specification be used. However, evaluators should consider

― at a minimum

― the following independent variables:

• Age ( y ears) and corresponding vintage (compliance with relevant efficiency code)

• Size ( in cubic feet )

• Configuration (top f reezer , bottom freezer, side-by-side, or single door)

• Primary/ secondary designation

• Conditioned/unconditioned s pace 13

• Location ( kitchen, garage, basement, porch, etc.)

• Weather ( cooling degree days [ CDD ] and/or heating degree days [ HDD ]).
For each set of potential independent variables
, evaluators should assess the variance inflation factor s , adjusted R 2 s, residual plots, and other measures of statistical significance and fit

. In the specification process, evaluators should also consider the following elements :

• Estimating model parameters by u sing an O rdinary /Generalized L east S quares method

• Transform ing explanatory variables (logged and squared values, based on theoretical and empirical methods )

• Considering i nteraction terms (such as be tween refrigerators located in unconditioned space and CDD /HDD) when they are theoretically sound ( that is, not simply to increase the adjusted R 2 or any other diagnostic metric)

• Balancing model parsimony with explanatory power. ( It is very important not to overspecify the model(s). As the regression models are used to predict consumption for a wide variety of units, overly specified models can lose their predictive validity. )

13 Primary/secondary and conditioned/unconditioned space variables may exhibit a strong collinearity.

Consequently, do not include both in the final model.7 - 11 Th e following sample regression model is based on data from 472 refrigerators metered and recycled through five utilities:

Existing UEC

= 365

. 25 ∗ [0. 582 + 0. 027 ∗ ( 22

. 69 years ) + 1. 055

∗ ( 63% manufactured before 1990 ) + 0. 067 ∗ ( 18

. 92 ft

. 3 )

− 1. 977

∗ ( 6% single door units ) + 1. 071 ∗ ( 25% side

− by

− side ) + 0. 605

∗ ( 36% primary usage ) + 0. 02 ∗ ( 2. 49 unconditioned CDDs )

− 0. 045

∗ ( 1. 47 unconditioned HDDs ) ]
Once the characteristics of a specific appliance are determined, they should be substituted in the equation to estimate the UEC for that appliance. After th e UEC is calculated for each participating unit, a program average UEC can be determined. Table 1 provides an example of th is process
, using average values for each independent variable from an example program.

Table 1: Example UEC Calculation Using Regression Model and Program Values

Independent Variable Estimate Coefficient (Daily kWh) Program Values ( Average/Proportion ) Intercept 0.582

- Appliance Age (years) 0.027 22.69 Dummy: Manufactured Pre

- 1990 1.055 0.63 Appliance Size (square feet) 0.067 18.92 Dummy: Single

- Door Configuration

- 1.977 0.06 Dummy: Side

- by

- Side Configuration 1.071 0.25 Dummy: Primary Usage Type (in absence of the program) 0.6054 0.36
Interaction: Located in Unconditioned Space x CDDs 0.020 2.49 Interaction: Located in Unconditioned Space x HDDs

- 0.045 1.47 Estimated UEC (kWh/Year) 1,240

**4.2.3 Us**  **ing Secondary Data**  When evaluation resources do not support in situ metering, evaluators should leverage a model developed through t he most appropriate in situ metering

- based evaluation undertaken for another utility. The most appropriate study will be one that is comparable to the program being evaluated in terms of the following factors :

• Age of the study (recent is most desirable )

• Similar average appliance characteristics (comparable size s, configurations , etc. )

• Similar geographical location (due to differences in climate )

• Similar c ustomer demographics (due to differences in usage patterns)

. Use the aggregated UEC model presented in Table 1 when (1) in situ metering is not an option and (2) a recently developed model from a single comparable program cannot be identified.7 - 12 4.3 Part

- Use Factor ( PART_USE ) “P art

- use” is a n appliance rec ycling- specific adjustment factor used to convert the UEC (determined through the methods detailed above) into an average per -unit gross savings value. The UEC itself is not equal to the gross savings value, because :

• T he UEC model yields an estimate of an nual consumption

• N ot all recycled refrigerators would have operated year -round had they not been decommissioned through the program.
Table 2 provides a summary of the three part- use categories, each with its own part-use factor. The part-use factors for refrigerators that would have run full-time (1.0) and those that would have not run at all (0.0) are consistent across evaluations. The part- use factor for refrigerators that would have been used for a portion of the year varies by program (and is between 0.0 and 1.0). For example, a refrigerator estimated to operate a total of three months over the course of a year (most commonly to provide additional storage capacity during the holidays) would ha ve a part-use factor of 0.25.

Table 2: Part

- Use Factors by Category

Part

- Use Category Part

- Use Factor Likely to not operate at all in absence of the program 0 Likely to operate part

- time in absence of the program 0 to 1 Likely to operate year

- round in absence of the program 1

Using participant surveys, evaluators should determine the number of recycled units in each partuse category, as well as the portion of the year that the refrigerators that would have been used part- time were likely to have been operated. Th e protocol recommends th is assessment be handled through the following multi -step process:

1. Ask participants where the refrigerator was located for most of the year prior to being recycled

. By asking about the refrigerator’s long -term location, evaluators can obtain more reliable information about the unit’s usage type and can avoid using terms that often confuse participants (such as primary and secondary), especially when replacement occurs. It is recommended that evaluators designate all refrigerators previously located in

a kitchen as primary units and all other location s as secondary. Note that it is important not to ask about the refrigerator’s location when it was collected by the program implementer , as many units are relocated to accommodate the arrival of a replacement appliance or to facilitate program pickup.

2. Ask those participants who indicated recycl ing a secondary refrigerator whether the refrigerator was unplugged, operated year-round, or operated for a portion of the preceding year. (Evaluators can assume all primary units are operated year -round.)

3. Ask those participants who indicated that their secondary refrigerator was operated for only a portion of the preceding year to estimate the total number of months during that time the refrigerator was plugged in. The n divide the average number of months7 - 13 specified by this subset of participants by 12 to calculate the part- use factor for all refrigerators operated for only a portion of the year.
These three steps enable evaluators to obtain important and specific information about how a refrigerator w as used before it was recycled . The example program provided in Table 3 shows that:

• T he participant survey determined that 9 3 % o f recycled refrigerators were operated year -round either as primary or secondary units. (Again, the part- use factor associated with these refrigerators is 1.0. )

• Four percent of refrigerators were not used at all in the year before being recycled. The part-use factor associated with this portion of the program population is 0.0, and no energy savings are generated by the refrigerator’s removal and eventual decommissioning.

• The remaind er (3 %) w as operational for a portion of the year. Specifically, the survey determined that part

- time refrigerators were operated for an average of three months a year ( indicating a part-use factor of 0.25). Using this information , evaluators should calculate the overall part -use factors for secondary units only , as well as for all recycled units. These factors are derived by applying a weighted average of the adjusted part- use per -unit energy savings for each part- use category. This calculation u ses the UEC determined through the methods described in the About Regression Modeling section . In this example, the program’s secondary-only part-use factor is 0.88, while the overall part -use factor is 0.93.

T able 3: Example Calculation of Historical Part

- Use Factor s Usage Type and Part

- Use Category Percent of Recycled Units Part

- Use Factor Per

- Unit Energy Savings (kWh/Yr) Secondary Units Only Not in Use 6% 0.00

- Used Part

- Time 8% 0.25 3 1 0 Used Full

- Time 86% 1.00 1, 240 Weighted Average 100.0% 0.88 1, 091 All Units (Primary and Secondary) Not in Use 4% 0.00

- Used Part

- Time 3% 0.25 3 1 0 Used Full

- Time 93% 1.00 1, 240 Weighted Average 100.0% 0.93 1,1 63 Next, evaluators should combine these historically observed part- use factors with participants’ self -reported action had the program not been available. (That is, the participants’ report as to whether they would they have kept or discarded their refrigerator.) 14

14 Since the future usage type of discarded refrigerators is unknown, evaluators should apply the weighted part

- use average of all units (0.93) for all refrigerators that would have been discarded independent of the program. This7 - 14 The example provided in Table 4 demonstrates how a program’s part- use factor is determined using a weighted average of historically observed part- use factors and participants ’ likely action in the absence of the program. 15 Here , the result is a part -use value of 0.91, based on the expected future use of the refrigerator s had they not been recycled.

Table 4: Example Calculation of Prospective Program Part

- Use

Use Prior to Recycling Likely Use Indepen dent of Recycling Part

- Use Factor Percent of Participants

Primary Kept (as primary unit) 1.0 15% Kept (as secondary unit) 0.88 25% Discarded 0. 93 15%
Secondary Kept 0.88 30% Discarded 0. 93 15% **Overall All**  **0.9 1**  **100%**

Applying the determined prospective part

- use factor ( PART_USE) of 0. 91 to the determined annual energy consumption (EXISTING _UEC ) of 1,240 kWh/year yields the program’s average per-unit gross savings . I n this case, the gross savings is 1,128 kWh/year.
Recent evaluations of appliance recycling programs have determined that part

- use factor s typically rang e from 0. 85 to 0.95 (Navigant 2010) . New er appliance recycling programs have exhibit ed a part

- use factor at the lower end of this range. This is attribut ed to that fact that many unused or partially used appliances sat idle before the program launch simply because participants lacked the means to discard them . ( The recycling program then provided the means.) In addition, the newer programs tend to focus on collecting secondary units (which are subject to part- use)
, while mature programs tend to focus on avoided retention (replacing primary appliances ). As a result, part

- use factor s tend to increase over time.
The p art -use factor should be reassessed annual ly for newer programs, because it may change more rapidly during the early stages of a program’s life cycle

. After a program has been in operation for at least three years , i t is sufficient to conduct a part- use assessment every other year

.
4.4 Refrigerator R eplacement In most cases , the per-unit gross energy savings attributable to the program is equal to the energy consumption of the recycled appliance ( rather than being equal to the difference between the consumption of the participating appliance and its replacement
, when applicable). This is because the energy savings generated by the program are not limited to the change within the participant’s home , but rather to the total change in energy consumption at the grid level.

approach acknowledges that discarded appliances might be used as primary or secondar y units in the would

- be recipient’s home.
15 Evaluators should not calculate part

- use using participant’s estimates of future use had the program not been available. Historical estimates based on actual usage rates are more accurate, especially because it is possible participants will underestimate future usage (believing they will only operate it part of the year, despite the fact the majority of refrigerators operate continuously once plugged in).7 - 15 This concept is best explained with an example. Suppose a customer decides to purchase a new refrigerator to replace an existing one

. When t he customer mentions this to a neighbor, the neighbor asks for th at existing refrigerator to use as a secondary unit . The customer agrees to give the old appliance to the neighbor; however, before this transfer is made, the customer learns about a utility-sponsored appliance recycling program. The customer decides to participate in the program, because the incentive helps offsets the cost of the new refrigerator. As a result of program intervention, the customer’s appliance is permanently removed from operation in the utility’s service territory.
From the utility’s perspective, the difference in grid

- level energy consumption―and the corresponding increase in program savings― are equal to the consumption of the recycled appliance and not to the difference between the energy consumption of the participating appliance and its replacement. In this example, i t is important to note that the participant p lanned to replace the appliance.
In general, the purchase of new refrigerators is part of the naturally occurring appliance life cycle
, typically independent of the program 16 and tantamount to refrigerator load growth. It is not the purpose of the program to prevent these inevitable purchases, but rather to minimize the grid

- level refrigerator load growth by limiting the number of existing appliances that continue to operate once they are replaced.
However, when a recycling program induces replacement ( that is , the participant would not have purchased the new refrigerator in absence of the recycling program), evaluators must account for replacement. This issue is addressed in the following Net Savings section , which also discuss es recycling program’s impact on the secondary market and how evaluators should account for these effects. This protocol focuses on the actions of would-be recipients of refrigerator s recycled through the program (that otherwise would have been transferred to a new user) when the r ecycled unit is not available.
Appliance s that, independent of the program, would have been discarded in a way le ad ing to destruction ( such as being taken to a landfill )

― rather than being transferred to a new user

― are captured by the evaluation’s net- to -g ross (NTG) ratio . Thus, no net savings are generated by the program . This is a separate issue from estimating gross energy savings and is also discussed in the following Net Savings section in more detail.

16 With the exception of induced replacement, which is addressed in Net Savings

.7 - 16 

### 5 Net Savings This section provides instructions for determining the additional parameters required to estimate a refrigerator recycling program’s net savings (NET_kWh). In the case of refrigerator recycling, net savings are only generated when the recycled appliance would have continued to operate absent p rogram intervention (either within the participating customer’s home or at the home of another utility customer).

The key additional parameters detailed in this section are:

• Freeridership and Secondary Market Impacts ( NET_ FR_SMI_kWh)

• Induced Replacement (I NDUCED_kWh)

.
5.1 Freeridership and Secondary Market Impacts ( NET_ FR

_ SMI _kWh ) To estimate freeridership and secondary market impacts, this protocol recommends that evaluators use a combination of the responses of surveyed participants, surveyed nonparticipants, and (if possible) secondary market research. These data are used together to populate a decision tree of all possible savings scenarios . A weighted average of these scenarios is then taken to calculate the savings that can be credited to the program after accounting for either freeridership or the program’s interaction with the secondary market. This decision tree is populated based on what the participating household would have done outside the program and , if the unit would have been transferred to anoth er household, whether the would- be acquirer of that refrigerator finds an alternate unit instead

. In general, independent of program intervention, participating refrigerators would have been subject to one of the following scenarios:

1. The refrigerator would have been kept by the household.

2. The refrigerator would have been discarded by a method that transfer s it to another customer for continued use.

3. The refrigerator would have been discarded by a method leading to its removal from service

. These scenarios encompass what has often been referred to as “ freeridership ” (the proportion of units would have been taken off the grid absent the program). The quantification of freeridership is detailed in Section 5.1.1 , Freeridership

. In the event that the unit would ha ve been transferred to another household, the question then becomes what purchasing decisions are made by the would- be acquirer s of participating units now that these units are unavailable. These w ould- be acquirer s could:

1. Not purchase/acquire another unit

2. Purchase /acquire another used unit. Adjustments to savings based on these factors are referred to as the program’s secondary market impacts. The quantification of this impact is detailed in Section 5.1.2, Secondary Market Impacts

.7 - 17 **5.1.1 Freeridership**  The first step is to estimate the distribution of participating units likely to have been kep t or discarded absent the program. Further, there are two possible scenarios for discarded units so, in total, there are three possible scenarios independent of program intervention:

1. Unit is discarded and transferred to another household

2. Unit is discarded and destroyed

3. Unit is kept in the home. As participants often do not have full knowledge of the available options for and potential barriers to dispos ing refrigera tors ( Scenarios 1 and 2), this document recommends using nonparticipant survey data to mitigate potential self- reporting errors. The proportion of units that would have been kept in the home (Scenario 3) can be estimated exclusively through the participant survey, as participants can reliably provide this information. Nonparticipant surveys provide information from other utility customers regarding how they actually discarded their refrigerator independent of the program. Evaluators can also use this information to estimate the proportion of discarded units that are transferred (Scenario 1) versus destroyed (Scenario 2). Specifically, e valuators should calculate the distribution of the ratio of likely discard scenarios as a weighted average from both participants and nonparticipants (when nonparticipant surveys are possible). The averaging of p articipant and nonparticipant values mitigate s potential biases in the responses of each group. 17 As the true population of nonparticipants is unknown, the distribution should be weighted using the inverse of the variance of participant and nonparticipant freeridership ratios. 18 This method of weighting gives greater weight to values that are more prec ise or less variable. As demonstrated in Table 5
, 19 this approach results in the evaluation’s estimation of the proportion of participating appliances that would have been permanently destroyed (Scenario 1), transferred to another user (Scenario 2), or kept (Scenario 3)

.

17 Participant responses may be biased due to not fully understanding barriers to various disposal options. Nonparticipant decisions may not be representative of what participants would do in the absence of the program due to partic ipants self

- selecting into the program (as opposed to being randomly enrolled)

. 18 Inverse variance weights involve weighting each estimate by the inverse of its squared standard error (1/SE 2 ). This technique is common in the meta

- analysis literature and i s used to place greater weight on more reliable estimates.

19 More detail on how this information is utilized to determine net savings can be found in Section 6
, Summary Diagram

.7 - 18 Table 5: Determination of Discard and Keep Distribution

Discard/

Keep Proportion of Participant

Sample Sample Discard Scenari

o N SE Weight Proportion of Discards Overall Proportion

Discard 70% Participant Transfer 7 0 0.05 0.60 80% Destroy 20%

Nonparticipant Transfer 7 0 0.06 0.40 60% Destroy 40% Weighted Average Transfer 72% 50% Destroy 28% 20% Kept 30% 30%

5.1.1.1 Participant Self

- Reported Actions To determine the percentage of participants in each of the three scenarios, evaluators should begin by ask ing surveyed participants about the likely fate of the ir recycled appliance had it not been decommissioned through the utility program . Responses provided by participants can be categorized as follows :

• Kept the refrigerator

• Sold the refrigerator to a private party ( either an acquaintance or through a posted advertisement )

• Sold or gave the refrigerator to a used

- appliance dealer

• Gave the refrigerator to a private party, such as a friend or neighbor

• Gave the refrigerator to a charity organization, such as Goodwill Industries or a church

• Had the refrigerator removed by the dealer from whom the new or replacement refrigerator was obtained

• Hauled the refrigerator to a landfill or recycling center

• Hired someone else to haul the refrigerator away for junking, dumping, or recycling

. To ensure the most reliable resp onses possible and to mitigate socially desirable resp onse bias, evaluators should ask some respondents additional questions. For example, participant s may say they would have sold their unit to a used appliance dealer. However, if the evaluation’s market research revealed used appliance dealers were unlikely to purchase it (due to its age or condition), then participants should be asked what they would have likely done had they been unable to sell the unit to a dealer . Evaluators should then use the response to this question in

assess ing freeridership

. If market research determines local waste transfer stations charge a fee for dropping off refrigerators, inform participants about the fee if they initially specify this as their option and then ask the m to confirm what they would have done in the absence of the program. Again, evaluators should use this response to assess freeridership

.7 - 19 Use this iterative approach with great care. It is critical that evaluators find the app ropriate balance between increasing the plausibility of participants’ stated action (by offering context that might have impacted their decision) while not upsetting participants by appearing to invalidate their initial response.

Next evaluators should ass ess whether each participant’s final response indicat es freeridership

.

• Some final responses clearly indicate freeridership , such as: “I would have taken it to the landfill or recycling center myself

. ”

• Other responses clearly indicate no freeridership, as when the refrigerator would have remained active within the participating home (“I would have kept it and continued to use it”) or used elsewhere within the utility’s service territory (“I would have given it to a family member, neighbor, or friend to use ”).

**5.1.2 Secondary Market Impacts**  If it is determined that the participant would have directly or indirectly (through a market actor) transferred the unit to another customer on the grid, the next question addresses what that potential acquirer did because tha t unit was unavailable . There are three possibilities:

A. None of the would -be acquirers would find another unit. That is, program participation would result in a one- for -one reduction in the total number of refrigerators operating on the grid. In this case, the total energy consumption of avoided transfers (participating appliances that otherwise would have been used by another customer) should be credited as savings to the program. This position is consistent with the theory that participating appliances are essentially convenience goods for would-be acquirers. (That is, the potential acquirer would have accepted the refrigerator had it been readily available, but because the refrigerator was not a necessity, and the potential acquirer would not seek out an alternate unit.)

B. All of the would

- be acquirers would find another unit. Thus, program participation has no effect on the total number of refrigerators operating on the grid. This position is consistent with the notion that participating appliances are necessities and that customers will always seek alternative units when participating appliances are unavailable

. C. Some of would-be acquirers would find another unit , whileothers would not. This possibility reflects the awareness that some acquirers were in the market for a refrigerator and would acquire another unit, while others were not ( and would only have taken the unit opportunistically).

I t is difficult to answer th is question with certainty , a bsent utility

- specific information regarding the change in the total number of refrigerators (overall and used appliances specifically) that

were active before and after program implementation. In some cases, evaluators have co nducted in -depth market research to estimate both the program’s impact on the secondary market and the appropriate attribution of savings for this scenario. Although these studies are imperfect, they can provide utility

- specific information related to the program’s net energy impact. Where feasible, evaluators and utilities should design and implement such an approach. Unfortunately,7 - 20 this type of research tends to be cost -prohibitive, or the necessary data may simply be unavailable.

Because the data to info rm such a top- down market -based approach may be un available, evaluators have employed a bottom-up approach that centers on identifying and surveying recent acquirers of non -program used appliances and asking these acquirers what they would have done had th e specific used appliance they acquired not been available. While this approach results in quantitative data to support evaluation efforts, it is uncertain if:

• T he used appliances these customers acquire d are in fact comparable in age and condition to tho se recycled through the program

• T hese customers can reliabl y respond to the hypothetical question. Further, any sample composed entirely of customers who recently acquired a used appliance seems inherently likely to produce a result that aligns with P ossi bility B, presented above.
As a result of these difficulties and budget limitations, this protocol recommends Possibility C when primary research cannot be undertaken. Specifically, evaluators should assume that half (0.5, the midpoint of possibilities A and B) of the would-be acquirers of avoided transfers found an alternate unit.
Once the proportion of would-be acquirers who are assumed to find alternate unit is determined, the next question is whether the alternate unit was likely to be another used appliance (similar to those recycled through the program) or, with fewer used appliances presumably available in the market due to program activity, would the customer acquire a new standard- efficiency unit instead

. 20 For the reasons previously discussed, it is difficult to estimate this distribution definitively. Thus, this protocol recommends a midpoint approach when primary rese arch is unavailable: evaluators should assume half (0.5) of the would-be acquirers of program units would find a similar, used appliance and half (0.5) would acquire a new, standard

- efficiency unit. 21

Figure 1 details the methodology for assessing the prog ram’s impact on the secondary market and the application of the recommended midpoint assumptions when primary data are unavailable. As evident in the figure, accounting for market effects results in three savings scenarios: full savings (i.e., per

- unit gro ss savings), no savings, and partial savings (i.e., the

20 It is also possible the would

- be acquirer of a program unit would select a new ENERGY STAR unit as an alternate. However, we recommend evaluators assume any such used appliance supply

- restricted upgrades be limited to new, standard

- efficiency units because (1) it seems most likely a customer in the market for a used appliance w ould upgrade to the new lowest price point and (2) excluding ENERGY STAR units avoids potential double counting between programs when utilities offer concurrent retail rebates.

21 Evaluators should determine the energy consumption of a new, standard

- efficiency appliance using the ENERGY STAR website. Specifically, evaluators should average the reported energy consumption of new, standard

- efficiency appliances of comparable size and similar configuration to the program units.7 - 21 difference between the energy consumption of the program unit and the new, standard- efficiency appliance acquired instead). 22

Figure 1 : Secondary Market Impacts

**5.1.3 Integration of**  **Freeridership and**  **Secondary Market Impacts** Once the parameters of the freeridership and secondary market impacts are estimated, a decision tree can be used to calculate the average per -unit program savings net of their combined effect. Figure 2 shows how these values are integrated into a combined estimate ( NET_ FR_SMI_kWh, here shown on a per-unit basis).

Figure 2: Savings Net of Freeridership and Secondary Market Impacts

As shown above, evaluators should estimate per-unit NET_ FR_SMI_kWh by calculat ing the proportion of t he total participating units associated with each possible combination of freeridership and secondary market scenarios and its associated energy savings

.
5.2 Induced Replacement ( INDUCED_ kWh ) Evaluators must account for replacement units only when a recycling program induces replacement (that is, when the participant would not have purchased the replacement refrigerator in the absence of the recycling program). As previously noted, the purchase of a refrigerator in conjunction with program participation does not necessar il y indicate induced replacement . (The refrigerator market is continuously replacing older refrigerators with new units, independent of

22 More detail o n how this information is used to determine net savings can be found in Section 6, Summary Diagram

.7 - 22 any programmatic effects. ) However, if a customer would have not purchased the replacement unit (put another appliance on the grid) in absence of the program, the net program savings should reflect this fact. This is, in effect, a kin to negative spillover and should be used to adjust net program savings downward.

E stimat ing the proportion of hou seholds induced to replace their appliance can be done through participant surveys. As an example , participants could be asked , “Would you have purchased your replacement refrigerator if the recycling program had not been offered?”

Because an incentive ra nging from $35 to $50 is unlikely to be sufficient motivation for purchasing an otherwise -unplanned replacement unit (which can cost $500 to $2,000 ), it is critical that evaluators include a follow -up question. That question should confirm the participants’ assertions that the program alone caused them to replace their refrigerator.

For example , participants could be asked , “Let me be sure I understand correctly. Are you saying that you chose to purchase a new appliance because of the appliance recycling program, or are you saying that you would have purchased the new refrigerator regardless of the program?”
When assessing participant survey responses to calculate induced replacement, evaluators should consider the appliance recycle d through the program, as well as the participant’s stated intentions in the absence of the program. For example, when customer s indicated they would have discarded their primary refrigerator independent of the program, it is not possible that the replacem ent was induced ( because it is extremely unlikely the participant would live without a primary refrigerator). Induced replacement is a viable response for all other usage type s and stated intention combinations.
As one might expect, previous evaluations have shown the number of induced replacements to be considerably smaller than the number of naturally occurring replacements unrelated to the program. 23 Once the number of induced replacements is determined, this information is combined with the energy consumption replacement appliance, as shown in Figure 3, to determine the total energy consumption induced by the program (on a per- unit basis). 24
, 25 As

23 http://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pacificorp/doc/Energy_Sources/Demand_Side_Management/WA_201 1_SYLR_Final_Report.pdf

24 Unlike the secondary market ef fects analysis, it is possible to ask participants who say their replacement was induced by the program during the survey whether the replacement unit was a comparable used appliance, a new standard

- efficiency unit, or a new ENERGY STAR unit. For the sake of simplicity assumes all induced replacements were new, standard

- efficiency units because (1) it seems likely customers would seek to upgrade their appliances when replacing (that is, they would be less likely to replace with another used units); and (2) similar to the secondary market effects analysis, excluding ENERGY STAR units avoids potential double counting between programs when utilities offer concurrent retail rebates. However, evaluators should use this more detailed information when it is availab le and when concerns about double counting are either not applicable or can be addressed through the survey.

25 Evaluators should determine the energy consumption of a new, standard

- efficiency appliance using the ENERGY STAR website. Specifically, average the reported energy consumption of new, standard

- efficiency appliances with units that are comparably sized and have configurations similar to the program units.7 - 23 shown in the example below, this analysis results in an increase of 17 kWh per unit associated with induced replacement.

Figure 3: Induced Replacement

5.3 Spillover This protocol does not recommend quantifying and applying participant spillover to adjust net savings for the following reasons :

• Unlike a CFL program, the opportunities for “like” spillover (the most common and defensible form of spillover for most downstream DSM programs) are limited in a recycling program because the number of refrigerators available for recycling in a typical home is limited.

• Unlike a whole-house audit program, recycling programs typically do not provide comprehensive energy education that would identify other efficiency opportunities within the home and generate “unlike” spillover.

• Quantifying spillover accurately is challenging and, despite well -designed surveys, uncertainty ofte n exists regarding the attribution of subsequent efficiency improvements to participation in the recycling program. However, a s a result of the ease of participation and high levels of participant satisfaction, appliance recycling programs may encourage ut ility customers to enroll in other available residential programs. While this is a positive attribute of recycling programs within a residential portfolio, all resulting savings are captured by other program evaluations.

5.4 Data Sources After determining a program’s gross energy savings, the net savings are determined by applying a NTG adjustment using the follow data sources 26 :

• Participant Surveys . Surveys with a random sample of participants offer self- report estimates regarding whether participating refrige rators would have been kept or discarded independent of the program. 27 When participants indicate the recycled

26 When it is cost

- prohibitive to survey nonparticipants and intervie w market actors, calculate free ridership using participant surveys and secondary data from a comparable set of market actors.

27 As noted previously, the number of participant surveys should be sufficient to meet the required level of statistical significance. A minimum of 90% co nfidence with 10% precision is suggested.7 - 24 refrigerator would have been discarded, ask for further details as to their likely method of disposal in the absence of the program. For example, ask whether the appliance would have been given to a neighbor, taken to recycling center, or sold to used

- appliance dealer.

• Nonparticipant 28 Surveys . To mitigate potential response bias, 29 this protocol recommends using nonparticipant surveys to obtain information for estimating NTG. Information about how nonparticipants actually discarded their operable refrigerators outside of the program can reveal and mitigate potential response bias fr om participants. (Participants may overstate the frequency with which they would have recycled their old -but-operable refrigerator, because they respond with what they perceive as being socially acceptable answers.) Nonparticipants, however, can only provide information about how units were actually discarded. 30 Because nonparticipant surveys require greater evaluation resources, it is acceptable to use smaller sample sizes. 31 32

• Market Research

. Some participant and nonparticipant responses require additional information for determining definitively whether the old -but- operable refrigerator would have been kept in use absent the program. Responses requiring follow-up include:

o “I would have sold it to a used appliance dealer ”

o “I would have had the dealer who delivered my new refrigerator take the old refrigerator .” To inform a more robust NTG analysis, conduct market research by interviewing senior management from new appliance dealers and used appliance dealers (both local chains and big

- box retailers). Ask about the viability of recycled refrigerators being resold on the used market had they not been decommissioned through the program. For example, do market actors resell none, some, or all picked- up refrigerators? If only some are resold, what are characteristics ( for example, age, condition, features) that determine when a refrigerator is for resale. Information gained through this research (which should be conducted before the participant surveys) can be used to assess the reasonableness of participants’ se lf

- reported hypothetical actions independent of the program. This information can also be used to prompt participants to offer alternative hypothetical actions. 33

A detailed explanation of how to estimate NTG by aggregating information from these sources is

28 “Nonparticipants” are defined as utility customers who disposed of an operable refrigerator outside of the utility program while the program was being offered.

29 See the “Sample Design” chapter for a broader discussion of sources of bias.

30 Information regarding the likelihood that the recycled refrigerator would have been retained independent of program intervention can be obtained reliably through the participant surveys.
31 The cost of identifying nonparticipants can be minimized by adding the nonparticipant NTG module to concurrent participant surveys for other utility program evaluations.

32 For a general discussion of issues related to conducting surveys, see the “Survey Design” chapter. 33 More detail is provided in Section 5.3 Freeridership (FR_RATIO)

.7 - 25 provided later in this section. Also, as previous recycling evaluations have found little evidence of program-induced spillover, 34 this protocol does not require that spillover be addressed quantitatively. 35 As a result, estimates of NTG need only to acco unt for freeridership and induced replacement.

34 Spil l over will be discussed in the Net

- to

- Gross protocol developed in Phase 2 of the Uniform Methods Project. CHECK AT END OF PROCESS

35 This issue is discussed further in Cadmus’ forthcoming evaluation of PacifiCorp’s Appliance Recycling Program in Washington.7 - 26 

### 6 Summary Diagram Figure 4 summarizes t he net savings methodology outlined in this protocol.

Figure 4: Refrigerator Recycling Net Savings Evaluation Protocol: Summary Diagram7 - 27 

### 7 Other Evaluation Issues

7.1 Remaining Useful Life It is difficult to determine the number of years that a recycled refrigerator would have continued to operate absent the program and, therefore , the longevity of the savings generated by recycling old-but-operable refrigerators through the program . Participant self

- reports are speculative and cannot account for unexpected appliance failure. Also, the standard evaluation measurements of remaining u seful life (RUL) are not applicable
, as most participating refrigerators are already past their effective useful life (EUL) estimates.
More primary research is needed on this topic to identify a best practice. In the interim and in lieu of a formal recommendation , this protocol offer s two examples of estimation methods.

• RUL can be estimated as a function of a utility’s new refrigerator EUL , using the following formula 36 : RUL = EUL/3

• RUL can be estimated using survival analysis (when appropriate data are available). 37

7.2 Freezers Although this protocol focuses on refrigerators, most utility appliance recycling programs also decommission stand

- alone freezers. While differences exist between the evaluation approach for each appliance type (for example , all stand

- alone freezers are secondary units, while refrigerators may be primary or secondary units), this protocol can also be used to evaluate the savings for freezers.

36 This formula was obtained from the Database for Energy Efficient Resources ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/deer/ ).

37 In a n evaluation of the NV Ene rgy appliance recycling program, ADM Associates used survival analysis using secondary data using data from the 2009 California RASS. This involved estimating hazard rates for refrigerators based on the observed destruction of app liances at various ages. Once the hazard rate function was estimated, a table of expected RULs at each age was calculated. Where feasible, this approach should be followed using data specific to the given utility service area.7 - 28 

### 8 Resources

10 CFR 430.23(A1). (2008). www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011- title10 -vol3/pdf/CFR-2011- title10

- vol3 -part430-subpartB-appA.pdf

. ADM Associates, Inc. ( April 2008). Athens Research, Hiner & Partners and Innovologie LLC. Evaluation Study of the 2004 -05 Statewide Residential Appliance Recycling Program

. www.calmac.org/publications/EM&V_Study_for_2004-2005_Statewide_RARP_- _Final_Report.pdf

. Cadmus Group, Inc. (February 8, 2010). Residential Retrofit High Impact Measure Evaluation Report

. www.calmac.org/publications/FinalResidentialRetroEvaluationReport_11.pdf

. Navigant Consulting. (December 21, 2010). Energy Efficiency/Demand Response Plan: Plan Year 2 (6/1/2009-5/31/2010)—Evaluation Report: Residential Appliance Recycling

. www.ilsag.org/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/ComEd_Appliance_Recycling_PY2_Evaluation_R eport_2010-12-21_Final.12113446.pdf

.

# Chapter 8: Whole

- Building Retrofit with Consumption Data Analysis Evaluation Protocol The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

Ken Agnew and Mimi Goldberg , DNV KEMA

Subcontract Report NREL/SR

- 7A30

- 53827 April 20138 - 1 

### Chapter 8 – Table of Contents
1 Measure Description ...............................................................................................................2 2 Application Conditions of Protocol ........................................................................................3 3 Savings Calculations ...............................................................................................................4 3.1 Ge neral Approaches ......................................................................................................... 4 4 Comparison Group Specification ............................................................................................6 4.1 Self

- Selection and Freeridership ...................................................................................... 7 4.2 Recommendations by Program Characteristics ............................................................... 9 4.3 The Full

- Year Specification ........................................................................................... 10 4.4 The Rolling Specification .............................................................................................. 10 4.5 Basic Data Preparation ................................................................................................... 12 4.6 The Two -Stage Approach .............................................................................................. 13 4.7 Stage 2. Cross- Sectional Analysis ................................................................................. 18 5 Pooled Fixed- Effects Approach ............................................................................................22 5.1 Recommended Form of Pooled Regression ................................................................... 22 6 Measurement and Verification Plan ......................................................................................25 6.1 IPMVP Option C............................................................................................................ 25 6.2 Verification Process ....................................................................................................... 25 6.3 Data Requirements and Collection Methods ................................................................. 25 6.4 Analysis Dataset ............................................................................................................. 29 7 Sample Design ......................................................................................................................32 8 Program Evaluation Elements: Considerations for Other Program Types and Conditions ..33 8.1 Alternative Comparison Group Specifications .............................................................. 33 9 References .............................................................................................................................34 10 Resources ..............................................................................................................................35



### List of Tables Table 1: Program Characteristics, Comparison Group Specifications, and Billing Analysis Structure and Interpretation ............................................................................................................ 9 Table 2: Illustration of Analysis Periods for Full -Year Comparison Group, Program Year 2011

................................................................................................ ....................................................... 10 Table 3: Illustration of Analysis Periods for Rolling Comparison Group, Program Year 2011 . 118 - 2 

### 1 Measure Description Because whole

- building retrofits involve the installation of multiple measures, the estimation of the total savings requires a comprehensive method for capturing the combined effect of the installed measures. The general method recommended for this type of program is kind of consumption data analysis that has traditionally been referred to as a billing analysis―the analysis of consumption data from utility billing records. This method , which we will refer to as consumption data analysis in this section, is consistent with the recommended International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP) Option C, Whole Facility. Option C is designed in part to address evaluation conditions that occur with a whole- house retrofit program.

The consumption data analysis approach has strengths and limitations that render it more appropriate to certain types of whole-building program evaluations than to others. This chapter describes how a consumption data analysis can be an effective evaluation technique for wholehouse retrofit programs, and it addresses both how and when consumption data analysis should be used.8 - 3 

### 2 Application Conditions of Protocol Whole-building retrofit programs take many forms. With a focus on overall building performance, these programs usually begin with an energy audit to identify cost- effective energy efficiency measures for the home. Measures are then installed, either at no cost to the homeowner or partially paid for by rebates and/or financing.

The evaluation methods noted in this chapter are applicable when all of the following are true:

• The program offers a mix of measures affecting the whole building.

• The expected whole-building savings from the combination of measures supported by the program are expected to be of a magnitude th at will produce statistically significant results given:

o The natural variation in the consumption data

o The natural variation in the savings

o T he size of the evaluation sample.

• The baseline for determining savings is the condition of the participating building before the retrofits were made, rather than the standard energy efficiency of the new equipment.

• There is s ufficient consumption data available ―in the form of monthly or bi -monthly utility billing records―for the participants

. 1

• (Optional) Consumption data are available for the same timeframe as for the participants for one or more of the following groups: (1) previous participants―those who took part in the program before th e timeframe of the current evaluation; (2) subsequent participants; or (3) those who are on a list for future participation in the program.
The evaluation methods described in this protocol are also useful for single- measure programs when all of the requi rements listed above are met. Also, note that Chapter 5: Residential Furnaces and Boilers Evaluation Protocol uses a consumption data analysis result and addresses the baseline issue described in the third bullet above. 2

1 Daily consumption data are now available from some billing systems. From the perspective of billing analysis evaluation, such data are a finer

- grained form of the same basic data. The methods discussed here are primarily applicable to monthly consumption d ata. There are issues unique to daily data, and one obvious concern is increased serial correlation in the modeling process and the resulting artificially low standard errors. (Note that this protocol also does not explore the additional opportunities that are available with the finer

- grain ed data.)

2 As discussed under the section Considering Resource Constraints of the “ Introduction ” chapter to th is UMP

r eport, small utilities (as defined under the U.S. Small Business Administration [ SBA ] regulations) may face additional constraints in undertaking this protocol. Therefore, alternative methodologies should be considered for such utilities.8 - 4 

### 3 Savings Calculations
Because whole- house retrofit programs install multiple measures, the estimation of the total savings requires a comprehensive method for capturing the combined effect of all of the installed measures. The general approach recommended for this type of program is a consumption data analysis.

3.1 General Approaches Two general consumption data analysis approaches are described here: “two

- stage” and “pooled.”

**3.1.1 Two** 

**- Stage Approach**  Th is approach is recommended in cases where there is (1) a valid comparison group and (2) suff icient consumption data for each building in the analysis. The t wo -s tage method 3 consists of these activities:

• In Stage 1, the weather- normalized annual consumption (NAC) is estimated separately for each building in the analysis for both the pre- and post- program periods. The weather normalization for each building and period relies on a longitudinal regression analysis. Observations in these regressions correspond to usage over different bill intervals (typically months) for the same building. For particip ants, the difference between the building’s pre - and post- program NAC represents the program -related change in consumption plus exogenous change. For

non- participants the pre -post difference represents only exogenous change.

• In Stage 2, a cross- sectional a nalysis is conducted on the Stage 1 output to isolate the aggregate program-related change from the observed changes in consumption.Depending on how the regression equation is specified, observations in the secondstage analysis are either the change in NAC for different customers, or the separate pre- and post- program year NACs for different customers and pre - and post- periods.

**3.1.2 Pooled**  The pooled approach combines all participants and time intervals into a single regression analysis. This is also referred to as a “time

- series cross

- sectional analysis” because its observations vary both across time and across individual building s.
The pooled approach is appropriate under most scenarios described here, but it is particularly recommended when either of the following is true

• There is not a valid, separate comparison group

• The goal is to measure an average effect over multiple program years.

The c onditions for obtaining reliable results in these situations are described in a later section
, Pooled Fixed- Effects Approach

.

3 The two

- stage billing analysis is not the same as the econometric “2

- Stage Least Squares” regressio n method.8 - 5 For the evaluation of a whole-house retrofit program, the following are recommended:

1. Use past and future (or “pipeline”) participants as the comparison group for the current program year. (S ee the details in the next section.)

2. Use a t wo -s tage approach unless the consumption data are too limited to produce good normalization models for individual buildings (as discussed below). In that case, use the pooled method.

3. Interpret savings carefully so they can be adjusted for freeridership as necessary. (Most consumption data analysis results are either gross savings or fall somewhere in between net and gross.) The following section discusses this issue.
The comparison group specification is described next, followed by the t wo -s tage approach using this comparison group. Then the pooled analysis using the same data is described.8 - 6 

### 4 Comparison Group Specification Choosing the right comparison group is of central importance f or a successful consumption data analysis. The goal of a consumption data analysis is to measure the change in building energy consumption from the pre-program period to the post-program period without including the effect of natural changes in consumption not due to the program. The comparison group makes it possible to remove these other changes in consumption―referred to here as exogenous changes―resulting from changes in fuel prices, general economic conditions, natural disasters,
etc. 4

The optimal evaluation scenario for a consumption data analysis is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) experimental design. This is essentially the standard approach used across the experimental sciences to (1) isolate treatment (program) effects and (2) establish a caus al link between the treatment and the effect.
The control group sets the standard by which consumption data analysis comparison groups should be assessed. For an RCT, a sampling of eligible participants is randomly assigned to one of two groups before the program installations ( treatment). This assures that the two groups―treatment and control―are probabilistically similar in every respect except for the offer of program treatment. The basic structure of this process is a “ difference of differences. ” The program- related change is estimated as the difference between the treatment group pre -post difference and the control group pre-post difference.

• For the treatment group, the pre-post difference represents the program

- related change plus exogenous change.

• For the control group, the pre -post difference represents only exogenous change. The control group estimate of exogenous change is used to adjust the treatment group, removing or controlling for that exogenous change. The adjustment is additive and may be positive or negative depending on the direction of the exogenous trend. The final result is an estimate of the treatment group’s program- related change. At present, in the context of energy efficiency programs, true RCT is rare outside of certain types of behavioral programs. 5 The approach remains the gold standard, however, and provides a good illustration of the ideal characteristics of a control group.
Where a program is not designed as an RCT, a c omparison group is developed after the fact in a quasi-experimental design framework. For that design framework, the term “comparison group” denotes groups that are not randomly assigned, but still function as experimental control groups.

4 While weather

- related change is a form of exogenous change, it is controlled for in the models.

5 There are multiple reasons why RCT has not been more widely employed. Until recently, evaluation concerns have been less likely to drive program planning. Also, R C T requires denying or delaying participation to a subset of the eligible, willing population and, under some approaches, it involves giving services to people who either do not want them or may not use them. The importance of RCT to the evaluation process is motivating program administrators to consider incorporating RCT into their program structures more frequently.8 - 7 The comparison group, which is designed to be as similar as possible to the treatment group during the pre-evaluation period, can be matched to the treatment group using a variety of known characteristics such as geography and pre -program consumption levels. As with the tr ue experimental control group, the comparison group is intended to exhibit all of the exogenous, non-program-related effects due to the economy and other factors affecting energy consumption. Thus, the comparison group provides an estimate of exogenous change to use in adjusting participant pre -post impacts.
Unfortunately, matching a comparison group to the treatment group on known characteristics does not produce a true control group. Most importantly, post-hoc matching does not address the issue of self

- selection. By the very decision to self- select into a program, the members of thetreatment group are different from those of any comparison group that can be constructed posthoc from non-participants.
In theory, many important characteristics can be con trolled for; however, in reality, the available characteristic data on the customer population is relatively sparse. Also, some important characteristics―such as environmental attitudes―are effectively unobservable. The result is a potential bias that cann ot be quantified.

In the context of an energy efficiency program evaluation, the issue of self- selection is complicated by the added dimension of freeridership. One of the many possible characteristics that could define a program participant is the intent to perform energy efficiency activity regardless of program support. As a result, self

- selection affects the ability to obtain an unbiased estimate of savings, and it affects whether that estimate of savings is best considered gross, net, or something in between.

4.1 Self

- Selection and Freeridership The interaction between self

- selection and freeridership is best illustrated with an example. A true control group is similar to the treatment group with respect to natural levels of energy efficiency activity. For example, if 5% of a population would have installed an energy- efficient furnace without rebate assistance, then the same percentage of both the treatment and control group populations will exhibit this behavior. In the treatment group, some or all of this 5% will participate in the program. By definition, this set of participants consists of free

- rider s.
In the RCT scenario, the control group does not have access to the program. The naturally occurring savings generated by this 5% in the control group is part of the pre -post non-program exogenous change. The savings from this 5% of natural adopters in the control group will equal the savings for the 5% natural adopters in the treatment group. This naturally occurring portion of treatment -group savings will thus be cancelled out by the corresponding naturally occurring savings in the control group in the difference of differences calculation. That is, in a true RCT design, naturally occurring energy efficiency savings―and, in the process, freeridership ―are f ully removed from the estimate of program

- related savings. The result is a “net” estimate of savings; that is, program savings net of freeridership

. By contrast, an evaluation using a post -hoc comparison group will not generally produce a net savings result. In a non-RCT program scenario, the 5% of households naturally inclined toward energy efficiency all have the option to opt into the programs. Unlike the even allocation across8 - 8 treatment and control groups in the RCT scenario, the allocation of the non- RCT scenario depends on the rate of strategic behavior by the energy efficiency

- inclined population. Customers and contractors inclined toward energy efficiency have little reason not to take

a dvantage of the rebates. This is likely to lead to an over- representation of natural adopters in the participant population, as compared to the general incidence in the population. This, then, affects in multiple ways the level of savings and freeridership that will be measured by the consumption data analysis.

• First, any comparison group developed after the fact from those who chose not to participate will tend to have a lower percentage of energy

- efficient furnace installers ( in this example) than would a true control group. To the extent that this is the case, the comparison group will not control for the full extent of natural energy- efficient furnace installations had the program not been in place.

• Second, the treatment group includes a higher proportion of natural energy efficien cy adopters than the general population, due to self-selection into the program. These households increase the freeridership rate beyond the natural level of natural adopters in the eligible population.

• Finally, the more gener al concerns regarding self- selection are still present. Because of their natural inclination to adopt energy efficien cy , the participants are likely to exhibit different energy-consumption characteristics than the general population. These are the key fact ors that make it difficult to define fully the measured differences in consumption for the participant and comparison groups. As a result, when comparison group change is netted out of the participant change, the netting will control for some but not all o f the naturally occurring measure implementation leaving an unknown amount of free ridership in the final savings estimate. The resulting estimate is thus a mix of net and gross savings.
In the extreme, all household that naturally install an energy

- effic ient furnace will purchase through the program, leaving no natural energy efficiency purchasing in the non-program population from which the comparison group is constructed. Under this extreme scenario, the comparison group would only provide an estimate of exogenous change and would not control for any natural energy efficiency activity. This savings estimate would retain all of the free

- rider savings and, thus, would best be classified as a gross savings estimate.
The general recommendations in this whole-building retrofit protocol address these issues by constructing comparison groups that are composed of customers who have opted into the same program as the participants and, as a result, are unlikely to exhibit any natural energy efficiency activity of the sort under evaluation. The use of c ustomers who have participated in the same program in a recent year

— or will participate in the near future (pipeline) —avoids most of the concerns related to self

- selection bias. Because they have participated or will participate in the same program, they are similar to the participants being evaluated with respect to energy consumption characteristics.
Just as importantly, because they have just participated (or soon will participate) in the program, these previous and future participants are unlikely to install the program measures on their own during their non -participating years. As a result, a comparison group created from previous and8 - 9 future participants may be as similar to current

- year participants as is possible outside of an RCT . Thus, the use of such a comparison group is likely to produce a gross estimate of savings that is unbiased due to self- selection.

4.2 Recommendations by Program Characteristics The consumption data analysis specification and interpretation depend on both the program structure and the corresponding comparison group specification. For a variety of program characteristics, Table 1 shows how the comparison group can be specified and how the resulting savings should be interpreted. Note that some program structures are best for determining net savings, while others are best for determining gross savings.

Table 1: Progr am Characteristics, Comparison Group Specifications, and Consumption Data Analysis Structure and Interpretation

Program Condition Consumption Data Analysis Form Comparison Group Gross or Net Savings Unknown Biases

1. Randomized c ontrolled t rial

e xperimental d esign Two-s tage or p ooled Randomly

s elected c ontrol g roup Net Spillover, if it exists

2. Stable p rogram and t arget p opulation o ver m ultiple y ears Two-s tage Prior and f uture p articipants Gross Minimal

3. Participation staggered over at least one full year Pooled None: p ooled specification with p articipants only Gross Minimal

4. Not randomized, not stable over multiple years, participants similar to general eligible population, nonparticipant spillover minimal Two-s tage or p ooled Matched compa rison group Likely between gross and net Self

selection 6 and

s pillove r
5. Not randomized, not stable over multiple years, participants unlike general eligible population, nonparticipant spillover minimal Two-s tage or p ooled General e ligible

n onparticipants Likely between gross and net Self

selection and

s pillover

Table rows 1, 2, and 3 provide at least one feasible approach for any whole-building retrofit program. Experimental design is still somewhat rare, but for many of the reasons discussed in this document, it is becoming more widely used. A stable program makes possible the opportunity to obtain an unbiased estimate of savings using the t wo -s tage approach.
Most other programs can be evaluated using the pooled approach. Rows 4 and 5 of the table list two relatively common approaches in the industry. These approaches produce an estimate that is a mix of net and gross savings. If this approach is used, then the result must be considered a conservative gross savings estimate with a kn own downward bias, to the extent free

- rider s still

6 The matched comparison should mitigate some self

- selection to the extent that it is correlated with relative pre

period consumption, and this is an improvement over a non

- matched, general population comparison group.8 - 10 exist in the comparison group population. A separate freeridership analysis is required ( for example, s elf -reported) to adjust all of these gross savings estimates to net savings estimates.

There are two ways to structure the analysis with past and future comparison groups: full year and rolling.

4.3 The Full

- Year Specification The full-year approach, illustrated in Table 2 , compares the energy consumption from the full year before the current program year to the full year after the current program year. Thus, the comparison group consists of customers who either (1) participated in the year that ended a year before the start of the current program year 7 or (2) participated in the year that began a year after the end of the current program year.
For example, if the program year occurs in calendar year 2011, then savings would be calculated as the change from calendar year 2010 to calendar year 2012, and the comparison group would be participants from calendar year 2009 and/or calendar year 2013.
If the future participants are used, the full

- year approach ca nnot be applied until the group for later years is identified. Few programs have substantial pipelines, so if future participants are to be used, it may be necessary to wait until late enough in 2013 to identify sufficient future participants with 2010 and 2012 data for the evaluation.

Table 2: Illustration of Analysis Periods for Full

- Year Comparison Group, Program Year 2011 Group Participation Timing Analysis Period 1 (Pre) Analysis Period 2 (Post) Expected Change Period 1 to 2 P ast Participants 2009 Jan 2010

– Dec 2010 Jan 2012

– Dec 2012 Non

- Program Trend

Current

- Year Participants 2011 Jan 2010 – Dec 2010 Jan 2012 – Dec 2012 Program Savings + Non

- Program Trend Future Participants 2013 Jan 2010

– Dec 2012 Jan 2012

– Dec 2012 Non

- Program Trend

4.4 The Rolling Specification Although using the full-year comparison group specification is simple, it requires data from farther back in time. The rolling specification, however, allows data from a more- compressed timeframe to be used, as it u s es a rolling pre - and/or post- period across the current program year.
Effectively, for each month of the current program year, this method compares the year ending just before that month with the year that begins after that month. The comparison grou ps for each month’s participation are, therefore, the customers who participated one year before and/or the

7 It is counterintuitive to use past participants for the comparison group because they are no longer similar to pre

program participants by the very fact of t heir participation. They are, however, similar in all ways to post

program participants. The difference

- in

- difference structure relies on an additive period

- to

- period change factor that works equally well with past or future participants.8 - 11 customers who participated one year later. This structure is illustrated in Table 3 for program year 2011.

Table 3 : Illustration of Analysis Periods for Rolling Comparison Group, Program Year 2011 Group Participation Timing Analysis Period 1 (Pre) Analysis Period 2 (Post) Expected Change Period 1 to 2 Past Participants Feb 2010 Mar 2010

– Jan 2011 Mar 2011

– Feb 2012 Non

- Program Trend Jun 2010 Jul 2010

– May 2011 Jul 2011

– Jun 2012 Non

- Program Trend Dec 2010 Jan 2011

– Nov 2011 Jan 2012

– Dec 2012 Non

- Program Trend Current

- Year Participants Feb 2011 Mar 2010

– Jan 2011 Mar 2011

– Feb 2012 Program Savings + Non

- Program Trend Jun 2011 Jul 2010

– May 2011 Jul 2011

– Jun 2012 Program Savings + Non

- Program Trend Dec 2011 Jan 2011

– Nov 2011 Jan 2012

– Dec 2012 Program Savings
+ Non

- Program Trend Future Participants Feb 2012 Mar 2010

– Jan 2011 Mar 2011

– Feb 2012 Non

- Program Trend Jun 2012 Jul 2010

– May 2011 Jul 2011

– Jun 2012 Non

- Program Trend Dec 2012 Jan 2011

– Nov 2011 Jan 2012

– Dec 2012 Non

- Program Trend

The comparison group, which captures exogenous change through the evaluation time span, ultimately provides an average of the exogenous change through the 12 months of the current evaluation year. Thus this group should be selected in such a way that the estimate of exogenous change across the 12 months will be from pre- and post- data periods that are similarly distributed across the evaluation year as the current participants.
If participation rates are stable across the multiple program years being used, the rolling specification will often accomplish a similar distribution over the year without additional effort. However, when using the rolling specification, examine the pattern of participation within each season over the applicable years for each of the tw o or three groups (current year and past and/or future participants). If the distribution is not similar
, 8 then the comparison group should be properly scaled using one of these methods:

• On a season -by- season basis, sample from the past and/or future compa rison groups in proportion to the current year’s participation

.

8 This may indic ate changes in the program or the program participants that may affect whether this is, in fact, a valid comparison group.8 - 12 • Re -weight the past and future participants to align with the current- year participants’ timing distribution. That is, for a comparison group customer who participated in season s, assign the w eight f Ts /f gs where f gs is the proportion of past or future participant group g who participated in seasons and f

Ts is the proportion of the current participant group. Then apply these weights in the second- stage analysis. Generally, for any set of participant sites, the comparison sites need two years of either all

- pre or all -post consumption data that cover the year before and after that installation month. This gives the analyst the freedom to create these comparison group pre- and post- data peri ods using exactly the same distribution as the current year participant dates.

4.5 Basic Data Preparation Before a consumption data analysis can be performed, the following activities must be done. The details of these steps are provided later in this section.

1. Obtain program tracking data for current year participants. The tracking data should identify what program measures were installed and on what date. These data may also include some customer or building characteristics.

2. Identify the comparison group cust omers. Obtain tracking data for these customers if they are previous or future participants, so as to assure that all comparison group consumption data is either fully pre- or fully post- participation in the program.

3. Obtain consumption data files from bil ling records for each building in the analysis. This may require mapping participant account numbers to premise accounts. Buildings with occupant turnover during the evaluation period should be assessed separately and may warrant removal from the analysis.

4. Screen and clean the consumption d ata as described in Data Requirements and Collection Methods section.

5. Convert the billing records for each meter reading interval to average consumption

per- day for each premise.

6. Identify the pre - and post- periods for each premise in the analysis. Based on the installation dates, the pre - and post-installation periods are defined for each participant to span approximately 12 months before and approximately 12 months after installation. The billing interval or intervals during which the measure was installed for a particular participant include both pre - and post- installation consumption days. These transitional billi ng intervals should be excluded from the analysis. (T he excluded billing intervals are referred to as the blackout intervals for that participant. ) The post period is identified with 0/1 dummy variable.

7. Identify the nearest weather station associated with each premise in the analysis. The uti lity may maintain a weather station look -up for this purpose, so use that if it is available

. In general, weather station assignments should consider local geography rather than simply selecting the nearest station. Fo r example, in California, the8 - 13 weather station should be in the same climate zone as the home. Also, consider all

s ignificant elevation differences in the station assignment

.
8. Obtain daily temperature data from each weather station for a period that matches the consumption data.

9. Determine for each weather station the actual and normal heating and cooling degree days for degree day base temperatures

— from 55 o F through 75 o F— for each day included in the analysis. (This activity is detailed in Data Requirements and Collection Methods .)

10. Calculate average daily degree days for the exact dates of each bill interval in the consumption data.

4.6 The Two

- Stage Approach

**4.6.1 Stage 1.**  **Individual Premise Analysis** For each premise in the analysis, whether in the participant or comparison group, do these activities:

1. Fit a premise

- specific degree -day regression model (as described in Step 1, below) separately f or the pre- and post-periods.

2. For each period (pre- and post- ) use the coefficients of the fitted model with normal

year degree days to calculate NAC for that period.

3. Calculate the difference between the pre - and post-period NAC for the premise.

The site -level modeling approach was originally developed for the Princeton Scorekeeping Method (PRISM TM ) software (Fels et al. 1995). (The theory regarding the underlying structure is discussed in materials for and articles about the software [Fels 1986].) Stage 1 of the analysis can be conducted using PRISM or other statistical software.

4.6.1.1 Step 1. Fit the Basic Stage 1 Model The degree- day regression for each premise and year (pre or post) is modeled as:
Equation 1

Ε m = μ + β H H m + β C C m + ε m
where:

E m = Average consumption per day during interval m

H m = Specifically, H m ( τ H ), average daily heating degree days at the base temperature( τ H ) during meter read interval m , based on daily average temperatures o n those dates8 - 14 C m = Specifically, C m ( τ C ), average daily cooling degree days at the base temperature( τ C ) during meter read interval m , based on daily average temperatures o n those dates

μ = Average daily baseload consumption estimated by the regression
β H
, β C = Heating and cooling coefficients estimated by the regression

ε m = Regression residual

.

4.6.1.2 Stage 1 Model Selection

4.6.1.2.1 Fixed Versus Variable Degree -Day Base In the simplest form of this model, the degree- day base temperatures τ H and τ C are each pre

specified for the regression. For each site and time period, only one model is estimated using these fixed, pre -specified degree- day bases.
For ease of processing and of meeting data requirements, the industry standard for many years was to use a fixed 65 o F for both heating and cooling degree- day bases. However, actual and normal hourly weather data are easily available now, providing flexibility in the choice of degree- day bases. In general, a degree-day base of 60 o F for heating and of 70 o F for cooling usually provide better fits than a base of 65 o F

The fixed- base approach can provide reliable results if the savings estimation uses NAC only and the decomposition of usage into heating, cooling, and base components is not of interest. When data used in the Stage 1 model span all seasons, NAC is relatively stable across a range of degree- day bases. However, the decomposition of consumption into heating, cooling, or baseload coefficients is highly sensitive to the degree

- day base. For houses in which the degree- day bases are different from the fixed degree

- day bases used, the individual coefficients will be more variable and, potentially, biased. As a result, if the separate coefficient estimates will be used for savings calculations or for associated supporting analysis, the fixed degree-day base simplification is not recommended.
The alternative approach is variable degree -day, which entails the following steps:

1. Estimating each site -level regression and time period for a range of heating and cooling degree- day base combinations ( including dropping heating and/or cooling components).

2. Choosing an optimal model (with the best fit, as measured by the coefficient of determination R 2 , adjusted R 2

, AIC , or BIC 9 ) from among all of these models.

9 Akaike information criteria and Bayesian information criteria are alternative measures for comparing the goodness of fit of differ ent models.8 - 15 The variable degree

- day approach fits a model that reflects the specific energy consumption dynamics of each site. In the variable degree

- day approach, the degree -day regression model for each site and time period is estimated separately for all unique combin ations of heating and cooling degree-day bases, τ H and τ C across an appropriate range. This approach includes a specification in which one or both of the weather parameters are removed.

4.6.1.2.2 Degree Days and Fuels For the modeling of natural gas consumption, it is unnecessary to include a cooling degree- day term. The gas consumption models tested should include the heating only ( HO ) and mean value options. Gas

- heated households having electric water heat may produce models with negative baseload parameters. The m odels for these households should be re- run with the intercept (baseload) suppressed.
For the modeling of electricity, a model with heating and cooling terms should be tested, even if the premise is believed not to have electric heat or not to have air con ditioning. Thus, for the electricity consumption model, the range of degree-day bases must b e estimated for each of these options: a heating-cooling (HC) model, HO, cooling only (CO), and no degree- day terms (mean value).

4.6.1.2.3 Degree Days and Set P oints If degree-days are allowed to vary:

• The estimated heating degree

- day base τ H will approximate the highest average daily outdoor temperature at which the heating system is needed for the day

• The estimated cooling degree

- day base τ C will approximate the lowes t average daily outdoor temperature at which the house cooling system is needed for the day. These base temperatures reflect both average thermostat set point and building dynamics, such as insulation and internal and solar heat gains.
The average thermostat set points may include variable behavior related to turning on the air conditioning or secondary heat sources. If heating or cooling are not present or are of a magnitude that is indistinguishable amidst the natural variation, then the model without a heating or cooling component may emerge the most appropriate model.

The site

- level models should be estimated at a range of degree days that reflects the spectrum of feasible degree -day bases in the population. In general:

• A range of heating degree-day b ases (from 55 o F through 70 o F ) cover the feasible spectrum for single- family dwellings

• Cooling degree-day bases ranging from 65 o F through 75 o F should be sufficient. 10 (Note that the cooling degree -day base must always be higher than the heating degree- day b ase.)

10 In both cases, it is important to remember that temperatures are based on average daily temperature and will be aggregated over a month or more of time.8 - 16 A wider range of degree- day bases increases processing time, but this approach may provide better fits in some cases.
Plotting daily average consumption with respect to temperature provides insight into the inflection points at which heating and cooling consumption begin. However, mixed- heat sources may make a simple characterization of heat load such as this difficult.
For each premise, time period, and model specification (HC, HO, or CO ), select as the final degree- day bases the values of τ H , and τ C that give the highest R 2 , along with the coefficients
μ, β Η, β C estimated at those bases. Models with negative parameter estimates should be removed from consideration, although they rarely survive the optimal model selection process.

4.6.1.3 Optimal Models When the optimal model degree-day bases determined by the R 2 selection criterion are within the extremes of the temperature range tested, identify an optimal model. However, if the best

- fitting model is at either extreme of the degree -day bases tested, thi s may not be the case. An extreme high- or low -degree-day base could indicate that the range of degree- day bases tested was too narrow, or it may reflect a spurious fit on sparse or anomalous data. If widening the degree- day base range or fixing anomalous data does not produce an optimal model within the test range, these sites should be flagged and plotted and the analyst should then decide whether the data should be kept in the analysis.
The practical response to degree

- day base border solutions is to de fault to the fixed degree- day approach. In this case, the fixed degree -day bases could be fixed at the mean degree- day bases of all sites that were successfully estimated with a meaningful (non

- extreme) degree -day base. Otherwise use 60 o F for heating and 7 0 o F for cooling. The NAC for these fixed degree-day base sites will still be valid, but the heating and cooling estimated parameters for these sites are potentially biased. This approach maximizes the information learned where the variable degree

day base approach works, but it defaults to the more basic approach where it fails.
Apply a consistent reliability criterion based on R 2 and the coefficient of variation (primarily for baseload

- only models) to all site

- level models. Ranking by R 2 is the simple way to identify the optimal degree-day choice within each specification (HC, HO, and/or CO). Use an appropriate statistical test to determine the optimal model among all of the different specifications (HC, HO, CO, and mean). The simplest acceptable selection rule is as follows 11 :

• If the heating and cooling coefficients in the HC model have p-values 12 less than 10%, retain both.

• Otherwise :

11 Adjusted R2, AIC or BIC are also used.

12 A measure of statistical significance.8 - 17 o If either the heating coefficient in the HO model or the cooling coefficient in the CO model has a p -value of less than 10%, retain the term (heating or cooling) with the lower p -value.

o If neither the heating nor the cooling coefficient has a p

- value of less than 10% in the respective model, drop both terms and use mean consumption.

o For sites with no weather- correlated load or with a highly variable load, the mean usage -per-day may be the most appropriate basis for estimating normal annual consumption It is always possible to estimate a “best” model, but a number of caveats

— such as those listed here—remain. Any interpretation o f the separate heating and cooling terms from either the first stage of the stage

- two model or the pooled model must recognize that these other uses are combined to some extent with heating and cooling.

• These models are very simple.

• Many energy uses have seasonal elements that can be confounded with the degreeday terms.

• During cold weather, the consumption of hot water, the use of clothes washers and dryers, and the use of lighting all tend to be greater.

• In summer, the refrigerator load and pool pumps tend to be greater.

• Internal loads from appliances, lighting, home office, and home entertainment reduce heating loads and increase cooling loads.

• Low -e windows and window films increase heating loads and reduce cooling loads.

To review, fixed degree-day base models can be used if the only information derived from the model is normalized annual consumption, because NAC is generally stable regardless of the degree- day base used. Fixed degree-day base models should not be used if the separate heating, cooling, or base components are to be interpreted and applied as such.

**4.6.2 Step 2.**  **Applying the Stage 1 Model** To calculate NAC for the pre- and post- installation periods for each premise and timeframe, combine the estimated coefficients μ, β H , and β C with the annual normal- year or typical meteorological year (TMY) 13 degree days H 0 and C 0 calculated at the site

- specific degree

- day base(s), τ H and τ C . Thus, for each pre- and post- period at each individual site, use the coefficients for that site and period to calculate NAC. This example puts all premises and periods on an annual and normalized basis.

NAC = μ∗365 .25 + β H H 0 + β C C 0 The same approach can be used to put all premises on a monthly basis and/or on an actual weather basis. In instances where calendariza tion may be required
, it may be preferable to use

13 Discussed in Section 6
, Measurement and Verification Plan

.8 - 18 this approach to produce consumption on a monthly and actual weather basis, rather than using the simple pro

- ration of billing intervals.

**4.6.3 Step 3.**  **Calculating the Change in NAC**  For each site, the difference between pre - and post- program NAC values ( ∆ NAC) represents the change in consumption under normal weather conditions.

4.7 Stage 2. Cross

- Sectional Analysis The first

- stage analysis estimates the weather -normaliz ed change in usage for each premise. The second stage combines these to estimate the aggregate program effect, using a cross- sectional analysis of the change in consumption relative to premise characteristics.

**4.7.1 Recommended Forms of Stage** 

**- Two Regression**  Three forms of the stage-t wo regression are recommended. Influence diagnostics should be produced for all s tage -two regressions with outliers removed. Alternatively, some evaluators remove outliers based on data- dependent criteria such as 2.5 inter -quartile ranges from the median percent savings ( es tablished separately for the participant and comparison groups because they have different central tendencies and variances ).

4.7.1.1 Form A. Mean Difference of Differences Regression As the most basic form of the stage-two regression, this approach produces the same point estimates as taking the difference of the average pre - and post- differences ; however, it will produce slightly different standard errors as it assumes a common variance

. Equation 2 ∆

NAC j = β + γ I j + ε j

where :

∆ NAC j = change in NAC for customer j

I j = 0/1 dummy variable, equal to 1 if customer j is a (current- year) participant, 0 if customer j is in the comparison group
β
, γ = coefficients determined by the regression

ε

j = regression residual.
From the fitted equ ation:

• The estimated coefficient γ is the estimate of mean savings.

• The estimated coefficient β is the estimate of mean change or trend unrelated to the program.
The coefficient β corresponds to the average change among the comparison group, while the coef ficient γ is the difference between the comparison group change and the participant group change. That is, this regression is essentially a difference -of- differences formulation and can be accomplished outside of a regression framework as a difference of the two mean differences.8 - 19 4.7.1.2 Form B. Multiple Regression With Program Dummy Variables This form allows for the estimation of savings for different measures. It may also include other available premise characteristics that can improve the extrapolation of billi ng analysis results to the full program population.
Equation 3 ∆

NAC j = Σ q β q x qj + Σ k γ

k I kj + ε j

where :

I kj =0/1 dummy variable, equal to 1 if customer j received measure group k in the current year, 0 if customer j is in the comparison group and/or did not receive measure group k.

x qj =value of the characteristics (square footage, number of occupants, etc.) variable q for customer j. Let x 0j , the first term of this vector, equal 1 for all premises, so that β 0 serves as an intercept term.
β q , γ k = coefficients determined by the regression

. From the estimated equation:

• The estimated coefficient γ k is the estimate of mean savings per participant who received measure group k.

• The coefficient β q is the estimate of mean change or trend unrelated to the program per-unit value of variable x q . This form may be used with any of the following:

• Multiple characteristics variables x q and a single measure dummy variable I

• M ultiple dummy variables I k and a single characteristics variable x (other than the intercept)

• Only an intercept term (no premise characteristics) and a single dummy variable, I. If only an intercept term and a single dummy variable are used, this form reduces to the first model type. For this type of regression to be me aningful, it is essential that the characteristics variables (x q ) are obtained in a consistent manner for both the participants and the comparison group. For a low-income program, these variables may be obtained from tracking data collected the same way ac ross the program years.

4.7.1.3 Form C. Statistically Adjusted Engineering (SAE) Regression With Program Dummy Variables This form adds the expected savings into the regression specification. If the expected savings from the tracking data are more informative tha n the simple indicator variable used in the previous specifications, then this approach should have greater precision.8 - 20 Equation 4 ∆

NAC j = Σ q β q x qj + Σ k γ k I kj + Σ k ρ k T kj + ε j

where :

T kj = tracking estimate of savings for measure group k for current- year participating customer j, 0 for customer j in the comparison group
β q , γ k , ρ k = coefficients determined by the regression
From the fitted equation:

• The mean program savings must be calculated using the coefficients on both the participation dummy variables and the tracking estimates of savings. That is, the estimated mean program savings for measure group k with mean tracking estimate T k is:

S k = γ k + ρ k T k_

• The coefficient β q is the estimate of mean change or trend unrelated to the program per-unit value of variable x q . This form may be used with any of the following:

• Multiple characteristics variables x q and a single measure group

• M ultiple measure groups k and a single characteristics variable x (other than the intercept)

• Only an intercept term, no premise characteristics and a single measure group. For each measure group k in the model, both the dummy variable I k and the tracking estimate T k should be included, unless one of their associated coefficients is found to be statis tically insignificant.
A simpler SAE form that omits the participation dummy variable has the nominal appeal of the coefficient ρ k being interpreted as the “realization rate,” the ratio of realized to tracking savings. However, inclusion of the tracking estimate without the corresponding dummy variable can lead to understated estimates of savings due to errors from omitted variables bias.
If the tracking estimate of savings is a constant value for all premises―or if it varies in ways that are not well corr elated with actual savings―then the inclusion of the tracking estimate will not improve the fit. Thus, the dummy- variable version is preferred.

**4.7.2 Choosing the Stage** 

**- Two Regression Form**  The mean difference -of- differences regression estimate (described earlier) is recommended if the following three conditions are met:

• Only overall average program savings is to be estimated, rather than separate savings for different groups of measures8 - 21 • Factors that may be associated with differences in the magnitude of the non -program trend (such as square footage) are the same on average for the current

- year participant group as for the comparison group

• More precise estimates are not required, or additional data that could yield a more accurate estimate are not available.
The se cond general model, Form B ( Multiple Regression With Program Dummy Variables ), is recommended if:

• Either (a) separate savings estimates are desired for different groups of measures, or (b) f actors that may be associated with differences in the magnitude ofthe nonprogram trend (such as square footage) are not the same on average for the current

year participant group as for the comparison group

• Informative tracking estimates of savings are not available. The third general model, Form C ( SAE Regression With Program Dummy Variables ), which incorporates a tracking estimate of savings, is preferred when there are both an informative tracking estimate of savings and an interest in more refined estimates than can be obtained with the simplest model version.
Forms B and C make it possible to extrapolate the consumption data analysis results back to the full tracking data based on measure- level results. This may be of particular importance, depending on the extent and nature of the attrition of tracking data si tes out of the analysis dataset.
If an informative tracking estimate is not available but there are characteristics variables likely to correlate with savings, then a proxy for savings constructed from these characteristics variables can be substituted for the tracking estimate. Proxies that may usefully inform a second

- stage model include count of light bulbs and the square footage of installed insulation.8 - 22 

### 5 Pooled Fixed

- Effects Approach The pooled approach addresses exogenous change without the inclusion of a separate comparison group. In this model, participants who received a measure installation during a certain time interval serve as a steady

- state comparison for other participants in each other time interval.

A lmost all observations include premises that are still in their pre

- installation period and premises in that are in their pos t- installation period, so the effect of post - v er sus pre - is estimated to control for exogenous trends.

The basic structures of the site

- level and the second

- stage consumption data model are effectively combined in the pooled approach. All monthly participant consumption data (both pre- and post- installation) are included in a single model. Th is model has:

• A site

- level fixed -effect component (analogous to the site- le vel baseload component) and average

• Overall heating and cooling components

• A post- installation indicator variable captur ing the change in the post- installation period.

5.1 Recommended Form of Pooled Regression The recommended pooled model equation is as foll ows:
Equation 5 Ε im = μ i + φ m + Σ k β Hk I kj H jm

+ Σ k γ k I kj P m + Σ k γ Η k I kj H jm

P m + Σ kq β Hkq I kj H jm x qj + Σ kq γ kq I kj x qj P m + Σ kq γ Hkq I kj H jm x qj P m + ε im Where all variables have already been defined except for these:

μ

i = Unique intercept for each participant i

φ

m = 0/1 Indicator for each time interval m , time series component that track systematic change over time

P m = 0/1 Indicator variable for the post

- installation period.

This specification only includes heating terms (H im ) for a gas analysis; however, analogous cooling terms should be included for an electric pooled model.

T he parameter interactions that includ e the variable P m capture the savings in the post- installation period. The inclusion of the read interval fixed

- effects controls for exogenous factors specific to each month and to first order eliminates the correlation across customers ij of residuals
, ε im , for a given month m.8 - 23 If there is any intent to use the heating or cooling components of the mo del separately, the model should be fit across a range of degree

- day base combinations. The highest R 2 is used to determine the optimal degree

- day base combination. 14

From the fitted equation:

• The mean program savings must be calculated using the coefficie nts on all of the post-period dummy variable components, annual normal or TMY heating, and/or cooling degree days for participants with measure k and the mean household characteristics (square footage, etc.) for households with measure k. That is, the esti mated mean program savings for measure group k is

S k = γ k* 365.25+ γ Η k H 0k + Σ q γ kq x qk_ + Σ q γ Hkq H 0k x qk_

• Where H 0k is normalized or TMY degree days at the appropriate base for the subset of households with measure k, x qk

_ is the mean value of characteristics variable x q for customers who received measure k.

• The coefficient φ m is a monthly estimate of mean change or trend unrelated to the program. Because of the fixed

- effects structure, these estimates represent the delta from the month or months left out of the model. That is, they are not mean zero and must be must be included if pre-treatment consumption is to be calculated. In general, the increased complexity of the pooled approach requires additional care by the evaluator. The estimate s of savings and consumption developed from any model must be carefully constructed and vetted against raw data. Developing a parallel two

- stage model as a point of comparison for pooled model quality control should be considered.

**5.1.1 Choice of Pooled Form**  The pooled approach is recommended if :

• There is not a valid nonparticipant comparison group

• The goal is to measure an average savings effect over multiple program years. In addition, the pooled approach requires both of the following:

• A balance of participant installation intervals across at least three billing intervals, preferably more. Having a balanced participation across three intervals would ensure that two -thirds of the participants provide a steady-state comparison during each interval of c hange. In the extreme, with only a single start date (as with a program that starts mailing comparative usage reports to homes at the same time), the model

14 Note that the pooled model estimates average the heating and cooling degree day bases and average that slopes that are meant to represent the average across all homes in the model (or defined by interaction effects). This averaging can work well in many cases, but it can be difficult to determine when it may not work well. Therefore, if specific heating or cooling load components are of interest, the two

- stage approach, which allows for house

- spe cific degree

- day bases and heating/cooling slopes, may be a better choice.8 - 24 fails to control for exogenous change across the change point. This explains the more stringent requ irement for these programs of a randomly assigned experimental design.

• A balance of data between pre- and post

- installation periods with respect to the number of data points per household and the seasonal coverage. Similar seasonal coverage in the pre - and post- installation is particularly important if measure savings are temperature sensitive. For gas heat modeling, the model should include at least one full winter in both the pre- and post-periods and some non-heating months. A full year of pre- and post-installation data removes concerns regarding imbalanced data. The recommended specification includes the characteristics variables (x j ) for each house because of the importance of these factors:

• Having additional data to inform the overall average heating and cooling trends

• The changes in those trends due to the program. In particular, it is useful to include a consistent square

- footage variable. These characteristics data help compensate for the pooled approach’s inherent lack of flexibility with respect to heating and cooling dynamics, as compared to the site- level model approach.8 - 25 

### 6 Measurement and Verification Plan

6.1 IPMVP Option C The recommended IPMVP method is Option C (Whole Facility), which was designed in part to address evaluation conditions that o ccur with a whole- house retrofit program. The key reasons for using this method are:

• The goal of the program is improvement of whole-house performance

• Because multiple different measures are installed, the individual savings of each cannot be easily isolat ed because of interactive effects

• The expected savings are large enough to be discernible over natural variation in the consumption data, at least across the aggregate of program participants. Major non-program changes in energy consumption are either not expected or will be adequately controlled for in the analysis.

6.2 Verification Process This does not apply for whole-house retrofit savings based on consumption data analysis.

6.3 Data Requirements and Collection Methods A consumption data analysis requires data from multiple sources:

• Consumption data, generally from a utility billing system

• Program tracking data

• Weather data. This section describes the required data for a whole -house retrofit billing analysis and the steps for using these data correctly.

**6.3.1 Consumption**  **Data** The consumption data used in a consumption data analysis are generally stored as part of the utility billing system. Because these systems are used by evaluators relatively infrequently, recovering consumption data from the system can be challenging. To obtain the needed data, prepare a written request specifying the data items, such as:

• Unique site ID

• Unique c ustomer ID

• Read date

• Consumption amount

• Read type (indicating estimated and other non- actual reads)

• Variables required to merge co nsumption data with program tracking data

• Location information or other link to weather stations

• Customer tenancy at the premise (the tenancy starting and ending dates)8 - 26 • Other premise characteristics available in the utility customer information system, including dwelling type, heating or water heating fuel indicators, or participation in income-qualified programs. It is essential to establish the unique site identifier with the help of the owner of the data at the utility. Note that the unique site ID speci fies the unit of analysis. Usually, a combination of customer and site/premise ID identifies a particular location with the consumption data for the occupant.
The primary data used for a consumption data analysis are the consumption meter reads from the utility revenue meter, and these readings are typically taken monthly or bimonthly for gas and electric utilities in the United States. The consumption data are identified with specific time intervals by a meter read date and either a previous read date or a read interval duration. Average daily consumption for the known monthly or bi- monthly time interval is calculated by combining these data, which then serve as the dependent variable for all of the forms of consumption data regression.
The remaining reque sted variables serve one of three purposes:

• Linking the consumption data with other essential data sources (such as program tracking data and weather data)

• Providing information that facilitates the cleaning of the consumption data

• Providing data for characterizing the household so as to improve the quality of the regression models.

6.3.1.1 Consumption Data P reparation Consumption data received from the service provider are likely to be subject to some combination of the following issues, which are provided here a s a checklist to be addressed. It is almost impossible to prescribe definitive rules for addressing some of these issues, as they arise from the unique conditions of each billing system. This list represents the common issues encountered in consumption data and provides basic standards that should be met. The general goal should be to limit the analysis to intervals with accurate consumption data with accurate beginning and ending dates.

• Zero reads. Zero electric reads are rare and usually indicate outages , vacancy, or other system issues. Zero gas reads , however, are more common. Infrequent zeros in an electric data series can be ignored, as can zero reads in gas series during the nonheating months. Sites with extensive electric zero reads or zero gas rea ds during the heating season should be identified and removed.

• Extreme data. Sites with extreme reads should be removed unless evidence indicates that high

- level usage patterns are typical. Atypical extreme spikes are frequently the result of meter issues, so it is best to omit them from the analysis. For smaller populations : (1) Plot and review consumption levels above the 99 th percentile of all consumption levels. Alternatively, flag points that are more than three inter

- quartile ranges away from the median consumption. (2) Develop realistic consumption8 - 27 minima and maxima for single- family homes . The decision rule should be applied consistently to the participant and comparison groups.

• Missing data. Missing data should be clearly understood. Some instances are self

explanatory (pre - or post-occupancy), but many are not, and these require an explanation from the utility data owner. Because true missed reads are generally filled with estimations, missing data in the final consumption indicate an issue worth exploring.

• Estimated reads. A read type field, available from most billing systems, indicates whether a consumption amount is from an actual read or some form of system estimate. Any read that is not an actual read should be aggregated with subsequent

r eads until the final read is an actual read. The resulting read will cover multiple read intervals, but the total consumption will be accurate for the aggregated intervals.

• First reads. The first read available in a consumption data series may correct for many previous estimated reads. Each site data series used for the analysis should begin with a consumption value that is a confirmed single- read interval. This entails removing all leading estimated reads from the series and then removing one additional, non- estimated leading read from each site data series.

• Off

- cycle reads

. Monthly meter reading periods that span fewer than 25 days are typically off- cycle readings , which typically occur due to meter reading problems or changes in occupancy. These periods should be excluded from the analysis.

• Adjustments. Adjustment reads may either be single reads that are out of the normal schedule or reads combined with a normally scheduled read. Adjustments may be indicated by the read-type variable, or they may appear, for instance, as a consistent spike in December reads. Adjustments correct a range of errors in previous consumption data in a one -time, non-informative way. Unless the magnitude of the adjustment is small, such adjustments necessitate the removal of prior data from a site and may require the complete removal of the site if enough data are compromised.

• Overlapping read intervals. Because overlapping read intervals may indicate an adjustment or a data problem, they should be discussed with the data owner. If these read intervals undermine the consumption- weather relationship, then the site must be removed.

• Multiple meters. Although having multiple meters is rare in single -family housing, this situation does exist. When multiple meters are read on the same sch edule, as is usually true for such residences, the meter reads for the same home should be aggregated to the household level for each meter reading interval.
As consumption data analysis is generally applied to the full population of a program, dropping small percentages of sites is unlikely to affect the results. However, if the number of removed sites increases beyond 5%, it is worth considering whether the issues causing removal are possibly correlated with some aspect of program participation and/or savings. This issue could lead to biased results. If removal is greater than 5% , then the analysis should include a table that compares the analysis group to the program participant population on available data ( such as house characteristics, program measures , and pre- retrofit usage).8 - 28 **6.3.2 Weather Data**  Weather data are used in the consumption data analysis in two ways:

• In models that relate consumption to weather, the observed weather data are matched to the meter read intervals to provide predictor variables.

• T he model estimated with actual weather is calculated at normal

- year weather levels to provide usage and savings in a normal or typical year. 15

Use e ither primary National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) or weather stations managed by the utili ty (and trusted by utility analysts) as the source for weather data. Some utilities maintain weather series (both actual and normal/TMY) for internal use, and it is generally best to use a utility’s weather resources so as to produce evaluation results that are consistent with other studies within the utility. Many utilities are choosing to use normals constructed from fewer than 30 years, as are the standard NOAA norms.

A consumption data analysis requires both actual and normal (or TMY) weather data from a location near each premise. The actual weather data must match the time interval of each meter reading interval. Both actual and normal/TMY weather data used for each site should come from that the same site. Only annual TMY degree days are required for annual analysis results. This protocol recommend s calculating the annual monthly normal degree days for the purpose of plotting model fit values.

6.3.2.1 Weather Data Preparation Depending on the source, weather data may need additional preparation. Limited miss ing data can be filled by the simple interpolation. If the amount of missing data is sufficient to trigger concern regarding a weather data source, consider using a more distan t but more complete weather station as an alternative.
Create a graph to identif y anomalies, gaps, and likely data errors. Weather data issues tend to be obvious visually. Missing data and technical failures look very different than naturally random weather patterns. For each weather station used in the analysis, plot the following in formation over the analysis time span: minimum, maximum, and average temperature versus day of year. If multiple weather stations are used across a large region, plot the different stations on a single graph.

**6.3.3 Tracking Data**  The program tracking data provide the participant population, the installation date or a proxy such as paid date , and the number and type of measures for which savings are claimed. Frequently, the original consumption data request is made based on the population defined by the tracking d ata. Additional information in the tracking database may serve as a resource for other elements of the analysis:

15 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) produces 30

- year normal weather series composed of average temperature for each hour over the time period. These normals are updated every decade. National Renewable Energy Laboratory produces typical meteorological year (TMY) data series. These data are not average values but a combination of typical months from years during the time period. The TMY data also cover a short er time period.8 - 29 • If a variety of measures were installed and there is a sufficient mix of different combinations of measures, it may be possible to develop savi ngs estimates for some individual measures. In this situation, focus the evaluation on the measures with greater expected savings for separate estimates of savings.

• The date of a measure’s installation both provides the date at which the change in consumption took place and identifies the billing interval (s) that will be blacked out. The tracking database, however, may contain the installation confirmation date, the d ate of payment, or some other date loosely associated with the time at which consumption actually changed (rather than the explicit installation date). The evaluator should consult with the program staff to determine what the different recorded dates refer to and when actual installation could have occurred in relation to these dates.

Also, it may be necessary to black out multiple billing periods. Multiple installation dates at the same site may require a longer blackout period or may make the site untenable for simple pre-post analysis. If the blackout period does not encompass the dates of all program-related changes to consumption, then the pre- post difference will be downwardly biased.

• The t racking data may also be a useful re source regarding the char acteristics of participant homes. Frequently, program databases capture home square footage, number of floors, existing measure capacity, and efficiency. These data are primarily useful in the pooled approach if they are only available for current particip ants.

• Tracking data from previous years may be used to define a control group for a TwoStage analysis.

6.4 Analysis Dataset Using the account numbers in the two datasets, the final analysis dataset combines the tracking data and the consumption data with the weather data. Weather data are attached to each consumption interval, based on the days in a read interval. The combined data have a sum of the daily degree-days for each unique read interval, based on start date and duration. If the variable degree- day ba se approach is used, this process must be repeated over the range of heating and cooling degree-day bases. To produce average daily consumption and degree days for that read interval, the read interval consumption and degree-day values are divided by the number of days in the interval.
Because of the complication of matching weather to all of the unique read intervals, some evaluators resort to calendarized data. 16 Except in special cases, calendarization should not be used for this kind of analysis because it undermines the direct matching between consumption and degree days that is the basis of consumption data analysis. Multiple meter and multifamily analyses are examples of situation s where calendarization may be the only way to aggregate data series on d ifferen t schedules.

16 Calendar month consumption is estimated as a weighted average of the bill readings that cover that month.8 - 30 **6.4.1 Analysis Data Preparation**  A number of additional data preparation steps are required when the three data sources (tracking, billing, and weather) have been combined. These limit the analysis data to only the data to be included in the model.

• Participant Data Only. Confirm that the consumption data in the analysis dataset is only for the household occupant who participated (or will participate) in the program.

• Blackout Interval. Remove from the regression the full read interval within which the installation occurred. If the installation timing is not explicitly indicated in the tracking system―or if installation occurred in stages over several weeks or had ramp

up or ramp- down effects―it may be necessary to extend the blackout interval beyond a single read interval.

o For a single, relatively simple measure (such as a furnace), a single blackout month is sufficient.

o For more complex installations (longer- term single installations or multiple installations), a multiple -month blackout may be more appropriate. The change in consumption will be biased in a downward direction if part of the transition interval is included as either pre - or post- installation typical consumption. In most instances, the only negative aspect of increasing the bla ckout interval is the corresponding decrease in either pre - or post- installation readings.

• Sufficient Data for a Site. Count the number of data points in the pre- and postblackout periods for each individual site consumption data data series. To create a view of the classic seasonal consumption data patterns, plot a representative sample of daily average consumption data by read date. Daily average consumption plotted by temperature replicates the underlying structure of the consumption data analysis. Plot ting the estimated and actual monthly values in both formats is the most effective way to identify unexpected issues in the data and to reveal issues related to model fit. Ideally, a full year of consumption data is available for each site for the pre - and postblackout periods.

o For individual site analysis of electric consumption, a minimum of nine observations spanning summer (July and August), winter (January and February), and shoulder seasons are recommended for each site in each time period (pre - and post- installation). For gas consumption , six observations spanning at least half of a winter and some summer are the minimum.

o For a pooled analysis, sites with fewer observations or fewer seasons represented can be included (a minimum of six in each peri od). However, it is important to have all seasons represented in both time periods and across all premises in the pooled model.

o Bimonthly data provide a particular challenge for consumption data analysis. In a year of data, a ll seasons are represented, bu t the number of data points is halved. For analysis of gas consumptions, a minimum of one year each of pre-8 - 31 and post- installation data is essential. For analysis of electric consumption
, two years each of pre- and post- blackout data are better.8 - 32 

### 7 Sample Design Sample design is generally not required for whole- house retrofit consumption data analyses because this type of evaluation is performed on the full, relevant program population.8 - 33 

### 8 Prog ram Evaluation Elements: Considerations for Other Program Types and Conditions The methods described above are used in whole-building program evaluation for an ongoing, stable residential program. Similar methods can be used for (1) other whole- premise programs for the residential population , (2) whole-premise programs for small commercial populations
, and (3 ) with modification, for new construction. Whole- premise consumption data analysis is also used for other types of programs, such as single- measure rebate programs and recycling programs (see Chapter 5: Residential Furnaces and Boilers protocol)

. In this section, we discuss the alternative comparison group specification to use in these situations.

8.1 Alternative Comparison Group Specifications In some cases, it is not practical to use past or future participants as a comparison group, or to conduct a pooled consumption data analysis with participation staggered across a year or more. This tends to be the situation when one or more of these condi tions are present:

• The program has not been stable over previous and subsequent years.

• The program has not had consistent data- tracking over a sufficient length of time.

• The program participation effects extend over a long time after the tracked participa tion date, as discussed above.

• The program roll-out results in all participation occurring during only a few months of the year. In such a case, the pooled method will not be useful unless multiple years of participation can be included in the model.

In t hese cases, a two

- stage model using a matched nonparticipant comparison group is recommended. One condition for using the general eligible nonparticipant population as a comparison group is that the characteristics of the nonparticipants should be generally similar to those of the participants. Typically, this is not the case. Thus, when participants are different—on the whole—from nonparticipants, a matched group of eligible nonparticipants provides a better comparison group to control for non-prog ram factors among similar premises. However, a matched nonparticipant group is still subject to the same kinds of biases related to naturally occurring savings, self-selection, and spillover, as described above for the general eligible nonparticipant popul ation.
Matching is accomplished by (1) Determining the mix in the participant population and (2) selecting a stratified nonparticipant sample with the corresponding mix from those customers who satisfy the basic eligibility requirements. The following matching factors may be used, depending on their availability:

• Consumption level or other size measure

• Demographics, especially income and education

• Dwelling unit type

• Geography (ZIP code, if feasible )

• Energy end uses.8 - 34 

### 9 References

Fels, M.F., ed. (February/May 1986). Energy and Buildings: Special Issue Devoted to Measuring Energy Savings: The Scorekeeping Approach. (9:1&2).
Fels, M.F.; Kissock, K; Marean, M.A.; and Reynolds, C. (January 1995). PRISM (Advance Version 1.0) Users’ Guide . Center for Energy and Env ironment Studies. Princeton, New Jersey.8 - 35 

### 10 Resources 17

ASHRAE. (TBD). Guideline 14-2002R . (Revision of Guideline 14 , currently in process).
ASHRAE . (2002). Guideline 14-2002 Measurement of Energy and Demand Savings

. ASHRAE. (2004). Development of a Toolkit for Calculating Linear, Change -Point Linear and Multiple

- Linear Inverse Building Energy Analysis Models . ASHRAE Research Project 1050

. ASHRAE. (2010). Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial Buildings

.

17 Some resources recommended by ASHRAE.

# Chapter 9: Metering Cross

Cutting Protocols The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

Dan Mort , ADM Associates, Inc.

Subcontract Report NREL/SR

- 7A30

- 53827 April 20139 - 1 

### Chapter 9 – Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 2 Metering Application and Considerations ............................................................................. 4 2.1 Identifying Scope ............................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Ensuring Precision and Verification ................................................................................ 4 3 Type of Measurement ............................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Electrical .......................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Temperatur e ..................................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Humidity .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Flow of Liquids and Gases ............................................................................................ 10 3.5 Pressure .......................................................................................................................... 11 3.6 Light ............................................................................................................................... 11 3.7 Status or Event ............................................................................................................... 12 3.8 Normalizing Conditions ................................................................................................. 12 4 Levels of Measurement ........................................................................................................ 13 4.1 Single Loads................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Aggregation of Like Loads ............................................................................................ 13 4.3 Measurements of a System ............................................................................................ 14 5 Duration of Measurement and Recording Interval .............................................................. 15 5.1 Instantaneous .................................................................................................................. 15 5.2 Short- Term ..................................................................................................................... 15 5.3 Long- Term ..................................................................................................................... 15 5.4 Recording Interval ......................................................................................................... 15 6 Equipment Types ................................................................................................................. 17 6.1 Electrical ........................................................................................................................ 17 6.2 Light/Moto r/Event ......................................................................................................... 19 6.3 Temperature ................................................................................................................... 19 6.4 Humidity ........................................................................................................................ 20 6.5 Pressure .......................................................................................................................... 20 6.6 Flow ............................................................................................................................... 21 6.7 Other Sensors ................................................................................................................. 21 6.8 Pulse and Analog Signal Loggers .................................................................................. 22 7 Data Storage, Retrieval, and Handling ................................................................................ 23 7.1 Data Storage ................................................................................................................... 23 7.2 Retrieval ......................................................................................................................... 23 7.3 Handling ......................................................................................................................... 23 8 Metering Methods by Load Type ........................................................................................ 24 8.1 Levels of Rigor .............................................................................................................. 25 8.2 Proxy Measures .............................................................................................................. 26 9 Resources ............................................................................................................................. 30



### List of Tables Table 1: Load Type Definitions .................................................................................................... 24 Table 2: Constant Load Time-Dependent ..................................................................................... 269 - 2 Table 3: Constant Load Cycling * ................................................................................................ 27 Table 4: Variable Load Weather -Dependent ................................................................................ 27 Table 5: Variable Load Continuous .............................................................................................. 28 Table 6: Variable Load Cycling .................................................................................................... 28 Table 7: Loads Measured Indirectly ............................................................................................. 299 - 3 

### 1 Introduction Metering is defined as the use of instrumentation to measure and record physical parameters. In the context of energy- efficiency evaluation s, the purpose of metering is to accurately collect the data required to estimate the savings attributable to the imp lementation of energy efficiency

measures ( EEM s).
Estimated energy savings are calculated as the difference between the energy use during the baseline period and the energy use during the post- installation period of the EEM . This chapter describes the physical properties measured in the process of evaluating EEM s and the specific metering methods for several types of measurement s. Skill

- level requirements and other operating considerations are discussed, including where, when, and how often measurements sh ould be made. The subsequent section identifies metering equipment types and their respective measurement accuracies. This is followed by sections containing suggestions regarding proper data handling procedures and the categorization and definition of sev eral load types. The chapter concludes with a breakdown of recommended metering approaches by load category, which is summarized in T ables 2 through 7.9 - 4 

### 2 Metering Application and Considerations Metering allows for the quantification of the energy use of a load. Metering can also record parameters

― such as hours of operation, flows, and temperatures

― used in the calculation of the estimated energy savings for specific end uses. ( The r ecording of such parameters through metering methods is also referred to as “monitoring.” )

2.1 Identifying Scope To optimize equipment and labor costs, it is important both to identify the scope of a metering procedure and to measure the key parameters required for estimating energy usage and savings. Although it may be possible to m easure numerous parameters in a given facility, a metering procedure should focus on those parameters required for energy savings estimations

. Therefore, to identify the necessary loads or parameters for the calculation, the savings estimation methodology for the EEM should be developed before the installation of metering instruments

. If the data are a critical aspect of the estimated savings calculation , a redundant measurement or an additional proxy measurement for the parameter of interest may be considered. However, such considerations should be made within the context of ensuring a practical and cost

- effective metering process.
The specific metering equipment for the job should be selected before visiting the site to install the meter s. When ins talling more than one piece of equipment as part of an EEM , refer to Chapter 11: Sample Design Protocol to determine how many units need to be metered.

2.2 Ensuring Precision and Verification The accuracy of a measurement is typically proportional to the cost of the instrument and the installation method. Additionally, such factors as measurement location, monitoring duration, and sampling interval also impac t the accuracy of the results. For a given measurement or parameter, the necessary precision is an important consideration in the savings estimation

. Higher-cost metering equipment may be required, depending on site and project characteristics. Further explanations regarding savings estimation analyses are detailed in other chapters.

Verification of the collected data is an essential aspect of ensuring an accurate metering process. Key best practices for data verification are these:

• Review t he data to: (1) verify that they are complete and correct , and (2) identify readings that appear inappropriate or no tably atypical for the specific system

.

• If the readings appear to be incorrect, conduct cross -checks with other sensors or meters. Additionally, review the assumptions that were made when planning the metering to assess their validity and appropriateness.

• If the cross -checks do not validate the data, calibrate the equipment to match other metering instruments. Alternatively, determine whether the sensor or meter needs to be replaced

.

• V alidate the meter ing equipment results with facility

- installed instrum ents , as needed, as another method of cross- checking

. If the facility has data recording capability or an energy management system (EMS) , readings from those system s can be used for9 - 5 reference . U ltimately , however, these measurements must be objectively validated against independent m eter ing equipment.

• Assign the data

- collection responsibilities to a specific individual who will determine the design and structure of the metering process.

• Review t he retrieved data for completeness and accuracy before incorporat ing it into the final analysis

. Before installing a meter, test it to ensure it is working properly and making the intended measurement. Use this checklist as a guide:

1. If meter operates on batteries, are the bat teries in good condition , and do you have a backup set? I s the meter properly powered?

2. Is the meter clock synchronized to National Institute of Standards ( NIST ) 1 and local time zones?

3. Are all the settings on the meter correct?

4. Are sensors properly attached and in place?

5. If possible, did you turn the meter load on and off after installation and before removal to obtain a signal that the meter is capturing the correct equipment ?

1 www.nist.time.gov9 - 6 

### 3 Type of Measurement
M easurement type s can be categorized by the associated physical properties they represent. Individuals conducting measurements should understand the purpose of the measurement. This section describes th e se properties and their respective measuring methodologies. The corresponding equipment descriptions are inc luded in a subsequent section.

3.1 Electrical Electric p ower and energy are typically the most important measurements for savings evaluations. As e lectric power is commonly a direct measurement of the energy use of a load
, it may be the only measurement needed to determine savings between a base case and high efficiency measure

. 2

The common unit of power is kilow atts (kW). The common unit of energy is kilowatt-hour (kWh). Energy is power used during a unit of time. Other electrical measurements are voltage (V), current in amp ere s (A) 3 , and power factor ( PF ). Although direct current voltage (Vdc) is used to power some types of equipment, utility transmission to customers occurs in the form of alternating current voltage ( Vac ). For this discussion, A and V are exp ressed in terms of alternating current
, and the values measured or recorded are the root mean square ( RMS ) values. In general terms, RMS is the common presentation of alternating current electrical
measurements. Apparent power (V

⋅ A) multiplied by the power factor equals the true power (W=V

⋅ A

⋅ PF ). Power factor is given by the following:

• For perfect sinusoidal waveforms, the power factor is the cosine of the angle of the phase shift between the current and the voltage.

• If the voltage and current waveform are non- sinusoidal, the definition of power factor is (V

⋅ A)/W.

**3.1.1 Considerations**  There are important safety and meter ing considerations associated with conducting power measurements . Only an electrician, an electrical engineer
, or a technician with training and proper equipment should be allowed to work in live electrical panels. Also, t he individuals conducting this work should know and follow codes and guidelines provided by the National Electric Code (NEC)
, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ( NIOSH). Additionally, p erson a l protective equipment (PPE) that complies with National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA ) 70E should be worn to protect against arc flash in open electrical cabinets.

Electrical measurements should be limited to 600 V or less. Due to spark gaps from the high voltage, o nly electrical linemen with special training and equipment should work on systems above 600 V. Some facilities have existing current and voltage sensors in place on systems greater than 600 V that can be safely utilized to make measurements.
Current metering rather than power metering can be considered if:

2 Note that power metering is a lso referred to as kW metering.
3 Current metering is also referred to as Amp metering.9 - 7 • T he load has a stable or well -defined power factor and the interval of recording is short relative to the system cycle

• The metering is only to determine operating hours. When conducting current metering, a dditional analysis is needed to convert current data to power data.
Harmonics are produced by electronic loads. These non-sinusoidal waveforms can only be accurately measured by meters designed to make true RMS measurements.

**3.1.2 Single Phase vs. Three** 

**- Phase Loads**  The two common standard voltages utilities provide to m ost commercial customers are three

phase 120/208 V or 277/480 V. The term “277/480 V” signifies that the voltage from any one of the phases to ground is 277 V and the voltage from one phase to another phase is 480V.

• The two main types of three

- phase electrical systems are wye and d elta.

• Wye systems are three

- phase and four- wire
, where the fourth wire is neutral.

• Delta systems are three -phase and three

- wire. There are several less common variations with grounding differences relative to the active voltage legs.
Residential supply voltage is 120/240 V and is single phase. It uses a three

- wire configuration consisting of two hot legs and one neutral.

W hile lighting is a single

- phase load, most motors are three

- phase loads. Three

- phase motors are assumed to be balanced , which mean s th e current draw is equal in each of the three phase s. In practice , however, the three

- phase current s are not always identical.

**3.1.3 One Time Power Measurement**  **s** Power measurements require the opening of electrical panels to gain access to where the insulated conductors or wires make electrical contact with safety devices such as breakers or fuses . When conducting power measurements, the technician or engineer should reference the connection diagram provided by the meter manufacturer for the specific supply vol tage.

Power measurements also require the simultaneous detection of both current and voltage. This is typically achieved by placing a clamp -on current probe around the conductor of a given phase. After placing one of the meter voltage leads in contact wit h an exposed junction of the same phase, connect the other lead to neutral or ground.

For handheld meters that can only make measurements on one phase at a time
, measure each phase separately. For three -phase systems without a stable ground

― or in situatio ns where there are doubts about the configuration

― make measurements with a portable three

- phase power meter. The total power of the system is defined as the sum of the power for all three phases.9 - 8 When conducting power measurements, document the V, A, W, and PF measurements for each phase. For loads where current meter ing is sufficient
, meter ing one phase and conducting onetime measurements on all three phases is required

. To determine power from current metering
, the load must have a power factor that is stable or a well -defined profile with loading. Taking

one- time measurements that include power factor at multiple load conditions (varying current) improve the power analysis.

3.2 Temperature Temperature is an indirect parameter that is incorporated into the calculation of energy use or estimated savings for some types of EEM s. Temperature sensors can be designed to measure gases, liquids, or solids. Typical applications for temperature measurement include ambient air, supply or return air, air or other gas in an enclosed space ( such as near a thermostat ), combustion gas, supply and return of fluids ( such as chilled water ), water heater s or boiler s , steam condensate, and refrigerant line s.
Unless otherwise specified, “air temperature measurement ” always refers to a dry -bulb temperature measurement

. Wet

- bulb temperature is defined as the temperature of a wet surface when water is evaporated from that surface for a given condition. This temperature is always lower than d ry -bulb temperature , unless the air is completely saturated with water vapor . I n this

case , the two values would be equal. Dry -bulb and wet- bulb temperature are used together to determine the humidity or moisture in the air. Humidity is used in energy- use estimations for various air-conditioning systems.

**3.2.1 Considerations**  There are no specific qualifications required for the personnel who conduct temperature measurements, but these individuals should understand the purpose of the measurement.
When making temperature measurements, consider such factors as these:

• Weather conditions

• L ocation, sunlight exposure

• H eat radiating from nearby hot surfaces

• C ontact with the media being metered • Insulation from ambient conditions

• A ir movement stagnation or stratification

.

**3.2.2 Outdoor**  **Air Temperature** Outdoor temperature measurements are notably vulnerable to the surrounding environment, so this effort requires these additional precautions:

• Protect t he temperature sensor from moisture
, such as blowing rain

.

• Use a radiant shield to protect the sensor from direct sun light and reflected surfaces.

• Place t he sensor in a well

- ventilated location so that neither air stagnation nor stratification c ontributes to the temperature measurement.

**3.2.3 Duct**  **Air Temperature** T emperature sensors in ducts should be placed where the air is well mixed. For example, the supply air temperature should not be immediately downstream from the evaporator coil ; instead,9 - 9 it sh ould be several duct diameters downstream. To determine the best sensor location, t ake spot measurements in a traverse

. Th is can be a challenge in large ducts whe n deploying averaging

sensors . (An averaging sensor is composed of an array of individual sens ors that can be placed as a web or matrix of points in a duct cross- section to measure the average temperature in the space .)

**3.2.4 Liquid**  **Temperature** Water (or glycol) temperature in pipes can be measured by : (1) inserting temperature probes into the liquid, (2) placing probes in thermal wells , or (3) placing probes on the pipe surface. Both t he physical configuration of the existing piping and the willin g ness of the customer or contractor to drill into pipes typically dictate the appropriate installation meth od. The costs are relatively comparable for each approach

.

• Insertion probes make direct contact with the liquid and, thus, provide the most accurate measurement. However, insertion probes can be problematic
, because they require either (1) an unused tap on the pipe with a port that has a self

- sealing pressure gasket (Pete’s Plug) where the probe can be inserted or (2) the installation of a costly hot tap on the pipe (a technique that allows insertion of a probe into a pressurized pipe without having to shut down the system)

.

• Thermal wells are an effective alternative to insertion probes. Some pipes have pre -existing thermal wells strategically placed to measure supply and return temperature ; however, these wells are often already in use by system or process controls. If a thermal well is available
, apply t hermal grease to the probe to i ncrease overall conductance.

• Surface mount probes mounted on a pipe— for pipes that are not plastic

— are a n alternative to thermal wells

. Apply t hermal grease between the probe and the pipe surface ( on the underside of a horizontal pipe) to eliminate any air gaps. Then, use a minimum of one inch of insulation over the probe so that the probe registers the temperature of the pipe contents rather than the air.

• In frared (IR) thermometers can be used to make instantaneous measurements of surface temperatures . Although t he laser pointer on an IR thermometer produces only a small red dot, the surface area being measured is significantly larger . For example, if the distance- to

- target ratio for the meter is 12:1, then at a distance of three feet
, the surface area of measurement is three inches in diameter.

3.3 Humidity The common unit of humidity is the percent age of relative humidity (% RH ). Relative humidity is a measure of the relative amount of water vapor in the air for a given condition, versus the capacity of the air to hold water vapor at th at same condition.
Humidity is measured when estimating the enthalpy or energy content of air in a heating, ventilating, and air -conditioning ( HVAC ) system. Humidity is also measured to determine comfort conditions using psychr ometric charts . Outdoor humidity can be used to provide a measurement of ambient conditions. The placement requirements for hum idity sensors are the same as those for ambient air temperature sensors. It is important to use measurements from9 - 10 steady -state conditions when using humidity sensors, because the se sensors have a slow response time.

3.4 Flow of Liquids and Gases The common uni t of flow for liquids is gallons per minute (gpm) , and the common unit of flow for gases is cubic feet per minute (cfm).

**3.4.1 Water Flow**  Measuring the flow rate of water or glycol in a chilled water loop is one parameter in determining the output of a chiller. Typically
, a mechanical contractor is needed to install a water flow meter. A flow meter should be installed on a straight uniform section of pipe at least 15 diameters long, with the meter 10 diameters downstream from the last bend or transition, so as t o minimize turbulence in the liquid stream.
A passive measurement of fluid flow can be made using an ultrasonic flow meter at a point where there is no pipe insulation. Ultrasonic flow meters , which are applied to the outside of the pipe, send pulsed sound signals through the fluid. These signals measure the flow of water

- based liquids in pipes without interrupt ing the flow (as a flow sensor inside the pipe would)

. Note that

u ltrasonic flow meters are typically very costly and require experience to use, whi ch should be considered when designing the metering process.

An alternat iv e to water flow measurement entails measur ing the pump motor electric demand to determine motor loading . The electric demand and another variable ( such as pressure ) are then

cross

- referenced with the manufacturer’s pump curve data to calculate flow rate. While t his option is a lower

- cost solution, the resulting measurement is generally not as accurate using a water flow meter

.
**3.4.2 Duct**  **Air f**  **low** Airflow measurements are most commonly needed for ducts carrying conditioned air , and these measurements can be made by anyone trained in the technique. Note that gas or air flow rates should be normalized to standard temperature and pressure conditions (68 ° F and 14.7 psi).

The preferred method s for measuring a irflow rate use these technologies . In residential applications, the first three of these options are viable; however, for commercial duct systems, the fourth option may be the only viable choice.

• A calibrated adjustable- speed fan at the return register

• A pitot tube array at the air filter

• A matrix of transverse air velocity measurement points in a long straight cross

- section of the duct

• A flow capture hood at the return or supply registers ( a less reliable technique). The matrix of air velocity measurements is more costly
, due to labor and preparation time. For this approach, select a straight uniform section of duct at least 15 diameters long, with velocity measurements that are made 10 diameters downstream from the last bend or transition , so as to minimize turbulence in the air stream

.9 - 11 Airflow in a compressed air system can be measured with a mass flow rate sensor , which compensates for density with respect to pressure . The sensor should be installed only when the system has been shut down by an individual having the appropriate mechanical experience.

**3.4.3 Natural Gas**  N atural gas can be measured b y installing a utility

- style meter on the gas-fired equipment. Generally, there are few opportunities to meter this equipment, however, because of the cost, difficulties in coordination of installation with the proper licensed trades
, safety considerations ( including clearing pipes of all residue gas before installation )
, and limited installation accessibility

. In some cases
, existing utility meters that supply gas to only the measure in question can produce a pulse for recording.

N atural gas -fired equipment that has a constant burner flow rate can be measured using the fine resolution dial on the utility meter and a stop watch if all other gas applian ces are off during the test. Note that e quipment gas lines should be turned off during the installation, and a qualified gas fitter should conduct the installation

.
3.5 Pressure The common unit of pressure is pounds per square inch (psi). Although p ressure is not used to estimate energy use directly
, it can be incorporated as a normalizing measurement or used to calculate the efficiency of fans or pumps. An example of this is measuring the pressure in a compressed air system before and after a variab le frequency drive (VFD) is installed.

**3.5.1 High Pressure**  High pressures occur in fixed volumes such as tanks, refrigerant loops, and pumping systems. Instances where high- pressure measurement is required include compressed air equipment , water pumping stations, and refrigerant lines. Place h igh

- pressure sensors on a port with a valve so they can be installed without shutting down the system . A qualified mechanical contractor should conduct the installation of the port.

**3.5.2 Low Pressur**  **e** Low

- pressure air pressure measurements encompass static, dynamic, and barometric. Static and dynamic pressure measurements can be taken in air ducts to gauge airflow rates. These low

pressure measurements occur where the air is not enclosed in fixed volumes.
Static pressure measurement in a combustion ventilation pipe is used to determine whether adequate draft is available to exhaust combustion byproducts.

A technician can install a static pressure gauge in a duct system to measure static pressure change across the fan.

3.6 Light Light level (or illuminance) is common ly measured in units of either foot- candles (fc) or lux. While i lluminance is not used to estimate energy savings directly , it is often used to verify that the pre- and post-lighting equipment either supply an equivalent amount of light or meet certain end- use requirements . However, if
, after the EEM is installed
, there is a decrease in light levels to below code or recommended levels, illuminance measurements can be used to justify a reduction in final savings. Conversely, if light levels increase above code or recommended levels9 - 12 after an EEM is install ed , the illuminance measurements justif y applying additional savings. There are no specific qualifications required for personnel conducting illu minance measurements.

**3.6.1 Considerations**  When making illuminance measurements, consider both the working conditions and background daylight conditions. Take m easurements at the level of the working surface, usually a desk or table. Also, account for a mbient light or daylight by t aking measurements when the EEM lighting is on and again when it is off. The difference in the two values is the illuminance attributable to the EEM lighting.

3.7 Status or Event Some measurements are in the form of bi-level logic that i dentifies whether (1) a load is on or off or (2) a switch or door is open or closed. These are cost

- effective approaches to metering a piece of equipment ’s time -of-use hours of operation. So long as these loggers are not placed in live electrical panels, t here are typically no specific qualifications required for personnel plac ing status loggers ; however, training is recommended.
Analyzing on/o ff status records of a load (such as lighting or motors ) is a convenient method of measuring hours of operation. A valve or damper position may also be needed to determine operating mode of a n HVAC system.

3.8 Normalizing Conditions In many cases, to normalize the energy use of the EEM
, it is necessary to collect additional data. Energy use for both a baseline and a post-implementation period should be normalized if any specific conditions differ between the two periods

. For weather -dependent loads, typical meteorological year ( TMY ) weather data are used to normalize the energy savings.

N ormalizing data can either b e measured and record ed from the equipment itself or collected from facility management
, if necessary

. Normalizing parameters typically include:

• P roduction volume

• P rocessed weight

• S ales

• O ccupancy • Set points

• A mbient temperature

• W eather

• Flow • P ressure

• S peed

• Frequency

• A lternative operating modes9 - 13 

### 4 Levels of Measurement Electric l oads should be meter ed at the level appropriate for the type of EEM

. The levels may be defined through aggregations of:

• Like loads (such as lighting)

• M easurements of electric load in an area (whole panels) that is a subset of the utility meter

• M easurements of a system (such as pumps, fans, and compressors of a n HVAC system)

• The utility meter itself.

4.1 Single Load s Measurements on s ingl e loads

― such as motors

― are performed on the conductors serving the unit exclusively. The electrical measurement can be made in (1) the motor control center (MCC) panel serving the load, (2) the disconnect box at the motor, or (3) the variable speed drive (V SD ), if applicable

.
I n the case of a V SD, the measurement should not be made on the conductors between the VS D and the motor. Metering inside a VSD can be probl ematic in that the drive can cau se interfering signals in me tering equipment even if the metering is upstream of the drive. For this reason the preferred location to meter VSDs is at the MCC.

4.2 Aggregation of Like Loads L ighting is generally updated as a retrofit throughout a wide area of a facility or throughout an entire facility , so metering a representative sample rather than conducting metering for a census of fixtures usually suffices.
When selecting a mete ring sample for an end use, the sample should be categorized by operating hours or by the variation in load. For example, lighting within a facility should be stratified by area types with different op erating schedules or patterns. After the number of fixtures in each specific area type has been determined, the sample size can be quantified. (See Chapter 11: Sample Design Protocol .)
Measuring electric loads by area or by whole- panel metering is useful when developing an hourly use profile. Specifically :

• M eter whole electric panels that exclusively serve end uses of interest

.

• For panels that also serv e other end uses , account for those end uses by metering the panels and subtracting that load from the tot al
, or by other means ( such as engineering estimates ). When using building energy simulation models, a rea metering is useful for determining internal load profiles for inputs.9 - 14 4.3 Measurements of a System If the end use is a chiller
, take measurements related to the operation of the chiller

. The system may contain the chiller, chilled water and condensate pumps, cooling tower fans, and air handlers. These measurements may include power input and thermal output

― as measured by supply

― and return chilled water loop temperature and water flow rate. Note, however, that chilled water loop measurements may be hampered by pipe insulation. Conversely, condenser water pipes may not have insulation and, thus, they may provide greater accessibility for surface mounted temperature probes and externally mounted ultrasonic flow meters.9 - 15 

### 5 Duration of Measurement and Recording Interval Measurement duration is classified into three categories: instantaneous, short-t erm , and longt erm . Each duration category has a purpose and should be selected based on the specifics of the EEM and magnitude of the load.

5.1 Instantaneous Instantaneous measurements (also known as “spot measurements” or “ one

- time measurements ”) are used to (1) quantify a parameter that is expected to remain constant or (2) calibrate instruments that will collect data over a period of time . These measurements are generally made using handheld instruments at the location of the parameter of interest ; however, they can also be made using instruments installed as part of a system.

5.2 Short

- Term Short- term measurements are conducted to record the variation of a parameter over a period of time

. To capture at least two cycles of the load or parameter of interest , i nstruments performing short- term metering are put into position for periods ranging from several hours to one month.

For example, al though the lights in a business operation may turn on and off from day to night, the overall lighting in most business operations has a weekly cycle
, because the weekend schedule generally differs from that of weekdays. Typically, a two -week period of data is collected
, so that data from the second week can confirm the pattern of the first week. However, if the loads vary during the year, then long-term metering periods should be considered. Also, the appropriate monitoring period should be selected to include peak loads if demand savings estimates are part of the measurement and verification (M &V ) effort. Cooling loads, for example, should be monitored during the hottest part of the year.

5.3 Long

- Term Long- term measurements are conducted t o record variation s of a parameter that occur over a period generally ranging from one mo nth to one year. Instruments performing long- term metering are typically installed at sites that are :

• W eather -dependent (such as HVAC loads)

• S easonal (such as agricultural processing)

• Op erate o n planned schedules (such as educational facilities ).

5.4 Recording Interval

“ Measurement time resolution ” refers to the length of intervals used during data collection. Recording intervals are at one or more minutes (often in increments of 5, 10, or 15 minute s)
, although many loggers allow other time intervals.

Use i ntervals that are integer divisors of 60 to facilitate processing the data into hourly totals. Also, s ome equipment types average or sum the values for the interval, while other types only record an instantaneous reading at the end of each interval. Instantaneous readings at the end of each interval should only be used if the measured parameter is changing slowly with respect to the interval duration or if enough inte rval points are captured to provide statistical significance.9 - 16 For most load types, 15-minute aggregate interval data provide sufficient time resolution to capture reaction of the load to the controlling conditions. (Note that u tility electric meters are also designed to record peak kW on 15- minute intervals. ) Where recorder memory capacity allows shorter intervals
, it is possible to capture profiles of loads with short cycle times. For loggers that only provide instantaneous readings, the interval length should be short enough to capture at least five recordings per cycle of the load. For example, if an air-conditioning unit cycles once every 25 minutes , then the recording interval should be five minutes or less.

As technology advances and measurement equip ment increasingly contains more memory storage, it is possible to collect data in very small time intervals. However, additional data are not likely to increase the accuracy of the savings estimation significantly, and there is typically

an increase in the cost s associated with analysis processing time

. For loggers that record both the date and time stamps of events, the time uncertainty is a combination of the reaction time of the sensor and the time stamp resolution

. 4 Logger clock drift is generally smal l but should be checked at the time meters are retrieved in order to document any drift during the data recording period.

4 Time stamp resolution is generally one second.9 - 17 

### 6 Equipment Types This section, which discusses various metering devices, is categorized by the parameter the devices are used to me asure. (Note that the terms “recorder” and “logger” are often used interchangeably to describe metering equipment.)

There are two main categories under which metering equipment are typically classified :

• Type of measurement (This equipment can be sub -categorized by dedicated single measurement or by multi -purpose and multi- channel .)

• Metering function, such as sensor -only, instantaneous readout meter , recording meter,

or recorder only

. Instrument accuracy is typically not represented by a si ngle value. In most cases
, accuracy is provided as a plus or minus (±) percentage of the reading and is only appropriate for a prescribed range of values from the full- scale (fs) reading. Also, the a ccuracy may be different for various ranges.

Most meters use proprietary software to set proper data collection parameters, recording intervals, clock settings, etc. The manufacturer’s software must also be used to retrieve data from the meter and then export it to other usable formats (i.e., text or spreadshee ts).
Follow local codes when metering with any type of equipment. This is not only for the safety of the technician but also for the safety of others where equipment is located

.
6.1 Electrical Electrical measurement equipment can be categorized as :

• Handheld ( or portable ) power meters

• W att

- hour transducers

• M eter recorders

• C urrent transformers (CT)

.
**6.1.1 Hand**  **h eld**  **Power Meters** Select h andheld power meters measure true RMS volts, amps, watts, and power factor. Ideally, these meters have a digital display of at leas t 3.5 digits and measure power to an accuracy of ±2.5% or better . The voltage, current, and power factor accuracy will all be greater than this because the combination of the individual measurement accuracies is used in determining the power accuracy.

A clamp -on current sensor can either be an integral part of the meter or a separate sensor connected to the meter with a wire cable

. The jaws of the current sensor should be able to hold all of the conductors on the phase of the load being measured.

**6.1.2 Watt**  **-Ho ur Transducers**  Watt -hour transducers only measure the power or energy use , so they need a separate logger to record the use over short

- term or long- term meter ing. Watt -hour transducers typically produce a9 - 18 pulse output in which each pulse represents a prede termined number of kWh, depending on the system voltage and CT ratings. Following the recording, a multiplier is applied to scale the pulse output into units of kWh. (Review m anufacturer specifications to determine the multiplier .)

The watt -hour transducer should have an accuracy of ±0.5% or better. Note that the CT accuracy must be added to the transducer accuracy to determine the power measurement accuracy. In the event that the two pieces of equipment are correlated, the accuracies are a dded to gether. If they are not correlated, then the combined accuracy is the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual accuracies.
Current sensors are typically selected separately and are sized based on the peak current the load will achieve durin g the metering. The signal output types for watt -hour transducers include 4-20mA, 0-10Vdc, LonWorks, Modbus, and BACnet. Some of these are more appropriate for EMS than for short- term monitoring.

**6.1.3 Meter Recorders**  Meter recorders both measure and record on the same instrument. The meter selected should measure true RMS power. Current sensors are generally selecte d separately and are sized based on the peak current that the load will achieve during the meter ing. To determine the accuracy of the power measurement, combine the CT accuracy with the transducer accuracy. ( As mentioned in the previous section , t he watt -hour transducer should have an accuracy of ±0.5% or better.)
In general, m eters and sensors must be fully contained in the electrical panel; however, if the voltage exceeds 50 V, the meters and sensors will require wiring to be placed inside of conduit to the meter . Cables conducting low- voltage sensor signals (such as pulse outputs, 333mV CT leads, or communication signals) do not need to be inside of conduit. Follow t he manufacturer’s directions for connecting CTs and voltage leads, as the se instructions differ , depending on number of phases and wires, voltage, and configurations ( such as wye, delta, and high- leg delta ).

**6.1.4 Current Transformer**  **s/ Transducers**  Current transformers and current transducers— both of which are referred to as CTs

— are sensors that measure current . When using CTs , confirm they have the correct output for the meter with which they will be paired.

• Current transformers, whic h output a current on the secondary wires, can produce dangerously high voltages if the wires are not shunted ( that is, shorted, sometimes with a resistor)

. These CTs are typically rated by the transformer ratio , such as 100:5,

w here 100 refers to the maximum Amp rating of the primary conducts and 5 refers to the full scal e Amp output of the secondary. Connect the leads of th is type of CTs to the power meter before placing the CT on load conductors. Wire leads from these CTs must be routed through condu it or contained inside of electrical panels.

• Current transducers, which output a low voltage signal proportional to the current , are intrinsically safe to handle. Short-term power metering equipment typically uses CTs with a full -scale output of 0.333 Vac. The wires from these CTs do not need to be run in conduit because they are intrinsically safe.9 - 19 6.1.4.1 Split

- Core CTs, Solid

- Core CTs, and Current

- Only Metering Solid

- core CTs , which have higher accuracy than split- core CTs, are in the shape of a ring, so the wir e conductors of the load must be threaded through the center hole. This requires the load to be turned off while the wire is tempor ar ily disconnected.
For temporary metering installations, split

- core CTs are recommended to avo id turning off customer loads. S plit -core CTs can be opened up and wrapped around a current conductor without shutting down the load. As some accuracy can be lost due to electromagnetic field (emf ) leakage at the core junctions, the CT should have an accuracy of ±1. 0% or better and a phase angle shift of 2 ° or less

. When only current meter ing is required
, CT s with Vdc output (typically 2.5 Vdc) are used with a dc voltage logger.

6.2 Light/Motor/Event There are several types of event (or status) loggers. Some have specific uses , such as light on/off loggers; others
, such as state loggers
, can b e triggered by various inputs. All of these logger types record a date and time stamp when an event occurs.

**6.2.1 Light**  Light on/o ff loggers use a photo sensor with a sensitivity adjustment for the threshold setting

. This setting trigger s an event when the light level transitions above or below the threshold level

.
**6.2.2 Motor**  Motor on/o ff loggers sense an electromagnetic field to trigger an event when the emf transitions above or below a threshold. T he emf that trigger s an event can be from a motor, a coil winding on a valve, or a conductor separated from other phase conductors.

**6.2.3 State**  State loggers record either the state of a switch or the open or closed position of a door or valve. A one- second time resolution on the event is typical for these types of loggers.

6.3 Temperature Temperature is measured using a thermometer and t here are several sensor types in use, such as:

• Resistive temperature devices (RTD): Available in various temperature ranges, RTDs are generally used in combination with a meter specifically designed for that type of sensor. Metal RTDs (such as platinum) generally have linear resistance with temperature. Thermistors , which are the most common RTD, have a ceramic semiconductor base and an electrical resistance that drops non- linearly with temperature.

• Thermocouples: Two dissimilar metals joined at the tip of a probe produce a very small voltage proportional to the temperatu re. A junction at a reference temperature is required. Type s T, J , and K are common thermocouples suitable for differen t temperature ranges.9 - 20 • Integrated circuit (IC): A semiconductor chip with a current that is linear with temperature characteristic s.

• Infrared (IR): As i nfrared radiation is emitted by all object s , t he peak emitted wavelength is correlated with a black body distribution curve to determine the temperature

. An IR is a non- contact device. Temperature sensors are connected to

― or contained within

― a meter that converts the sensor signal into a temperature reading

. The ideal resolution of the temperature meter or logger is determined by the temperature range:

• Temperature measurements rang ing from 32 ° F to 120 ° F should have a logger or meter with a resolution of 0.1 ° F and an accuracy of ± 1 ° F or better.

• Temperature measurement s ranging from 100 ° F to 220 ° F should have a resolution of 0.5 ° F and accuracy of ±2 ° F or better.

• Temperature measurement s above 220 ° F should have a resolution of 1 ° F and an

accu racy of ±4 ° F.

**6.3.1 Loggers**  **with Internal Probes** M any small battery

- operated temperature loggers are available ; however, a s the sensor for such loggers is typically located within the case, these loggers are generally only suitable for air temperature measuremen ts.

**6.3.2 Loggers with External Probes**  Temperature loggers having external probes are required for surface mountings, liquid immersion, or sm all openings into air streams. For any application in which the sensor may become damp or wet, use an encapsulated probe. Probes in stainless steel sheaths will typically not be compromised by harsh environments.

**6.3.3 Differentials**  M easurements used to estimate differential temperature

― such as supply and return air

― should use a matched pairs of sensors.

6.4 Hum idity Humidity can be measured using either a humidity sensor connected to an analog signal logger or a humidity meter. Many humidity meters also meter dry -bulb temperature and can display other humidity- related values . The humidity measurement should have a resolution of 0.1% RH and an accuracy of ±2.5% RH or better over a range from 10% to 90% RH.

As h umidity sensors become saturated easily and remain so for a period longer than the air is saturated , avoid condensation conditions.

6.5 Pressure Pressure measurement instruments are categorized for use with high-pressure liquids/ gases or low- pressure gases . Recording these measurements typically requires the use of a pressure sensor wire d to an analog input recorder. Pressure sensors typically have 4-20 mA or 0-5 Vdc output.9 - 21 **6.5.1 High** 

**- Pressure**  **Sensors** These sensors are used for refrigerant systems
, compressed air, water storage , or water pumping. The common unit of measure is pounds-per- square -inch gauge (psig) , which is the pressure above ambient atmosp heric pressure

. These pressure measurements should have a resolution of 1 psig and an accuracy of ±1% or better.

**6.5.2 Low** 

**- Pressure**  **Sensors** These sensors are used for barometric readings, air ducts, and combustion exhaust pipes, and one type— a d ifferential press ure sensor —is routinely used to measure duct static pressure. The common unit of measure is inches of water column ( IWC ). The low- pressure measurement s should have a resolution of 0.1 IWC and an accuracy of ±1% or better.

**6.5.3 Instantaneous**  Use digital pressure gauges for conducting instantaneous readings.

6.6 Flow The majority of flow measurements will be for water (liquid)
, air (gas) , or natural gas

. Flow measurement accuracy is particularly dependent on the proper use of the flow instruments.

**6.6.1 Water**  Water flow instruments should have an accuracy of ±2% or better of full

- scale flow rate

.

• Paddle wheels and turbines are common ly used water flow sensors , but they must be inserted into the flow.

• Ultrasonic flow meters use pulsed sound signals applied to the outside of the pipe. These signals measure water -based liquids in pipes without interrupting the flow to install the meter

.
**6.6.2 Air**  M easurements may be taken of conditioned air or exhaust , and the measurement should have an accuracy of ± 5 % or better . Hot- wire anemometer s, p itot tube s, calibrated duct fans, balometers, and capture hoods are instruments used for air velocity or volume flow rates.

**6.6.3 Natural**  **Gas** Natural gas meters , which use a positive displacement approach to measure flow , should be installed inline

. The se meters should have an accuracy of ±1% or better and be temperature

compensated

.
6.7 Other Sensors Other commonly used sensors and meters are these:

• O ccupancy sensors

• CO 2 sensors

• Combustion gas analyzers

• Solar radiation sensors ( such as pyranometer s)9 - 22 • Wind speed sensor s

• British thermal unit ( B tu ) meter s.
When selecting the desired level of accuracy for each of the sensor type s, c onsider both cost

effectiveness and the importance of the measurement to the final savings estimations

.
**6.7.1 Digital Cameras**  Digital cameras are very useful in documenting meter ing equipment before and after its installation and during the evaluation of the EEM

.
6.8 Pulse and Analog Signal Loggers Certain data loggers (single channel and, more commonly, multi-channel) record generic sensor signal inputs. Depending on the logger, digital channels or pulse loggers can be used to count (1) pulses, (2) switch openings and closings, and (3) the percentage of time a switch is open or closed during an interval.
Inputs are categorized as digital or analog. Analog signal input channels include 4- 20 mA, various ranges of dc voltage, and resistance in ohms. The logger should have an accuracy of ±0.5% or better.
Sensor accuracy is a separate measure that is dependent on the type of sensor and should be considered in the final measurement.

**6.8.1 Battery Operated**  Data loggers may be battery operated , powered by a separate power suppl y, or powered by a line voltage input. When using battery -operated loggers, ensure that the useful life of the battery is sufficient to allow the unit to remain operational until the next site visit

. The time accuracy of data loggers should be one minute per month or better. Logger and sensor calibration shoul d be conducted as often as the manufacturer suggests ; however, review all measurements for validity.9 - 23 

### 7 Data Storage, Retrieval, and Handling There is a wide range of commercially available data loggers

. When selecting a data device for a project site, consider t he data storage specifications and retrieval requirements. Also, it is important to handle the data appropriately after retrieval , which includes making backup copies in the event that original files become corrupted.

7.1 Data Storage Although t he me mory storage capacity of data loggers varies widely , loggers ideally will have sufficient capacity to store at least one month of data. Memory time capacity depends on the recording interval, the number of channels active , and the number of parameters stor ed. However, event logger memory can quickly reach capacity if the trigger condition is met frequently. (This occurs, for example, when there is a short delay time for occupancy sensors on lighting controls.) Review the manufacturer ’ s instructions for details as to how long a logger can record data before the memory reaches capacity

.
7.2 Retrieval Evaluation of EEM s generally entails short

- term meter ing. At the end of the metering period, the logger is retrieved and data are collected by direct connect ion between the logger and a laptop computer. While the metering equipment is still on site, field evaluation staff should review the data to confirm that (1) all necessary information was collected and (2) the data are within valid ranges.

The d ata retr ieval method depends on the logger, and m anufacturers typically have customize d software to communicate with the logger . Also, some manufacturers have special ized interface cables to connect the logger to a computer. With some loggers, c ommunication and data retrieval can occur by alternative methods such as m odems with landlines or cell phones, Ethernet and I nternet, and other digital contact via local networks.

7.3 Handling After retrieving the data, make backup copies immediately . For the d ata files , use a filename convention that includes the site, EEM , logger number, and date.
Because data logger software generally stores the raw data in a proprietary format , export a copy of the data into a common format
, such as comma

- separated value ( CSV ), ASCII, or Excel. Store t he exported data on a secure system that is regularly maintained and monitored.9 - 24 

### 8 Metering Methods by Load Type This section provides summary tables of metering methods for various load types and the preferred meter ing approach for each type. To determine the appropriate metering approach, categorize t he characteristics of the load type into one of the following load types defined in Table 1

. Use these definitions to find the load type that most closely matches the EEM to be evaluated.

Some measures ( such as building envelopes ) do not directly use energy
, but they impact energy use. In those cases, the end use that would be metered is the energy-using equipment impacted by the measure. In general, these categories are listed in increasing order of metering complexity. The example end uses provided in tables 2 through 7 are not intended to be an exhaustive list of

measures ; rather they are a guide for the most common energy efficiency measures. The examples are predominantly electric loads
, because they account for the most commonly evaluated measures.

Table 1 : Load Type Definitions Load Type Definition

Constant Load Time

- Dependent The load or energy demand does not change. The energy use depends only on when the load is operated

, and there is a schedule of operation. Constant Load Cycling The load or energy demand does not change. The energy use depends only on when the load is operated

, and conditions dictate when the load cycles on or off. Variable Load Weather

Dependent The load or energy demand varies with the weather and does not

run constant ly

. Variable Load Continuous The load or energy demand varies

, and the equipment runs continuously during a scheduled period. Variable Load Cycling The load or energy demand varies. The load may (1) be repetitive, (2) turn on and off, or (3) cycle based on conditions. Loads Measured Indirectly The load or energy demand of the end use cannot be measured directly

, so it is calculated from one or multiple metered measurements.
Alternatively, follow the flowchart in Figure 1.9 - 25 Figure 1 : Load Type Determination Flowchart

8.1 Levels of Rigor Rigor is associated with the level of precision, with a higher level of rigor corresponding to a higher level of precision —and, often, with higher costs or more labor hours. Because t he level of rigor varies widely among metering methods, consider this relationship between precision and cost when selecting the preferred metering approach.

T ypically, there are multiple metering methods possible for t he majority of load types, so the metering methods shown in tables 2 through 7 are ranked by level of rigor. Of the t hree levels of rigor, Level 1 is the lowest level and Level 3 is the highest level of rigor.
Identify the preferred level of rigor when developing the measurement approach. The tables list

a lternativ e levels of rigor that may be selected for the measurement approach if circumstances justify the level selection. The d urations listed in tables are minimum monitoring times , but M&V plans may request longer periods or multiple periods with different conditions. Conditions may include various seasons for weather -dependent loads or periods with different operating hours ( such as in schools or colleges). Selecting when monitoring occurs can be as important ( or more important) than the duration of the monitoring.
Current (or Amp) metering rather than power metering can be conducted when:

• A lo ad has a stable or well

- defined power factor and the interval of recording is short relative to the system cycle9 - 26 • M etering is done only to determine operating hours. With Amp metering, additional analysis effort is needed to convert current data to power rather than directly metering power.

8.2 Proxy Measures Indirect measurement of energy is the most practical approach for many end uses, and there are suitable substitute proxy measurements for most end uses. Proxy measurements generally produce less accurate results than direct measurements. Most proxy measurements require a multiplier or scalar factor, which is either measured or determined. As an example, a natural gasfired boiler with a constant burner flow rate can be measured by metering the “on” status of the combustion air fan, which is energized when the burners are operating. Alternatively, the burner gas flow rate can be measured by using the utility gas meter and a stopwatch
, if all other gas appliances are switched off.

Table 2: Constant Load Time

- Dependent
Example End

- Use Rigor Level Lightin g (non

- dimming) Pool pumps Constant

- speed chilled water pumps Condenser water pumps Constant volume fan motors Data center equipment Level 1

— Preferred Approach Equipment: On/ off loggers Additional measurement: Instantaneous Volts, Amps, kW, and power factor ( if wattage is not deemed ) Duration: T wo weeks Interval: n/a Level 2 Equipment: Amp metering Additional measur e ment : Instantaneous Volts, Amps, kW, and power factor. Duration: Two weeks Interval: 5 minutes Level 3 Equipment: Power ( kW ) metering Duration: Two weeks Interval: 15 minutes9 - 27 Table 3 : Constant Load Cycling *
Example End

- Use Rigor Level Lighting with occupancy

sensors or bi

- level controls Refrigerators and freezers Water heaters , electric Plug

- in loads Household and office electronics Electronically c ommutated motor fans Electric ovens or grills Level 1 Equipment: On/ off loggers Additional measurement: Instantaneous Volts, Amps, kW, and power factor ( if wattage not deemed )

. Duration: Two weeks Interval: n/a Level 2

— Preferred Approach Equipment: Amp metering Additional measur e ment : Instantaneous Volts, Amps, kW, and power factor. Duration: Two weeks Interval: Two minutes Level 3

— Preferred Approach Equipment: Power ( kW ) metering Duration: Two weeks Interval: 15 minutes * Either m eter for operating hours or have well

- defined power factor profiles.

Table 4: Variable Load Weather

- Depend ent Example End

- Use Rigor Level
Air conditioner * Heat pump * Packaged HVAC Chiller Cooling tower * Refrigeration Furnace , electric Level 1 For those indicated by (*) and applied only for single compressor/motor w/no VSD Equipment: On/ off loggers, outdoor temperature logger Additional measurement: Instantaneous Volts, Amps, kW, and power factor ( if wattage not deemed ) Duration: one month Interval: n/a Level 2

— Preferred Approach For l oads without VSDs Equipment: Amp metering, outdoor temperature logger Additional measur e ment : Instantaneous Volts, Amps, kW, and power factor Duration: One month Interval: Two minutes Level 3

— Preferred Approach Equipment: Power ( kW ) metering, outdoor temperature logger Duration: One month Interval: 15 minutes9 - 28 Table 5: Variable Load Continuous
Example End

- Use Rigor Level Water pump with VSD Warehouse lighting with daylight dimming Lighting with dimming controls Air compressor with VSD Fan with VSD Motor with VSD Industrial Process Equipment Boiler* Level 1

– N/A Level 2 Equipment: Amp metering , (* gas meter with pulse output and pulse logger ) Additional measur e ment : Instantaneous Volts, Amps, kW, and power factor at five different speeds or conditions. Duration: Four weeks Interval: Two minutes Level 3

— Preferred Approach Equipment: Power ( kW ) metering , (* gas meter with pulse output and pulse logger ) Duration: Four weeks Interval: 15 minutes

Table 6: Variable Load Cycling
Example End

- Use Rigor Level Air compressor Injection molding machines* Oil well pumpjack * Industrial Process Equipment Level 1

– N/A Level 2 Equipment: Amp metering Additional measur e ment : Instantaneous Volts, Amps, kW, and power factor. Duration: Four weeks (*Two weeks) Interval: 2 minutes Level 3

— Preferred Approach Equipment: Power ( kW ) metering Duration: Four weeks (*Two weeks) Interval: 15 minutes9 - 29 Table 7: Loads Measured Indirectly
Example End

- Use Example of Preferred Approach W hen Direct Measurement Not Practical Furnace , gas Boiler , gas Water Heater, gas Duration: One month Interval: 15 minutes For Constant Rate Burners Equipment: On/ off motor loggers mounted on gas valve 24 Vac coil or combustion air fan motor Additional measur e ment : M easure burner flow rate using utility meter with all other loads off and stop watch

For Variable Rate Burners Equipment: Amp metering of combustion air fan or analog signal logger for modulating valve Additional measur e ment : M easure burner flow rate using utility meter with all other loads off and stopwatch for three typical flow

rate conditions and correlate to fan Amps or valve signal

High voltage l oads >600 Vac ( such as 4,160 Vac motors or chillers ) Equipment: Amp metering on 5 Amp secondary of CT used for panel mount display of load Amps Determine CT ratio : kW=V*A* ( Assume V and ) Duration: One month Interval: 15 minutes9 - 30 

### 9 Resources

Alereza, T. ; Martinez, M. ; Mort, D. (1989). “ Monitoring of Electrical End

- Use Loads in Commercial Buildings .” ASHRAE Transactions . (95:2). http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/6558/ESL- HH -88-09-52.pdf?sequence=3

.
American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air -Conditioning En gineers (ASHRAE). ( 1995 ). ASHRAE Handbook: HVAC Applications. Chapter 37: “Building Energy Monitoring .”

ASHRAE. (1996). Methodology Development to Measure In -Situ Chiller, Fan, and Pump Performance

. ASHRAE Research Report , Research Project 827. http://industrycodes.com/products/4a6765/rp-827-methodology-development- measure

- situ

.
ASHRAE. ( June 2002). Guideline 14-2002 : Measurement of Energy and Dem and Savings

. http://gaia.lbl.gov/people/ryin/public/Ashrae_guideline14- 2002_Measurement%20of%20Energy%20and%20Demand%20Saving%20.pdf

.

ASHRAE. (2010). Performance Measurement Protocols for Commercial Buildings

.

Bonneville Power Administration . (September 2010 ). End

- Use Metering Absent Baseline Measurement: An M&V Protocol Application Guide, Version 1.0

. www.bpa.gov/energy/n/pdf/BPA_End_Use_Metering_Absent_Baseline_Measurement_A_Meas urement_and_Verification_Protocol_Application_Guide.pdf

.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). (June 2004). The California Evaluation Framework

. www.calmac.org/publications/California_Evaluation_Framework_June_2004.pdf

.

Dent, C.; Mort, D., “Electrical Metering Fundamentals”, ( June 1-3, 1992). “Metering Your EndUse Needs”. Bend , Oregon.
Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). (September 2000). M easurement & Verification Guidelines for Federal Energy Projects Version 2.2

. DOE/GO -102000-0960. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/26265.pdf

.

FEMP. (April 2008). Measurement & Verification Guidelines for Federal Energy Projects Version 3

. www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/mv_guidelines.pdf

.

FEMP . (August 2011 ). Best Metering Practices Release 2.0

. www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/mbpg.pdf

.9 - 31 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) . (1989). Master Test Guide for Electrical Measurements in Power Circuits

. ANSI/ IEEE Std. 120-1989.

International Performance Mea surement and Verification Protocol ( IPMVP ). (2010). IPMVP Volume 1: Concepts and Options for Determining Energy and Water Savings . EVO 10000 – 1:2010. Washington, D.C.: Efficiency Valuation Organization.

www.evo -world.org/index.php?option=com_form&form_id=38

.
National Electric Code ( NEC ). (2011). National Fire Protection Association ( NFPA ) 70.
National Institute for Occupational Sa fety and Health ( NIOSH ). (July 1999). Preventing Worker Deaths from Uncontrolled Release of Electrical, Mechanical, and Other Types of Hazardous Energy

. Publication No. 99 –110. www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/99-110/pdfs/99-110.pdf

.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ). Standard 1910 (emphasis on Subpart S

– Electrical ). www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch.search_form?p_doc_type=STANDARDS&p_toc_level=1 &p_keyvalue=1910

.

# Chapter 10: Peak Demand and Time-Differentiated Energy Savings Cross-Cutting Protocols The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

Frank Stern, Navigant Consulting

Subcontract Report NREL/SR

- 7A30

- 53827 April 201310 - 1 

### Chapter 10 – Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................2 2 Purpose of Peak Demand and Time-differentiated Energy Savings .......................................3 3 Key Concepts ..........................................................................................................................5 4 Methods of Determining Peak Demand and Time-Differentiated Energy Impacts ...............7 4.1 Engineering Algorithms ................................................................................................... 7 4.2 Hourly Building Simulation Modeling ............................................................................ 7 4.3 Billing Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 8 4.4 Interval Metered Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 8 4.5 End

- Use Metered Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 8 4.6 Survey Data on Hours of Use .......................................................................................... 9 4.7 Combined Approaches ..................................................................................................... 9 4.8 Summary of Approaches ................................................................................................ 10 5 Secondary Sources ................................................................................................................11 5.1 Technical Reference Manuals ........................................................................................ 11 5.2 Application of Standard Load Shapes............................................................................ 11 6 References .............................................................................................................................1210 - 2 

### 1 Introduction Energy efficiency savings are often expressed in terms of annual energy, presented as kilowatthour ( kWh ) /year. However, for a full assessment of the value of these savings, it is usually necessary to consider peak demand and time-differentiated savings.10 - 3 

### 2 Purpose of Peak Demand and Time

- differentiated Energy Savings Energy efficiency may reduce peak demand and, consequently, the need for investment in new generation, transmission, and distribution systems . This reduction in the need for new investment

― also called “ avoided capacity cost s”

― has value, and t o estimate this value, it is necessary to estimate peak demand savings. Peak demand savings are typically expressed as the average energy savings during a system’s peak period.
Avoided capacity costs can be a substantial portion of the value of an energy efficiency measure, particularly for measures that produce savings co incident with the system peak. The need to esti mate peak demand savings is becoming more important as regional transmission organizations ( RTOs, such as PJM and Independent System Operator [ ISO ]- New England ) allow energy efficiency resources to bid into the forward capacity markets and earn revenues

. 1

In addition to consider ing peak demand savings, evaluators often must calculate timedifferentiated energy savings . This is because avoided energy costs are typically provided in terms of costing periods. These costing periods divide the 8760 hours of the year into periods with similar avoided energy costs. These cost ing periods , which are utility /RTO/ISO specific, tend to vary monthly, seasonally, and/or in terms of time of day (peak, off-peak, super-peak). 2

Calculating load impacts on an hourly basis p rovides flexibility in apply ing the results to a variety of costing period definitions. The cost period used can significantly affect the value of the energy savings. For example, a measure that reduced energy mostly at night is not as valuable as one that reduce d energy mostly during summer afternoons, as shown in Figure 1

.

1 These a re where the regional transmission markets obtain the resources for ensuring system reliability. Providers of energy efficiency can bid into these markets on an equivalent b asis to supply

- side resources. Bids must be supported by measurement and verification.

2 Avoided energy costs tend to be higher during periods of higher demand because generating units available during those times tend to have lower efficiency and higher operating costs.10 - 4 Figure 1: Consideration of Time

- Differentiation in Energy Savings Significantly Affects Estimates of the Value Savings

Source: (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy 2006)

As a nother example, air -conditioning efficiency has higher value when hourly savings and costs are considered, because usage is higher when avoided costs are higher. Outdoor lighting, however, has lower values when hourly savings and costs are considered, because that usage is typically off-peak.

Peak demand and time- differentiated energy impacts are more difficult to measure than annual energy savings impacts (York 2007), so additional metering or simulation analysis may be needed to estimate these impacts accurately. P eak demand savings and time

- diffe rentiated energy savings can be estimated with :

• Engineering algorithms

• Hourly building simulation modeling

• Interval meter data analysis

• End

- use metered data analysis

• Survey data on hour of use

• Combined approaches. Peak savings are estimated over a peak period. This period c an range from one hour per year to several hours per day during a season.10 - 5 

### 3 Key Concepts Understanding demand savings requires understanding the relationship between several factors, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Demand Savings Relationships

Source: (Jacobs 1993)
Note: Rated load factor, demand diversity factor, and coincidence factor are sometimes combined and referred to as “coincidence factor. ” These brief definitions describe the key factors :

• Peak period is t he period durin g which peak demand savings are estimated . (As previously noted, this period can range from one hour per year to several hours per day during a season.) Some utilities have a winter and summer peak period.

• Theoretical peak is the usage of a population of equipment if all were operating at nameplate capacity.

• Non

- coincident peak is t he sum of the individual maximum demands regardless of time of occurrence within a specified period.

• Rated load factor (RLF) is the ratio of max imum operating demand of a population of equipment to the nameplate power/capacity. It is the ratio of non-coincident peak to theoretical peak. For example, a building that dims its lamps to 90% of their output has a RLF of 0.9.

• Demand diversity factor is the ratio of the peak demand of a population of units to the sum of the non-coincident peak demands of all individual units. While an individual efficiency technology may save a certain amount of demand, those technologies are not all operating at the sam e time across all buil dings throughout the10 - 6 region. For example
, if a maximum of 7 of 10 installed CFLs are on at any given time , then the diversity factor is 0.7.

• Coincidence factor is the fraction of the peak demand of a population that is in operation at the time of system peak. Thus, it is the ratio of the population's demand at the time of the system peak to its non -coincident peak demand. The peak demand use for a given building and end use are typically not aligned exactly with the utility system peak , which is how the avoided peak demand is defined. For example , if at the time of system peak, only 3 of the 7 CFLs mentioned above are on , then the

c oincidence factor is 3/7.
Some technical reference s use the term “coincidence factor” to mean the product of rated load factor, demand diversity factor, and coincidence factor. Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships ( NEEP ) defines it as , “The ratio of the average hourly demand during a specified period of time of a group of electrical appliances or consumers to the sum of their individual maximum demands (or connected loads) within the same period

. ” ( NEEP 2011). The following terms are also are important to understanding the concepts of peak demand.

• Avera ge (or Annual Average) megawatt (MWa or aMW). One megawatt of capacity produced continuously over a period of one year. 1 aMW = 1 MW x 8760 hours/year = 8760 MWh

• Load factor. The ratio of average energy savings to peak energy savings. This is a lso known as “peak coincidence factor” (NYSERDA 2008)

. More generally, load factor is the average demand divided by any number of peak demands, such as load factor at the time of system peak and load factor at the t ime of non -coincident peak.

Conservation Load factor = Energy savings Peak demand savings × 8760 h ours

• Loss of load probability (LOLP). The likelihood that a system will be unable to meet demand requirements during a period. LOLP ca n be used to distribute avoided capacity costs to each hour of the year.10 - 7 

### 4 Methods of D etermining Peak Demand and T ime -D ifferentiated Energy I mpacts Estimating peak demand and time- differentiated energy savings may require different techniques than estimating annual energy savings. For example, the method used to estimat e demand savings may not be the most appropriate method to estimat e energy saving s
― and vice versa (Fels 1993)

. Approaches can also be combined to leverage available information. Some approaches for estimating annual energy savings (such as monthly billing data analysis) do not provide peak demand savings directly . However, these other approaches can be used with load shapes for analyzing peak impact.

4.1 Engineering A lgorithms Peak d emand savings can be estimated using algorithms, as shown in Equation 1 . This equation is similar to those used for energy savings (shown in Equation 2 ) , except that the demand equation has diversity factor and coincidence factor in place of the full load hours.

Equation 1 . Basic Demand Savings Equation

∆ kW gross = units × RLF × �� kW
unit �

base − � kW
unit �

ee � × DF × CF × ( 1 + HVAC d )
Where: ∆kW gross = gross demand savings Units = units of measure installed in the program RLF = rated load fac tor kW/unit = unit demand of measure DF = diversity factor CF = coincidence factor HVAC d = HVAC system interaction factor for demand Source: (TecMarket Works 2004) Equation 2. Basic Energy Savings Equation

∆ kW h gross = units × RLF × � � kW
unit �

base − � kW
unit �

ee � × FLH × ( 1 + HVAC c )

Source: (TecMarket Works 2004)

4.2 Hourly Building Simulation Modeling Hourly building simulation modeling ( International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol [ IPMVP ] Option D) can produce hourly savings estimates for whole buildings as well

as for specific end uses. Consequently, it is an excellent means of estimating peak demand and time -differentiated energy savings. A bu ilding energy simulation model combines building characteristic data and weather data to calculate energy flows. While h ourly models calculate energy consumption at a high frequency, non-hourly models may use simplified monthly or annual degree day or degree hour methods.
Simulation models are most applicable for heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning ( HVAC ), shell measures, and the interactive effects of HVAC with other measures. Simulation modeling requires an experienced modeler with an understanding of energy engineering. Hundreds of10 - 8 building energy simulation programs have been developed over the past 50 years (Crawley 2005).
Note that using this method does not necessarily provide an estimate of diversified demand. If a single, typical building is used, demand savings would be overstated due to lack of consideration of diversity, which tends to smooth ou t spikes in usage seen in individual buildings. Consideration of diversity requires either using average schedules or simulating a sample of buildings with different sizes, climate, and schedules

.
4.3 Billing Data Analysis Billing data analysis (IPMVP Option C) can be used to develop monthly estimates of savings. (Bill ing analysis is discussed in Chapter 8: Whole- Building Retrofit Evaluation Protocol chapter .) This type of analysis entails statistical comparison of pre - and post- participation and/or participan t and nonparticipant billing data to estimate savings. C omplex statistical analysis may be required to control for non- programmatic influences, such as weather and economic conditions. Also, i solating the impacts of a specific measure can be difficult because the meter

measure s usage for an entire building.
Although the coincident peak is usua lly not reported , b illing analysis is useful in estimating noncoincident peak demand when the data include monthly building peak demand for each costing period. In addition, b illing data analysis can be used to derive a realization rate on an engineering algorithm for energy savings that may also be applied to a demand savings algorithm.

4.4 Interval M etered Data A nalysis Utility revenue i nterval meters can measure usage at in increments of 15 minutes or less

. Because consumption during different periods may be billed at different rates , these meters provide a means for analyzing a customer's load pattern. Interval meter data analysis is essentially the billing data analysis discussed above but with a finer time resolution.
As with billing analysis, isolating the impacts of a specific measure can be difficult , and statistical analysis may be required to control fo r non-programmatic influences. With the advent of adv anced metering infrastructure and the availability of obtaining hourly information, there may be additional statistical approaches (such as conditional demand type analysis on hourly data) that could be used to help develop estimates of demand savings.

4.5 End -U se M eter ed Data A nalysis End- use metering data analysis (IPMVP Option A and Option B) can be an excellent means of estimating peak demand or time- differentiated energy savings . As with billing and interval data analysis, end

- use metering data analysis entails a statistical comparison of pre - and postparticipation and/or participant and non-participant billing data. However, end- use metering eliminates most

― if not all

― of the difficulty of isolating the impacts of specific measures.

T here a re several cautions to consider:

• Savings should be normalized for weather and other confounding factors.10 - 9 • Pre

- installation meter data is difficult to obtain because of the logistics entailed in coordinating with customers. Without pre -installation data, baseline conditions must be estimated with engineering algorithms.

• End

- use metering is costly , so it should be conducted strategically.

• An impact load shape may be different than a post

- participation load shape. For example, lighting control impact shapes are different from the shape of the controlled lighting. ( End uses have shapes with and without the efficiency measures in place and the difference is the impact shape. ) Determination of some energy efficiency shapes may require either pre

- installation meter ing or reconstruction of the baseline shape.

• Sampling must be done carefully— see Chapter 11: Sampl e Design protocol.

• The e valuator must consider the period over which to meter. How much time is required? Is a certain time
, such as summer, critical?
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has developed a methodology to derive the diversity factors and provide the typical load shapes of lighting and receptacle loads for office buildings using end- use metered data (Abushakra 2001).

4.6 Survey D ata on H ours of U se Evaluators may conduct hours-of-use surveys to identify the times of day when equipment is used . For example, a survey might ask if residential compact fluorescents are used during the summer from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. , a t ypical period for system peak. If the results indicate that 5% of lights were in use at that time, then the combination of the coincidence and diversity factors would be 5%.
Survey sampling should be done in conjunction with the techniques described in Chapter 11: Sample Design chapter. However, relying on customer perception may result in significant inaccuracy.

4.7 Combined Approaches Applying a c ombination of approaches facilitates using data from several sources to provide the best estimates of demand savings. For example, for a low-income program, billing data may be the best approach for estimating energy savings. Engineering algorithms can be used to develop energy and demand savings for each participant , and t hese participant energy savings can be the independent variables in a statistically adjusted engineering (SAE) billing analysis. ( See Chapter 8: Whole-Building Retrofit Evaluation Protocol) The realization rate from the SAE analy sis can be then applied to the population demand estimate from the engineering model.
Combined approaches also include nested samples where a smaller number of metered sites is used to calibrate telephone surveys from a much larger population. For example , a sample of 30 metered site s may yield a combined coincidence and diversity factor of 6.1% , while the telephone survey produced an estimate of 5.0% for the metered sample and 5.5% fo r the entire telephone sample. The ratio of 6.1% to 5.0% would be applied to the 5.5% telephone sample estimate , resulting in an adjusted factor of 6.7%.10 - 10 4.8 Summary of Approaches Table 1 presents a summary of the approaches in terms of relative cost an d relative potential accuracy. In all cases, the accuracy achieved depends on t he quality of the analysis.

Table 1: Summary of Approaches
Approach Relative Cost Relative Potential Accuracy Comments

Engineering Algorithms Low Low

- Moderate Accuracy depends on the quality of the input assumptions as well as the algorithm Hourly Simulation Modeling Moderate Moderate Input assumptions are again important

— garbage in, garbage out. Appropriate for HVAC and shell measures and HVAC interaction
Billing Data Analysis Moderate Moderate Typically not useful for peak demand or on/off peak energy analysis

Interval Meter Data Analysis Moderate High Interval meter data not available for many cus tomers . Becoming more feasible with proliferation of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI)
End

- Use Metered Data Analysis High High Requires careful sampling and consideration of period to be metered10 - 11 

### 5 Secondary Sources Because of budget or time constraints, evaluators may choose to rely on secondary sources, rather than on the primary sources listed above.

5.1 Technical Reference Manuals A technical reference manual (TRM) specifies savings or protocols for common energy efficiency measures. A TRM is not a method for estimating savings, but a source of estimates or methods. Typically, TRM s provide deemed savings values that represent approved estimates of energy and demand savings. These savings are based on a regional average for the population of participants ; however, they are not savings for a particular installation.
Although TRMs often provide industry- accepted algori thms for calculat ing savings, users should not assume that because an algorithm has been used elsewhere it is correct. Mistakes are common and should be expected.

5.2 Application of Standard Load Shapes By applying load shapes to allocate energy consumption into costing period, peak demand and time -differentiated energy savings can also be estimated from energy impacts. A key re source of load shape data is the California Database for Energy Efficiency Resources ( CPUC 2011) . These shapes may be derive d from metering or simulation. The evaluator must consider the applicability of the shapes when climate -sensitive end uses are involved.10 - 12 

### 6 References

Abushakra, B. ; Sreshthaputra, A.; Haberl, J.; Clairidge , C. (2001). Compilation of Diversity Factors and Schedules for Energy and Cooling Load Calculations. ASHRAE Research Project 1093. http://repository.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/2013/ESL- TR -01-04- 01 .pdf?sequence=1

. California Public Utility Commission (CPUC). (2011). "Database for Energy Efficient Resources." www.deeresources.com

. Crawley, D.; Hand, J.; Kummert, M.; Griffith, B. (2005). Contrasting the Capabilities of Building Energy Performance Simulation Programs. U.S. Department of Energy. http://gundog.lbl.gov/dirpubs/2005/05_compare.pdf

. Fels, M. ; Keating , K. (1993). “ Measurement of E nergy Savings from Demand Side Management Programs in U.S. Electric Utilities. ” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment . (18); pp.57- 88.

Jacobs, P. ; Arney, M.; Keneipp, M.; Eldridge , M . (1993). Engineering Methods for Estimating the Impacts of Demand-Side Management Programs. Pleasant Hill, CA: Electric Power Research Institute.
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP) . ( March 2011). Glossary of Terms: A Project of the Regional Evaluation, Measurement and V erification Forum

. http://neep.org/uploads/EMV%20Forum/EMV%20Products/EMV%20Glossary%20of%20Term s%20and%20Acronyms%20-%20Version%202%20FINAL.pdf

. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority ( NYSERDA ). (2008). "Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard Administrator Proposal."

TecMarket Works. (June 2004). California Evaluation Framework. Sacr a mento: California Public Utilties C ommission

. www.calmac.org/publications/California_Evaluation_Framework_June_2004.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy. (July 2006). "National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency." Washington, DC. www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/suca/napee_report.pdf

. York, D.; Kushler, M.; Witte , P. (2007). Exa mining the Peak Demand Impacts of Energy Efficiency: A Review of Program Experience and Industry Practice. Washington, DC: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

# Chapter 11: Sample Design Cross-Cutting Protocols The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

M. Sami Khawaja, Josh Rushton, and Josh Keeling , The Cadmus Group, Inc.

Subcontract Report NREL/SR

- 7A30

- 53827 April 201311 - 1 

### Chapter 11 – Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Chapter Organization ....................................................................................................... 3 2 Overview ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Sampling and Sample Design .......................................................................................... 5 2.2 Uncertainty and Effic iency .............................................................................................. 6 2.3 Confidence and Precision ................................................................................................ 7 3 Complex Evaluations: Designing for Multiple Objectives .................................................. 10 4 Worked Examples ................................................................................................................ 14 4.1 Measure - and Site

- Level Evaluation Planning .............................................................. 14 4.2 Domain

- Level Evaluatio n Planning ............................................................................... 21 4.3 Portfolio -Level Evaluation Planning ............................................................................. 23 5 Additional Considerations ................................................................................................... 27 5.1 Threats to Validity ......................................................................................................... 27 5.2 Cost Considerations ....................................................................................................... 27 5.3 Varying Uncertainty....................................................................................................... 29 5.4 Outcome of Interest ........................................................................................................ 29 6 Appendix A. Sources and Types of Error ............................................................................ 31 6.1 Sources of Uncertain ty ................................................................................................... 31 6.2 Sources of Systematic Error ........................................................................................... 31 6.3 Sources of Random Error............................................................................................... 33 6.4 Mitigating Systematic Error ........................................................................................... 34 7 Appendix B. Fundamental Estimates and Uncertainty Calculations ................................... 37 7.1 Estimating a Popul ation Proportion ............................................................................... 37 7.2 Using a Sample Mean to Estimate a Population Mean .................................................. 40 7.3 Using a Ratio Estimator to Estimate a Population Mean ............................................... 41 7.4 Estimating a Difference or Sum ..................................................................................... 47 7.5 Estimating a Product ...................................................................................................... 48 7.6 Summary of Analytical Techniques ............................................................................... 49 8 Appendix C. Sample Design and Weighted Estimates ........................................................ 50 8.1 Simple Random Sampling ............................................................................................. 50 8.2 Stratified Random Sampling .......................................................................................... 56 8.3 Stratified Proportions ..................................................................................................... 59 8.4 Planning and Optimizing Stratified Designs .................................................................. 61 8.5 General Probability Samples and PPS ........................................................................... 62 8.6 Two -Stage Sampling for Large Projec ts ........................................................................ 64 8.7 Two

- Phase (Nested) Sampling ...................................................................................... 66



### List of Tables Table 1: Example C&I Program Details ....................................................................................... 21 Table 2: Evaluation Times and Claimed Savings by Subsector ................................................... 23 Table 3: Claimed Savings by Sector ............................................................................................. 24 Table 4: Residential Program Data ............................................................................................... 24 Table 5: Cost, Variability, and Sample Fractions for Residential Sector ..................................... 25 Table 6: Preliminary Sample Allocation for Residential Sector ................................................... 2511 - 2 Table 7: High

- Level Standard Errors ............................................................................................ 26 Tab le 8: Sample Analysis Formulas for Large Populations ......................................................... 49 Table 9: Results for Simple Random Samples ............................................................................. 56 Table 10: Formulas for Stratified Estimators ................................................................................ 61 Table 11: Additional Formulas ..................................................................................................... 61 Table 12: Sample Allocation Formulas ........................................................................................ 6211 - 3 

### 1 In troduction Evaluating an energy efficiency program requires assess ing the total energy and demand saved through all of the energy efficiency measures provided by the program. For large programs, the direct assessment of savings for each participant would be cost

- prohibitive. Even if a program is small enough that a full census could be managed, such an undertaking would almost always be an inefficient use of evaluation resources.

A co st

- effective alternative is to directly assess energy savings for a sampl e of the program population. However , when a study is based on a random sample rather than a full census, the outcomes of the study are influenced by the particular sample selected for direct evaluation. This random influence is called sampling error. Samp ling error introduces an element of uncertainty to every sample- based estimate

. Determining reasonable estimates for quantities of interest is u sually a straightforward arithme tic exercise, but quantifying the uncertainty behind such estimates is far more challenging. This document describes the broad principles that apply to all sample -based studies, and it provides specific guidance for applying the procedures most commonly needed in energy efficiency evaluations.
A significant challenge in energy effic iency evaluati on is the lack of direct measurement. We can measure energy consumption , but e nergy savings is the difference between actual consumption and what consumption would have been had energy efficiency measures not been installed. Savings calculations combine consumption measurements with various adjustments to account for technical and behavioral baseline conditions

. Uncertainty can be introduced at every stage of the evaluation, including the sampling, measurement, and adjustment. I t is often difficult or impossible to quantify the effect of every potential source of error . Evaluation reports often limit uncertainty discussions to random error (especially sampling error and regression error), because there are well -understood methods for quantifying uncertainty due to random errors. However, a high-quality evaluation should include strategies for mitigating all major sources of uncertainty
, and a high-quality report should discuss unquantifiable aspects of uncertainty so research consumers can fully assess the research rigor

.
The bulk of this chapter describes methods for minimizing and quantifying sampling error. Measurement error and regression error are discussed in various contexts in other chapters. A broader view of uncertainty is presented in Chapter 12: Survey Design and in this chapter’s Appendix A.

1.1 Chapter Organization The main body of this chapter provides a high- level discussion of the sample design and analysis principles that arise most often in evaluation work. Generally non

- technica l, t his discussion is intended for a wide audience. A more technical, detailed account of important statistical concepts and methods is provided in the appendi ces

.

• Section 2 review s the statistical terms and concepts routinely encountered in evaluation wo rk

.11 - 4 • Section 3 describes how complex evaluations are broken into components and how component- level research tasks are prioritized

.

• Section 4 illustrates the evaluation process through several examples.

• Section 5 d iscusses vali dity threats and cost considerations

.

• The appendices prov ide detailed descriptions of the statistical principle s and methods that are referenced throughout this document.

o Section 6: Appendix A discusses general sources and types of errors.

o Section 7: Ap pendix B presents fundamental estimates and uncertainty calculations

.

o Section 8: Appendix C presents important sample designs and weighted estimates.11 - 5 

### 2 Overview
T his section present s basic sampling concepts and terminology.

2.1 Sampling and Sample Design The target group to be studied is called the population , and each member of the population is associated with one or more variables . The population could be any group of interest, such as program participants, installed measures, or retrofitted sites. A varia ble can either be a descriptive attribute (such as building type or climate zone) or a numerical quantity (such as square footage, ex ante ( claimed ) savings, ex post ( evaluated ) savings, or air -conditioning tonnage). T he primary research objective in a sam ple-based study is to estimate the population average or total of one or more variables (for example, the total energy and demand savings for all program participants)

. Some variables are known through the program database (for example, claimed savings ) f or every member of the population. Other variables (especially evaluated savings) can only be obtained through primary data collection and direct estimation. Variables whose values are known for all members of the program population are called auxiliary

. 1

A sample is a subset of a population selected for direct assessment of one or more variables of interest. The sample design describes the exact method by which population members are selected for inclusion in the sample. Sample designs are often informed by auxiliary data such as claimed savings estimates or building square footage. Sample analysis is the process of estimating population averages or totals and then quantifying the uncertainty in these estimates. The sample analysis may use both sample data and population- level auxiliary data.
Every sample design specifies some element of randomness in the sample selection procedure, but the nature of this randomness varies from one design to the next. R andomization in the sample design forms the basis for c alculations that quantify uncertainty in the final estimates, so uncertainty calculations directly depend on the sample design. To yield valid results, the sample analysis must account for the sample design. For example:

• In simple random sampling (SRS), ea ch member of the population has probability

n / N of being selected
, 2 and each individual’s inclusion in the sample is unaffected by the particular identities of other members in the sample. If a sample is selected via SRS, then the usual sample mean and standard error formula will yield valid results.

• In stratified sampling , auxiliary data are used to partition the population into distinct groups, or strata, and then SRS is performed within each group. In this case
, stratum weights are needed to obtain valid analytical results.

1 In the case of two

- phase sampling (Section 8.7), auxiliary data are collected for a large sample throug h a phone survey or other low

- cost interaction. A smaller sample is then selected from the large sample and subjected to intensive measurement and verification . In this case, auxiliary data are known only for the larger sample, but not the entire populatio n.
2 Here, n is the sample size and N is the population size.11 - 6 2.2 Uncertainty and Effi ciency Sample design is typically approached with one of two goals:

1. T o minimize estimator uncertainty, given a fixed amount of study resources. In this case, time and budget are the primary constraints . For these projects, the goal is to design a sample that generates the most precise estimate within those constraints.

2. T o minimize the resources needed to reduce uncertainty to some stated level

. Often, the evaluation is required to meet a specified confidence-and-precision requirement (typically stipulated by a regulating body or forward- capacity market). In this case, the goal is to minimize time and cost subject to the constraint of meet ing this target

. A design is efficient if it leads to minimal uncertainty for a fixed research budget. T here are many str ategies available for design ing an efficient study. Energy efficiency program evaluations commonly use one or more of these (in various combinations):

• SRS

• S tratified sampling

• C lu ster /multi

- stage sampling. The final design should always be selected to mi nimize estimation error in light of all available information —including both what is learned through sampling and what is known in advance through auxiliary data. For example, when participant- level claimed saving estimates are available, the sample design and analysis plan should use this information to increase efficiency (typically through stratification and/or ratio estimation ).

An estimator is t he particular function (mathematical expression or equation) through which sample data are used to estimate a population quantity. In general, an estimate will not precisely equal its target (for example, the sample mean is unlikely to equal the population mean exactly)

. The difference between the two

― the sampling error

― can be statistically estimated and , to some degree , controlled through sample design.
Descriptive estimators

— such as the mean and standard deviation

— can be calculated for any data set. The mean is the arithmetic average of the values, while t he standard deviation is a measure of the variability among observations in the data. In normally distributed data, about 68% of observations are within one standard deviation of the mean, and 95% are within two standard deviations. (Note that a lar ge standard deviation indicates greater dispersion of individual observations about the mean.)

As previously mentioned , the exact value of an estimate depends on the particular sample drawn

. Thus, if an entire evaluation were repeated multiple times with a different sample drawn each time, a different estimated value would result for each evaluation.

An estimator is unbiased if it tends to be centered at its target quantity. This means that if the entire evaluation (selecting a sample and calculating the estimate based on the sample) were repeated many times, the average of the resulting values would be very near the target populati on11 - 7 value. The standard error (SE) of an estimator quantifies the dispersion that would be observed among these values. 3 The distinction between the standard deviation and the standard error is important. The standard deviation describes variability of the data, while the standard error describes variability of the estimator ( for instance , the variability of the sample means obtain ed from repeated sampling).
For example, in measur ing the capacity of a sample of 100 heating, ventilating, and airconditioning ( HVAC ) units , t he standard deviation for this sample was found to be 25% of the value of the mean capacity. Assuming a normal distribution, approximately 95% of HVAC units in the population should have a capacity within ±50% of the sample mean. However, the standard error is 2.5% of the sample mean ( 25% / √ 100 ). Thus, if we drew repeated sample s of 100 HVA C units, the sample means would be within 2.5% of the population mean approximately 95% of the time.

2.3 Confidence and Precision When data are collected via SRS, the standard error of the sample mean equals the standard deviation of the data, divided by the square root of the sample size. 4 In general, the standard error increases as the standard deviation of the underlying data increases or the sample size decreases.
Statistical methods are available for calculating standard errors for a wide range of estimators. Once an estimator’s standard error is known, it is a simple matter to express the estimator’s uncertainty through, for example, a confidence interval ( CI ). A CI is a range of values that is believed

― with some stated level of confidence

― to contain the true population quantity. The confidence level is the probability that the interval actually contains the target quantity.

Precision provides convenient shorthand for expres sing the interval believed to contain the estimator ( for example , if the estimate is 530 kilowatt -hours [ kWh ], and the relative precision level is 10%, then the interval is 530 ±53 kWh). 5 In reporting estimates f rom a sample, it is essential to provide both the precis ion and its corre sponding confidence level ( typically 90% for energy efficiency evaluations).
For a given data set, an estimate’s uncertainty can be expressed in precision terms at any level of confidence. To have higher confidence, it is necessary to take a wider interval
, which results in less precision. In other words, when all else is held constant, there is a tradeoff between precision and confidence. 6 As a result, any statement of precision without a corresponding confidence

3 This can be thought of as the standard deviation of the estimator itself, and it may account for multiple sources of random error, including sampling error.

4 This formulation ignores th e finite population correction (FPC) (see “Sample Means with FPC” in Appendix C).

5 Note the counterintuitive implication of this standard definition. Low

- precision values correspond to narrow intervals and, hence, describe tight estimates. This can lead to confusion when estimates are described as having “low precision.”

6 Although there is a close relationship between confidence and precision, these terms are not direct complements of each other. If the confidence level is 90%, there is no reason that the precision needs to be 10%. It is just as logical to talk about 90/05 confidence and precision as 90/10.11 - 8 level is incomplete and impossible to inter pret

. For example, assume the average savings among participants in an ENERGY STAR appliance program is estimated as 1,000 kWh per year, and the analyst determines this estimate to have 16% relative precision at the 90% confidence level. T he same data set and the same formulas may be used to estimate 10 % relative precision at the 70% confidence level. If the confi dence level is not reported , the second formulation would appear to have less un ce rtainty when, in reality, the two are identical.

The estimators commonly used in energy efficiency evaluations generally have sampling errors that are approximately normal in distribution. 7 To calculate the bounds for such an estimator, first multipl y the estimator’s standard error by a z- value. 8 Then add this product to the estimate itself to obtain the CI upper bound, and subtract the product from the estimate to obtain the lower bound.

Note that t he z -value depends only on the confidence level chosen for reporting results. That is
, for a given estimate x� , the co nfidence interval is: 9

x� − z ∙ SE � ( x� ) ≤ x ≤ x� + z ∙ SE � ( x� )
In this equation, a z -value of 1.645 is used for the 90% confidence level and a value of 1.960 is used for the 95% confidence level. ( These values are tabulated in most statistics textbook s an d can be calculated with a spreadsheet. ) The absolute and relative precision at the selected confidence level is estimated as:
Absolute Precision ( x� ) = z ∙ SE � ( x� )

Relative Precision ( x� ) = z ∙ SE � ( x� ) x�
The standard error always has the same physical units as the estimator , so absolute precision always has the same physical units as the estimation target . R elative precision , however, is always unit- free and expressed as a percentage. 10

7 This means that if the entire evaluation (drawing a sample and calculating the estimator from the sample) were repeated many times, the resulting estimator values would roughly follow a normal distribution.

8 If the sample size, n , is small, a t

- value with n

- 1 degrees of freedom is more appropriate than a z
- value, as z
values will lead to an overstatement of achieved precision. At the 90% confiden ce level, the choice of t - versus

z
- value makes little difference for sample sizes greater than 30. The TINV() function in Microsoft E xcel can be used to calculate t

- values.

9 We have added a “hat” to the SE in this expression. This is to emphasize that a ny real

- life CI would have to rely on a sample

- based estimate of the standard error, because the true standard deviation of an estimator cannot be known without perfect knowledge of the population. Inferential statistics in practice substitutes the standar d deviation of the sample for the standard deviation of the population. The uncertainty associated with this substitution is treated as negligible. This treatment is usually appropriate, but at very small sample sizes the uncertainties associated with this substitution may become more significant. Also, strict notational correctness would require a lower case “se” in this equation instead of the “ SE

. � ” We appreciate the distinction, but do not believe that the failure to distinguish between a function and its generic instance will lead to any errors in practice.11 - 9 Example 1-1 If a program’s average savings are estimated as 10.31 kWh and the standard error is calculated as 1.70 kWh , then we have 90% confidence that the true population mean lies within the interval :

10

. 31 kWh

− 1. 645
∙ 1. 70 kWh ≤ average savings ≤ 10

. 31 kWh + 1. 645
∙ 1. 70 kWh
And the precision formulas are
Absolute Precision ( x� ) = 1. 645
∙ 1. 70 kWh = 2. 80 kWh

Relative Precision ( x� ) = 2. 80 kWh
10

. 31 kWh = 27

. 2%

In other words, based on the selected sample, the best estimate of the true (unobserved) population mean is the sample mean (10.31 kWh). We are 90% confident that the true value is within 2.80 kWh or 27.2% of this estimate

. [End of Example]

If the estimated outcome is large rel ative to its standard error, the estimator will tend to have a small relative precision value at a given confidence level . ( Small precision values are desirable.) However
, if the amount of variability is large relative to the estimated outcome, the precisi on will be poor. For example, if the observed average savings is 1,000 kWh and the associated relative precision (at, say, 90% confidence) is 150%, then we are 90% confident that the true average savings is somewhere between negative 500 kWh ( which means t hat the measure actually caused consumption to increase) and 2,500 kWh.

10 Absolute precision is most frequently applied when estimating quantities such as population proportions, which are themselves percentages. In such cases, the expression “... has 5% precision” is ambiguous. It is better to say either “...has 5% absolute precision” or “... is precise to within five percentage points.” (See Estimating Population Proportions in Appendix B.)11 - 10 

### 3 Complex Evaluations : Designing for Multiple Objectives This section describes sample design and analysis procedures for the research tasks most commonly encountered in energy efficiency evaluations . Evaluations vary in size and complexity. The scope of a given study can be:

• A single program, encompassing several distinct measure groups

• A full portfolio, spanning multiple programs and sectors

• Some collection of measure groups of pa rticular interest to a client.

In the material that follows, the term study refers to any of these possibilities. Also, t his material mentions—but does not thoroughly discuss— several important statistical concepts ; however,
t hese are discussed in detail i n Appendix B. Fundamental Estimates and Uncertainty Calculations and Appendix C. Sample Design and Weighted Estimates

. Most energy efficiency portfolios support a wide ran ge of measures a nd serve multiple sectors. Complex portfolio evaluations generally include multiple precision requirements at different levels of aggregation. For example, a single evaluation may need to satisfy each of the following:

• Estimate savings to within 1 0% at the 90% confidence level for each sector (residential, commercial, government/nonprofit, industrial)

• Estimate savings to within 10% at the 90% confidence level for all nonresidential lighting projects combined

• Estimate savings to within 20% at the 90% confidence level for each program in the portfolio.

It would not be difficult to design an efficient study that meets any one of these requirements , but it is much more challenging to design an efficient study that meets all of the requirements simultaneously.
To design an efficient study , the researcher usually engages in some back -and-forth between high-level evaluation requirements and component- level study design details. In all cases, the study design must:

• Lead to valid and essentially unb iased estimates of the object(s) of study

• Meet prescribed confidence and precision targets through valid means

• Be cost

- efficient.
The following general steps describe a simplified approach to sample design that relies

― to some degree

― on trial and error. This approach will lead to a n effective and efficient research design for most evaluations. Section 4: Worked Examples provides examples illustrat ing the essential steps, and Appendi ces A and B give further examples and detailed technical guidance.

1. Describe the portfolio structure and the requirements for confidence and precision. A complex study may span multiple programs that cover different sectors and technology groups ( for e xample, custom versus prescriptive). Also, e valuators may be11 - 11 required to provide savings estimates at the study , sector, program , and measure level s. Often the confidence and precision requirements are imposed through a regulatory process or forward capaci ty market standard . These values are most commonly set at 90% confidence and 10% precision at the portfolio or sector level , but requirements vary. The evaluator needs to understand which confidence and precision requirements apply to which levels. ( That i s, at what level

— measure, program, sector , portfolio

— are savings to be estimated with the stated confidence and precision? ) In addition to regulatory precision requirements, clients often require disaggregated results at other levels of precision. A population segment for which an estimate must be reported is called a reporting domain

.
2. Identify the basic sampling and analysis domains. At the highest level, the samplinggroups usually reflect the structure of the reporting domains. For example, if sectorl evel savings need to be reported, then residential sampling and analysis will normally be independent of industrial and commercial evaluation activities. 11 The basic groups for sampling and analysis are called domains of study . There can be multiple evalua tion tasks within a study domain. For example, H VAC and l ighting savings both need to be evaluated within the commercial sector, but because these measures interact , the ir evaluation tasks may not be independent. However, each domain’s analysis is essentia lly self -contained and independent of other domains. In the remaining steps, we assume the reporting domains are the same as the domains of study. 12

3. Determine the appropriate stratification. The sample sizes and associated data collection costs are directly related to the amount of variab ility (usually measured with a coefficient of variation or error ratio ) in the population. If unit-level savings vary greatly between domain subgroups (for example, measure groups or building types), divide the domain into more homogeneous subgroups (strata). This is called stratification . Stratification reduces the sample size needed to obtain a given domain

level precision. (It also allows the evaluator to ensure representation among various subgroups.) For example, if doma ins correspond to sectors, the commercial domain may include the following strata: Small Retail Lighting Medium Retail Lighting Large Retail Lighting Office Lighting Office HVAC Office Plug Load Small Retail HVAC Large Retail HVAC Grocery Refrigeration Gro cery Lighting

11 There are exceptions. In some cases, the basic sampling/analysis groups cut across reporting domains, as when sampling and analysis are performed independently within sector

- pooled technology groups.

12 The general princip le s provided in the appendices remain valid for alternative approaches, but we do not provide step

- by

- step guida nce for all possible approaches.11 - 12 4. Determine the data requirements and estimation strategies within each domain. For each group ( for example, prescriptive commercial program) or subgroup ( for example , offices) , use the program database to identify important measure categories (for example, lighting) . Then
, for each measure category , determine estimation procedures and data needs based on the prevailing measurement and verification (M&V) protocol.

5. Record claimed contribution , ex post uncertainty , and M&V costs for each
stratum

. For each stratum within a domain, determine total claimed savings. Based on the M&V protocols ( Step 4), note the approximate evalu ation cost

- per

- sample -unit within each measure category. When possible, also include an estimate of the uncertainty parameter (CV or error ratio [ ER ]) within each category. 13 Measures contributing significantly to total savings and exhibiting significant variability will receive highest levels of evaluation resources. 14 This will reduce the standard error and improve confidence in tervals.

6. Estimate sample sizes within each domain. In the most straightforward cases, the previous step will yield reliable cost, uncertainty, and claimed total estimates. In such a case, implement the cost -weighted Neyman formula ( Appendix C. Sample Design and Weighted Estimates ) to obtain the domain’s optimal sample allocation as a function of total sample size n . Adjust n to obtain an efficient domain- level sample allocation , which should meet the precision requirement.
Sometimes there may be insufficient basis for estimating variation or the reporting requirements may be too complicated to permit a straightforward Neyman allocation. In such cases, the planning process may be simplified by prioritizing measure

ca tegories with high claimed totals and high uncertainty. The evaluator can then assign initial planning targets of, say, of 10% precision with 90% confidence for each high-priority category. For categories that are not high priority, choose more liberal
tar get s (for instance, 90/20) . ( These targets may be revised in Step 7. ) S ample sizes

are then calculated using the formulas provided in Appendix C. Sample Design and Weighted Estimates

.
7. Aggregate Precision to Reporti ng Requirement Level

. For each reporting level ( such

as the sector - and study- levels), calculate the expected precision based on the sample allocations obtained in Step 6 . If the expected precision at some level falls short of its target, increase the sample sizes in lower -level groups until all precision expectations meet their targets. This step is difficult to optimize through a simple formula, but if the calculations in the previous step have been automated , then a gradient- descent algorithm may be used to identify categories that yield the greatest impact on higher- level precision per

13 This may be based on previous studies’ estimates of coefficient of variation. Otherwise, variability may assessed qualitatively ( for example , low, medium, or high), based on the evaluator’s judgment.

14 There are, of cou rse, other considerations. See Section 5, Additional Considerations , for further discussion.11 - 13 evaluation dollar and to increase evaluation resources for these categories until higher- level precision estimates meet the evaluation targets

. In cases where a domain’s sample allocation is based on evaluator

- prioritized precision targets, these targets should be adjusted directly if higher- level precision estimates are signific antly higher or lower than the evaluation targets

.
8. Document the Assumptions and Sampling Plan. Document the sampling plan obtained through these steps. Include assumptions about data variability (CVs and ERs) and calculations showing that all precision targets will be met if the observed variability is no greater than what is assumed. At this point, the client and evaluator should agree on the measures to be taken, if any, to adjust sample sizes should early data collection provide evidence that variability assumptions are in error.
Appendix C. Sample Design and Weighted Estimates provides technical guidance about optimiz ing sample design components. However, the hands- on approach ―in which the evaluator prioritizes measure categories and then assigns (and adjusts) precision requirements for each category

― is very flexible and sufficient for many applications

.11 - 14 

### 4 Worked Examples Section 3 described the general procedure for planning a portfolio evaluation at a high level

. This section illustrates the basic components of this procedure. The general approach is to begin with lower -level evaluation tasks and then show how these build to a portfolio-level evaluation plan. The discussion makes frequent use of the formulas described in appendices B and C.

4.1 Measure - and Site- Level Evaluation Planning In most energy efficiency evaluations, populations are segmented by sector: residential, commercial, and industrial. 15 Residential populations tend to be large in number and homogeneous, while the commercial and industrial segments are often small er and more heterogeneous. Two major considerations drive the sample planning for any measure- level evaluation task:

• The heterogeneity of the relevant population segment (especially with respect to equipment usage patterns)

• The segment’s size (in terms o f both the number of units in the population and the average savings per unit). Evaluations in the residential sector often use many different estimators and a variety of data sources. For example, proportions may be estimated from telephone survey data, ratios may be estimated from site visit data, and means may be estimated from end

- use metering data. Because residential populations tend to be relatively homogeneous, SRS is the most common sample design in this sector.
Commercial and industrial populations are composed of multiple subsectors (for example , retail, office, grocery, manufacturing, and food processing). Nonresidential portfolios generally offer both prescriptive and custom measures for these sectors. Because the population members vary greatl y in size, the expected savings for each measure installation varies from site to site . For example, a convenience store may convert 20 T12 florescent lamps to T8s, but a large office may convert 500 lamps. A well-maintained program database, which would include site

- level claimed savings estimates
, is critical to the efficient evaluation of nonresidential savings. Stratified ratio estimation is a central evaluation tool for these sectors.

**4.1.1 Telephone Surveys**  Telephone surveys are one of the most common methods of primary data collection in residential evaluations. These surveys are rich sources of data from which a number of population characteristics may be estimated, such as attitudes and opinions, purchasing behaviors, and demographics. Most of the data c ollected are categorical and are used to estimate proportions (such as the proportion of customers satisfied with the program, or the proportion of customers who actually installed a measure recorded in the program database).
For attitudinal, demographic, and other questions used to inform process evaluation, the uncertainty of a proportion estimate is usually described in terms of absolute precision (see

15 This list is not exhaustive. Other possible segments include: low

- income, agricultural, public/institutional, and transportation.11 - 15 Appendix B. Fundamental Estimates and Uncertainty Calculations ). Write e abs. for the absolute precision level. Then the sample size needed to achieve this degree of precision is calculated as :

n = � z

e abs. � 2 ∙ p ( 1 − p )

Here, z is the z -value for the corresponding level of confidence, and p is the true population proportion. The expression p ( 1 − p ) obtains its maximum when p = 0.5 , so an n computed with this value will obtain the desired precision in all cases.

Example 4-1 For part of a process evaluation of a residential energy-education program, a partic ipant survey is used to estimate the proportion of participants who changed their thermostat setting due to the program. The utility wants the survey

- based estimate to be within five percentage points (absolute) of the true population proportion, with 90% confidence. If we have no a priori knowledge of the true proportion, we use the value with p = 0.5 to plan our survey. Then the sample size is:

n = � 1. 645
∙ 0.5
0. 05 � 2

≈ 270 .6

Thus, a survey sample of 271 participants is needed to ensure the desired level of confidence and precision.

[End of Example]

Note that the finite population correction ( FPC) is not used in this formula. The FPC is typically negligible in the residential sector, as program populations tend to be quite large compared to evaluation survey samples

. Telephone surveys may also be used for impact evaluation, but this application should be limited to measures for which:

• No special training is needed to specify the measure and determine that it is installed correctly (For example, energy- efficient showerheads and compact fluorescent lamps satisfy this requirement, but attic insulat ion does not
, because a homeowner may not know the effective R -value of insulation and may not be able to assess installation quality.)

• Average measure savings is well known through other resources. When these conditions are satisfied, the only information needed to estimate total measure savings is the number of measures installed, and this quantity can be estimated with phone survey data.
When survey- level results are being reported for an impact evaluation, the uncertai nty of a proportion estimate is oft en reported in terms of relative precision. Write e rel. for the target11 - 16 relative precision level. Then the sample size needed to achieve this degree of precision is calculated as :

n = � z

e rel. � 2

∙ 1 − p p
The expression ( 1 − p ) / p does not have any maximum ; it increases without bound as p decreases to zero . Thus , some a priori lower bound on plausible values for p is needed to calculate the necessary sample size.
If savings at the measure level are not directly reported, but are instead rolled into estimated savings at a higher level for reporting, then measure- level savings is treated as a stratum within the higher level for sample planning.

Example 4-2 Continuing the energy- education example, assume that (1) the results of the participant surve y will be used to inform an impact evaluation and (2) average savings among individuals who adjust their thermostats is known through a previous study. Then to estimate program savings, estimate the proportion of participants who adjusted their thermostats.

Consider two possible circumstances:

a. T he utility wants the survey

- based estimate to be within 20% (relative) of the true population proportion, with 90% confidence. Based on an informal internal evaluation, the utility is confident that at least 40% of the participants have adjusted their thermostats. Using ( 1 − p )
p ≥ ( 1 − 0

. 4 )
0

. 4 = 1

. 5
, the sample size is calculated as:

n = � 1. 645
0.2 � 2

∙ 1.5 ≈ 101 .5
Thus, a survey sample of 102 participants is needed to ensure the desired level of confidence and precision.

b. The utility does not want results repo rted at the program level. Instead, estimated program savings are to be rolled into residential sector -level savings for reporting. Then this program will be treated as a stratum within the residential domain. Its sample size will be determined through a cost

- weighted Neyman allocation applied to the residential sector. For this, we will need to record the number of program participants ( N

), the marginal cost of surveying a single participant ( c ), the average savings among participants who adjust their th ermostats ( X

), and an a priori estimate of the proportion of participants who adjust their thermostats ( p 0 ).11 - 17 The unit- level standard deviation used in the Neyman allocation is this:

s = X ∙ � p 0 ∙ ( 1

− p 0 )

This stratum’s share of the residential s ample will be proportional to N ∙ s / √c

. [End of Example]

**4.1.2 Verification Site Visits**  Verification site visits can be conducted for parameters that are not easily measured by telephone surveys. Common examples are:

• Installation rates ( for example , proportion of program-provided CFLs installed)

• Measure Coverage ( for example, percent of insulation installed)

• End

- use parameters ( for example , efficiency rating or thermostat set point).

4.1.2.1 Installation Rates If there is only one measure per household―as is often the case with water heat, HVAC, and certain appliance measures―then the estimate is a sample proportion , which is analyzed as illustrated in examples 4-1 and 4-2. Note, however, that the marginal cost of a site visit is higher than that of a phone survey, so all else being equal, measures requiring on- site verification will receive smaller shares of the domain -level sample than those requiring only phone surveys. Savings for measures that can have multiple installations at each household or that have measures that vary greatly between sites should be estimated using a mean - or ratio

- based method.

Example 4-3 For the evaluation of a direct -mail program that sent three CFLs to each residence within a utility’s service territory , a ssume that the average hours of use and average wattage of replaced lamps are reliably known through a previous study. Write X for the product of the average hours of use and the average difference between replaced lamps and program lamps.

Then the research focus is on estimating the number of program bulbs that have been installed. Each residence may have installed 0, 1, 2, or 3 program bulbs (or more if some customers give unwanted CFLs to friends or neighbors). A visited site’s savings is estimated as X times the number of program bulb s installed at the site. Estimate the average number of installed program bulbs as a simple mean.
To plan this evaluation task, information is used from an earlier evaluation that found the number of program lamps installed at a site was 2.1 on average, wi th a standard deviation of 1.3.
Consider two possible circumstances:

a. The utility wants the total program savings to be estimated to within 20% (relative precision), with 90% confidence. Using CV = 1

. 3 2

. 1 ⁄ = 0

. 62 , the sample size is calculated as:11 - 18 n = � 1. 645
0.2 � 2

∙ ( 0. 62 ) 2 ≈ 25 .9
Thus, a survey sample of 26 participants is needed to meet the precision target at the stated confidence level.

b. T he utility does not want results reported at the program level. Instead, estimated program savings are to be rolled into residential sector -level savings for reporting. Thus, the program will be treated as a stratum within the residential domain , and its sample size will be determined through a cost -weighted Neyman allocation applied to the residential sector. For this, record the number of program participants ( N

), the marginal cost of visiting a single participant ( c ), the average savings per installed CFL ( X

), and the a priori estimate of the standard deviation of the number of installed lamps per residence (from the previous report, this is 1.3). The unit-level standard deviation used in the Neyman allocation is s = X ∙ 1

. 3
, and the stratum’s share of the residential sample should be proportional to N ∙ s / √ c

. [End of Example]

4.1.2.2 Measure Coverage Some site visits are made to estimate the proportion of reported savings measures that were actually installed

— for e xample, the proportion of rebated CFLs installed in a home, or the quality and quant ity of installed attic insulation. In these cases, the estimation strategy is based on a ratio estimator rather than a proportion- or mean

- based estimator (see Appendix B. Fundamental Estimates and Uncertainty Calcu lations ).

When measure

- level savings must be estimated with a prescribed level of precision and confidence, the sample size formula for the ratio estimator is:

n = � z

e rel. � 2 � s ( ratio) y� � 2

Here, e rel. refers to relative precision and s ( ratio) is similar to the standard deviation, but it only captures deviations between ex post savings ( y i ) and realization

- rate -adjusted claimed sav ings (see Appendix B. Fundamental Estimates and Uncertainty Calculations ).

When the re is no measure

- level precision target, the measure is treated as a stratum within sector

- level savings. In this case, the measure ’s share of the sector

- level sample should be proportional to

N ∙ s (ratio) / √ c

Where N is the number of participants in the stratum, c is the marginal cost of collecting data for a single participant, and s ( ratio) is as above.11 - 19 Example 4-4 A weatherization program rebates material costs for attic insulation. The program database records the R -value and quantity of rebated insulation for each participant and calculates participant

- level claimed savings estimates from these data.
To evaluate the program, technicians will visit a sample of participating sites a nd record the effective R -value (taking into account both the nominal R-value and the installation quality) and the installed quantity. Based on the data collected, ex post savings will be estimated for each site
, and p rogram savings will be estimated usin g a ratio

- based realization rate. Write x i for the claimed savings of the i th visited site and write y i for the ex post savings. Then

Realization Rate = ∑ y i sample ∑ x i

sample The total savings estimate is the realization rate mul tiplied by the population total of the claimed savings values.
In this example, the evaluator is planning the current study using results from the previous year’s evaluation. The previous evaluation estimated a realization rate of 75% from a sample of 100 participants. This estimate achieved a relative precision of ±8% with 90% confidence.

C alculate the error ratio, ER = s ( ratio) / y� , based on the values given in last year’s report:

s ( ratio) y� = √ n ∙ e rel.

z = √ 100
∙ 8%
1. 645 ≈ 0. 49

Consider two possible circumstances:

a. Program- level results are to be estimated to within 20% ( relative precision ), with 90% confidence. The sample size is then:

n = � z

e rel. � 2 ( ER ) 2 = � 1. 645
0. 20 � 2 ( 0. 49 ) 2 ≈ 16 .2

Therefore, the evaluator should plan to visit 17 participants to meet the 90/20 target for the realization rate. Because total savings is estimated as the realization rate multiplied by the claimed total, the total savings has the same relative prec ision as the realization rate.

b. T he utility does not want results reported at the program level. Instead, estimated program savings are to be rolled into the sector

- level saving estimates for reporting.

Because the program will be treated as a stratum within the residential domain , i ts sample size will be determined through a cost -weighted Neyman allocation. For this, record the number of prog ram participants ( N

), the marginal cost of visiting a single participant ( c ), and the a priori estimate of the standard deviation of the quantity s ( ratio)

.11 - 20 The stratum’s share of the sector sample will be proportional to N ∙ s ( ratio ) / √ c

. [End of Example]

4.1.2.3End- Use Parameters In some cases, the purpose of a site visit is to estimate the value of some end

- use parameter, such as the number of linear feet of pipe wrap installed or the technical specifications of an HVAC system. If the program dat abase contains participant

- level ex ante information, then total measure savings should be estimated using a ratio estimator. Otherwise, the estimates must be based on the sample mean. In both cases, sample planning for the measure- level evaluation task pr oceeds as illustrated in the previous examples.

Example 4-5 A site visit is required to estimate the heating capacity of ductless mini

- split installed air conditioners (AC) for which customers will receive ( or have received ) rebates from a residential HVAC program. Unlike the previous residential examples, this program is relatively small, having only 200 participants.
As this is the first evaluation of this program, there is no prior information on the target population. However, the regional technical re source manual refers to a metering study that determined the cooling capacity had a standard deviation of 5.4 kBtu/h. The program implementer assumed that the average mini -split installed AC had a capacity of 18 kBtu/h. Thus, the best estimate of the CV is this:

CV = s x̅ = 5.4
18 = 0.3

To achieve measure

- level results having 90% confidence and ±10% relative precision, calculate the initial and, subsequently, the final sample sizes (with finite population correction) as:

n 0 = � 1. 645
0. 10 � 2

∙ ( 0.3 ) 2 ≈ 24 .4

n = 24 .4
∙ 200
24 .4 + 200 ≈ 21 .7

Thus, visit 22 households to achieve the desired level of precision. [End of Example]

**4.1.3 End-**  **Use Metering** In most cases, end

- use metering data are used to estimate some site

- specific parameter
, such as the av erage daily hours of use or the average kilowatt ( kW) draw. Meter

- based estimates are then used to evaluate evaluated savings for each metered measure installation. Sampling for end- use metering proceeds as outlined above, with ratio- based estimates used w hen there is meaningful ex ante information, and mean-based estimates used when no such information is available.11 - 21 4.2 Domain

- Level Evaluation Planning Sample plans for various levels of reporting domains can be developed after measure- level evaluation tasks have been analyzed and documented, as above. These plans may be based purely on optimization calculations, or they may involve a more hands-on approach (see Step 7 in Section 3 ).

Example 4-6 For a commercial and industrial ( C&I ) custom program evaluation, the distribution of participants is shown in Table 1

.

Table 1: Example C&I Program Details

Subsector Participants End Uses Percent of Ex A nte Savings Retail 80 Lighting 25% O ffice 65 Lighting, HVAC, Appliances 21%
Restaurant 30 Lighting, Appliances 9% School 13 Lighting, HVAC 12% Light Manufacturing 11 Lighting, Motors 33%
Total 199 Lighting, HVAC, Appliances, Motors 100%

To estimate satisfaction with a lighting measure, the evaluator chose to draw a stratified sample. This sample needed to provide a program- level estimate with 10% absolute precision, at the 90% confidence level . Thus, the first step is to determine the overall sample size needed (which is done in the same way as an SRS is determined for a proportion).

n 0 = � 1. 645
∙ 0.5
0. 10 � 2

≈ 67 .7

n = 67 .7
∙ 199
67 .7 + 199 ≈ 50 .5

The results show that calling a total of 51 businesses will achieve the desired level of precision.
To determine how to distribute the sample, use the Neyman allocation, assuming that the variation is proportional to savings

. The subsector sample sizes are then calculated as:

n retail = 50 .5
∙ � 25% 25% + 21% + 9% + 12% + 33% �
≈ 12 .6

n office = 50 .5
∙ � 21% 25% + 21% + 9% + 12% + 33% �
≈ 10 .6

n rest. = 50 .5
∙ � 9% 25% + 21% + 9% + 12% + 33% �
≈ 4.511 - 22 n school = 50 .5
∙ � 12% 25% + 21% + 9% + 12% + 33% �
≈ 6.1

n light mfg

. = 50 .5
∙ � 33% 25% + 21% + 9% + 12% + 33% �
≈ 16 .7

After rounding the values up to the nearest integer and accounting for the fact that there are only 11 sites in the light manufacturing sector, the final subsector sample sizes are 13, 11, 5, 7, and 11, for a total 47, which is slightly lower than the original 51.

[End of Example]
Example 4-7 To evaluate total savings for the C&I program described by Table 1 , regulatory requirements stipula te that results must be within 10% relative precision at the 90% confidence level . Previous experience has shown that , typically, the overall realization rate is approximately 90%, with an ER of approximat ely 0.4 , so the total sample size for the program is:

n 0 = � 1. 645
0.1 � 2 ( 0.4 ) 2 = 43 .3

n = 43 .3
∙ 199
43 .3 + 199 ≈ 35 .6

Thus, the ini tial plan is to visit 36 sites. As before, d istribute the sample using the Neyman allocation. There are no data on subsector- specific ERs or CVs , so assume variation within each sector is proportional to ex ante savings. 16 Then for sector h , the share of the sample will be proportional to:

N h ∙ s h � c h ∝ N h ∙ [ ex ante total for stratum h ] N h ⁄ � c h

= [ ex ante total for stratum h ] � c h

∝ [ stratum h 's percent of the ex ante total ] � c h Also, evaluation costs differ among subsectors; engineers estimate the following hours are required to evaluate a site for each subsector:

16 To be precise, assume that w ithin each stratum, the standard deviation of savings is proportional to the stratum’s claimed savings average. (If necessary, stratify by size in addition to building type.) For this reasoning, standard deviation can either have the usual definition, s , o r the ratio version, s ( ratio ) . (See Appendix C .)11 - 23 Table 2: Evaluation Times and **Claimed** Savings by Subsector

Subsector Hours Proportion of **Claimed** Savings
Retail 2 25%
Office 4 21%
Restaurant 2 9%
School 4 12% Light Manufacturing 8 33%

Using these estimates as a proxy for cost, allocate sample sizes to each subsector using the cost

weighted Neyman allocation as follows:

n retail = 35 .6 ∙ � 25% / √ 2
25% / √ 2 + 21% / √ 4 + 9% / √ 2 + 12% / √ 4 + 33% / √ 8 / �

≈ 5.2

n office = 35 .6 ∙ � 21% / √ 4 25% / √ 2 + 21% / √ 4 + 9% / √ 2 + 12% / √ 4 + 33% / √ 8 �

≈ 7.4

n rest. = 35 .6 ∙ � 9% / √ 2
25% / √ 2 + 21% / √ 4 + 9% / √ 2 + 12% / √ 4 + 33% / √ 8 �

≈ 5.2

n school = 35 .6 ∙ � 12% / √ 4 25% / √ 2 + 21% / √ 4 + 9% / √ 2 + 12% / √ 4 + 33% / √ 8 �

≈ 7.4

n light mfg

. = 35 .6 ∙ � 33% / √ 8
25% / √ 2 + 21% / √ 4 + 9% / √ 2 + 12% / √ 4 + 33% / √ 8 �

≈ 10 .4

After rounding the values up to the nearest integer, the final subsector sample sizes are 6, 8, 6, 8, and 11, for a total 39. This represents the allocation that optimizes the balance between precision and cost.

4.3 Portfolio

- Level Evaluation Planning This section illustrates the planning process outlined in Section 1. 3 through an extended example of an energy efficiency portfolio evaluation. The utility promotes efficiency measures in the residential, institutional (government and nonprofit), commercial, and industrial sectors. Table 3 shows program sizes.11 - 24 Table 3: Claimed Savings by Sector

Sector **Claimed** kWh Total
Residential 2,900,000 Institutional 2,200,000 Commercial 3,300,000 Industrial 3,000,000 Total 11,400,000

This evaluation entails estimat ing total savings to within 10% for each sector and to within 5% for the entire portfolio (all precision values assume 90% confidence). Sampling and analysis are to be performed separately within each sector ( thus , data collected in the commercial sector has no b earing on estimates related to the industrial sector).

• Steps 1 and 2 are immediate: Report the savings for each of the four sectors, and the sectors are the domains of study.

• For Step 3, stratify each domain by measure group and size.

• For Step 4, examin e the program database to determine the specific measures and measure groups that contribute to savings within each sector.
Table 4 shows savings by measure category for the residential program.

Table 4: R esidential Program Data Measure Group **Claimed** kWh Lighting 1,800,000 HVAC 600,000 ENERGY STAR Appliances 500,000 Total 2,900,000

This utility recently completed a study of ENERGY STAR appliances, so deemed values are considered acceptable for that p rogram, so long as installation rates are directly evaluated. Then telephone surveys will provide acceptable data, and a proportion estimator will be appropriate for estimating savings. Stratification may also be appropriate if there are distinct participa nt groups for which installation rates may vary.
After reviewing the M&V protocols, the evaluator determine s that (1) usage loggers are needed for evaluating savings from lighting measures and (2) interval metering is needed for evaluating HVAC savings. The final verified savings for both measure types will be determined through engineering calculations. After calculating savings for measures in the sample, ratio estimators will be used to evaluate total program savings for both measure groups.
For Step 5 , consider the data to be used in the savings calculations to (1) determine average M&V costs for sampled units within each measure category and (2) anticipate variability within each group. ( This process was illustrated in Section 4.1: Measure - and Site-Level Evaluation11 - 25 Planning .) T hen use the cost

- optimized allocation formula to determine the sample fraction for each group (Step 6). The results are summarized in Table 5

.

Table 5: Cost, Variability, and Sample Fractions for Residential Sector

Measure

Group Evaluation Cost per Unit Anticipated Variability Average Claimed kWh **Claimed** Standard Deviation Sample Fraction

Lighting $2,000 0.4 (ER) 200 80 48.3% HVAC $ 2,500 0.6 (ER) 2,400 1,440 21.6% ES Appliances $100 0.2 (CV) 250 50 30.0%

In Table 5
, variability entries are based on experience with similar evaluation tasks. Average claimed values are based on program data and the standard deviations are the products of average savings and the error ratios or coefficients of variation. The sample fractions are calculated using the formula from Planning and Optimizing Stratified Designs (Appendix C).
Continuing Step 6, use the standard error formulas to determine the standard error for estimated total savings as a function of sample size. After some experimentation, the evaluator determine s a residential sample allocation that should yield the 90/10 target for the sector. In Table 6
, measure

- level standard errors are based on estimator

- specific standard error formulas. The total standard error is the square root of the sum of squared measure

- level standard errors.

Table 6: Preliminary Sample Allocation for Residential Sector

Measure

Group Claimed kWh Total **Claimed** Standard Deviation Sample Size Standard Error ( Evaluated Total) Relative Precision

Lighting 1,800,000 80 30 131,453 12.0% HVAC 6 00,000 1,440 13 99,846 27.4% ES Appliances 500,000 50 19 22,942 7.5% Total 2,900,000 NA 62 166,660 9.5%

R epeat this process for the institutional, commercial, and industrial sectors. This is the more hands-on approach to Step 6, which begins w ith stipulated group

- level precision targets , and usually lead s to more back-and- forth iterations . Note that the more technical approach is also valid.
For Step 7, collect sector- level claimed sa vings totals and standard errors and use the formula for the standard error of a sum of independent estimates to estimate the standard error and precision at the portfolio level.11 - 26 Table 7: High

- Level Standard Errors

Sector **Claimed** kWh Total Precision Standard Error
Residential 2,900,000 9. 5% 166,660 Institutional 2,200,000 10% 133,739 Commercial 3,300,000 10% 200,608 Industrial 3,000,000 10% 182,371 Total 11,400,000 4.6% 318,243

The implied portfolio

- level precision is 1. 645
∙ 318
, 243 11
, 400
, 000 ⁄ = 4. 6% , so this sample allocation will meet all precision targets if our CV and ER assumptions hold. If the estimated precision value had been higher than the target, the evaluator would increase the sample sizes incrementally fo r the influential sector(s) with the lowest marginal sampling costs until the overall precision was achieved. [End of Example]11 - 27 

### 5 Additional Considerations The following sections discuss important considerations when choosing both a sample size and design.

5.1 Threats to Validity The fundamental assumption in a design- based sample analysis is that population members have been sampled according to the rules specified in the sampling plan. When factors external to the sample plan affect the final sample, the study ’s validity may be compromised. In particular, specific external factors may lead to biased estimators and incomplete pictures of uncertainty.
The following are validity threats that commonly arise in impact evaluations. 17

1. Non -Coverage. Validity is threatened when significant population segments are not included in the sample frame

. The result is that value s calculated from the sample cannot then be said to be representative of the entire population.

2. Non -R esponse . This type of threat occurs in every sampl e-based study for which population members have the option of refusing to be included. If certain types of households are more likely to refuse to participate or to respond to certain questions, the values calculated from the sample will understate the con tribution of this portion of the population.

3. Self

- Selection . In evaluation activities where participation is voluntary, some groups of people may be more likely to participate than others. This may be associated with demographics, education level, personal attitudes, or any number of unobservable factors. If this is the case, the estimate from these samples may not be completely representative.

4. M easurement Error. At times, data collection done either through metering or survey instruments may not be compl etely accurate. 18 Metering results can be biased by equipment failure, incorrect placement, or poor calibration. Survey instruments are vulnerable to a variety of threats that can be thought of as types of measurement error, such as: construct error, ambigu ous wording of questions, and respondent social bias.

5.2 Cost Considerations There is always a tradeoff between cost and precision. Although some gains in precision can be made through a thoughtful sample design, increasing the sample size always leads to be tter precision. However, the cost of doing so can be prohibitive.
The general precision equation can be written in this form:

17 Threats to validity and strategies for mitigating their effects are explored in greater detail in Appendix A . For issues specific to survey instruments, see also the “Survey Design and Implementation for Estimating Gross Savings” chapter of this document.

18 In most metering applications, this measurement error is ignored, particularly when data sources are utility

grade electricity or natural gas meters. However, other types of measurements

― such as fl ow rates in water or air distribution systems

― can have significant errors. The magnitude of such errors is often not large enough to warrant concern in a program evaluation and is largely provided by manufacturer's specifications.11 - 28 Precision= confidence level � variance sample size

Precision is a function of three factors: the confidence level ( z ), varianc e ( s 2 ), and the sample size ( n ). The confidence level is fixed for a given study (typically at 90% for energy efficiency evaluations). The population variance does not change with sample size either, so the only factor under the evaluator’s control in this equation is the sample size. However, precision is not improved at rate proportional to the sample size, but by the square root of the sample size. This is an important consideration in evaluation planning, as the cost

- sample -unit is often linear, while improvements in precision are not.

Example 5-1 In conducting a metering study of commercial lighting to determine average hours of operation, the evaluator first performs a literature review. The effort reveals past studies showing that commercial lighting hours of operation typically vary with a CV of 0.5. When considering costs, the evaluator estimates each site will cost $1,000 for travel, data collection, and analysis. Figure 1 compares cost to precision.

Figure 1: Example: Cost vs. Precision

So, visiting 70 sites to achieve ±10% relative precision (at the 90% confidence level) will cost $70,000. However, visiting only two sites (the minimum to calculate precision) would result in relative precision of ±58% at a cost of $2,000. Thus , given repeated experiments, a 1% improvement in precision can be expected to cost an average of approximately $1,417.11 - 29 If the evaluator chose to sample an additional 70 sites, the results would have a relative precision of ±7% at a total cost of $140,000. While the costs doubled, the precision only improved by approximately one third. Thus, average cost for a 1% increase in precision has now ballooned to approximately $23,333. [End of Example]

5.3 Varying Uncertainty In some cases, variation in the estimates of interest may differ in magnitude. If these measures are being combined, then the overall uncertainty of the final outcome is a function of those measures with large and small variation. As precision increases with variability (shown in the general equation repeated here), the overall sample will be more efficient when those measures with higher savings variation are allotted larger samples.

Precision= confidence level � variance sample size

It is common practice in energy efficiency evaluations t o estimate different parameters of an algorithm by different methods. One parameter may come from a phone survey, another from site visits, and a third may come from a secondary source. It is critical in these evaluations to identify the parameters having the greatest potential impact on overall uncertainty and then target them accordingly.
For example, in an evaluation conducted to estimate the savings of a residential energy

- efficient showerhead program, the main inputs are hours of use, flow rate, and th e installation rate

. While installation rate and hours of use can be measured by phone survey, the flow rate must be measured on site . In this study, the evaluator knows that the CV of hours of use is much higher than the CV of flow rate. Thus, applying a sampling strategy that allots more of the sample to phone surveys and less to site visits could be more efficient than an equal allotment.

5.4 Outcome of Interest As shown in the preceding example, it is critical to determine the true value of increased precis ion. Making this determination entails not only cost considerations, but knowing the value to the overall measure of interest. In an energy efficiency evaluation, this is most often total portfolio gross and/or net energy savings. If precision targets are set at the portfolio level, then the relative precision of a portfolio of programs is calculated as follows:

Relative Precision of Portfolio = 1. 645 ∙ � 1 ∑ savings ı � m i=1 � ∙ � �� SE [ savings ı � ] � 2 m

i=1

This formula follows from results pr esented in Appendix B. Fundamental Estimates and Uncertainty Calculations

. In Example 4-1, a 3% improvement in precision may justify an additional $70,000 in costs if the savings in this stratum represents a large proportion of total savings. If, however, a given11 - 30 measure makes up only 10% of total program savings, then a 1% improvement in precision at the measure level only contributes approximately 0.1% to the precision at the program level. Thus, both cost and value should be considered when choosing how to allocate resources effectively.11 - 31 

### 6 Appendix A. Sources and Types of Error This appendix provides an introduction to how uncertainty is classified in evaluation applications, and it discusses systematic error and random error unrelated to sampling.

6.1 Sources of Uncertainty As a measure of the “goodness” of an estimate
, u ncertainty refers to the amount or range of doubt surrounding a measured or calculated value. Any report of gross or net program savings, for examp le, has a halo of uncertainty surrounding the reported relative value to the true values (which are not known). As defined this way, uncertainty is an overall indicator of how well a calculated or measured value represents a true value. Without some measurement of uncertainty, it is impossible to judge an estimate’s value as a basis for decision -making.
Program evaluation seeks to estimate energy and demand savings with reasonable accuracy. This objective may be affected by:

• Systematic error ( that is , not occurring by chance), such as non-coverage, nonresponse, self -selection, and some types of measurement errors

• Random error ( that is , occurring by chance), attributable to using a population sample rather than a census to develop the calculated or measure d value. This error type can also be the result of some types of measurement error. 19 The distinction between systematic and random sources of error is important because different procedures are required to identify and mitigate each. Although the amount of random error can typically be estimated using statistical tools , other means are required to estimate the level of systematic error. Because additional investment in the estimation process can lead to reductions in both types of error, tradeoffs between evaluation costs and reductions in uncertainty are inevitably required.

6.2 Sources of Systematic Error Systematic errors typically occur from the way data are measured, collected, and/or described :

1. Measured. At times, equipment used to measure consumption may not be completely accurate. Human errors ( for example , errors in recording data) may also cause this type of error. Metering results can be biased by equipment failure, incorrect placement, or poor calibration. 20 Survey instruments are vulnerable to a var iety of threats that can be thought of as types of measurement error, such as construct error, ambiguous wording of questions, and respondent social bias. Measurement error is reduced by investing in more accurate measurement technology , establishing clea r data collection protocols, and reviewing data to confirm they were accurately recorded . In most applications, this error source is

19 Note that measurement error may be systematic or random. For example, a meter that is not properly calibrated and consistently under - or overestimates a measurement exhibits systematic error. A meter that is only accurate within a given interval is said to have random error wit hin that interval.

20 Such errors will bias measurements within a site. However, because the magnitude and direction of the bias may differ from one site to the next, these errors may be viewed as random (not systematic) from the point of view of the broad er evaluation, provided the errors are not similar across sites.11 - 32 ignored, particularly when data sources are utility- grade e lectricity or natural gas metering equipment. However, other typ es of measurements can have significant

errors.
2. Collected. Non

- coverage errors can occur when some parts of a population are not included in the sample. This can be a problem because the value calculated from the sample will not accurately represent the en tire population of interest. Non

- coverage error is reduced by investing in a sampling plan that addresses known coverage issues. For example, a survey implemented through several modes (such as phone, Internet, and mail) can sometimes address known coverag e issues, assuming that noncoverage is related to the means of communication. However, in some cases there is little to do beyond clearly stating that some hard- to

- reach segment of the population was excluded from the study.

Non

- response errors occur when some portion or portions of the population having certain attitudes or behaviors are less likely to provide data than are other population portions. In a load research or metering study, if certain types of households are more likely to refuse to particip ate

― or if researchers are less likely to be able to obtain required data from them

― the values calculated from the sample will understate the contribution of this portion of the population and over-represent the contribution of sample portions more likely to respond. In situations where the underrepresented portion of the population has different consumption patterns, non- response error is introduced into the value calculated from the sample. Non- response error is addressed through investments that increase the response rate, such as incentives and multiple contact attempts. The converse of non-response errors are self

- selection errors . In evaluation activities where participation is voluntary, some groups of people may be more likely to participate than others . This may be associated with demographics, education level, personal attitudes, or any number of unobservable factors. If this is the case, the estimate from these samples may not be completely representative. Self

- selection bias is best addressed by cond ucting studies in which participation is mandatory, although this is typically infeasible. Establishing representative quotas by demographics believed to be associated with self

- selection may also mitigate these effects. Researchers often use “weights” in deriving their final estimates. These weights are means of adjusting the representativeness of the sample to reflect the actual population of interest. For example, if the proportion of single-family respondents is 70% in the sample but is 90% in the population, a weight of 90/70 can be used to increase the representativeness of single

- family responses.

3. Described (modeled). Estimates are created through statistical models. Some are fairly simple and straightforward ( for example, estimating the mean), and ot hers are fairly complicated ( for example , estimating response to temperature through regression models). Regardless, modeling errors may occur due to using the wrong model, assuming inappropriate functional forms, inclu ding irrelevant information, or exclu ding relevant information (for example, in modeling energy use of air conditioners, the evaluator used cooling degree days only). In another example, h ome square footage or home type may not be available, so t he statistical model will11 - 33 attribute all the obs erved differences in energy use to temperature, although clearly a portion of the use is attributable to the home size. This model will introduce systematic error.

Bias in regression estimates resulting from the omission of a relevant variable is also

a well -known phenomenon. While e valuators use experience, economic theory, and engineering principles to prevent this type of bias, t here is no statistical procedure to testing for this bias

. Reference m anual assumptions are another potential source of modeled error. Technical reference manuals describe estimation procedures that are designed to balance evaluation rigor with practical concerns. Engineering assumptions and stipulated or deemed parameter values can introduce bias.

H owever, if a deemed value is obtained from a study that reports the value ’s standard error, then this standard error can be incorporated into a later evaluation , provided the study’s target population is similar to the population being evaluated. In this case, the unknown bias can be accounted for within the evaluation’s standard error calculations

.
6.3 Sources of Random Error Most r andom errors are due to sampling, measurement, or regression /extrapolation

.
1. Sampling. Whenever a sample is selected to represent the population

— whether the sample is of appliances, meters, accounts, individuals, households, premises, or organizations—there will be some amount of random sampling error. Any selected sample is only one of a large number of possible samples of the same size and design that could have been drawn from that population. Sampling error and strategies for mitigating it are discussed in detail in the rest of this document. The primary topic of this chapter is the mitigation and quantification of sampling error.

2. Measurement. In a survey, random measurement error may be introduced by factors such as respondents’ incorrectly recalling dates, expenses, or by differences in a respondents’ mood or circumstances, which affect how they answer a question. Technical measurement s can also be a source of measurement error. (See item 1 and footnote 19 in the systematic e rror list .) These types of random measurement error are generally assumed to even out, so that they do not introduce systematic bias , but only increase the variability. For this reason, researchers often do not attempt to quantify the potential for bias due to random measurement error. However, measurement error can still be a source of variability, and researchers are encouraged to include this source of uncertainty in standard error

c alculations when it presents a significant threat to validity. 21

3. Regression. Regression error may arise at either the measure/site level, or at the population/stratum level.

21 ASHRAE Guideline 14

- 2002 and Guideline 2002R offer extensive guidance on accounting for measurement error. Also, see Section 8.6, Two

- Stage Sampling for Large Projects in this document fo r a related discussion.11 - 34 Site

- level regression error arises when site

- level savings estimates are obtaine d through regression (where a separate model is fitted to each site’s data, and each site’s savings is estimated through some function of the fitted parameters). For most site

- level regression procedures, standard regression theory will provide a way to es timate the standard error of each site’s savings estimate. These standard errors can then be accounted for in an evaluation’s uncertainty calculations using methods similar to those applied in two- stage sampling. ( See S ection 8.7: Two -Phase (Nested) Sampling , of Appendix C. Also, ASHRAE Guideline 14 provides further details.) Population- level regression error arises when a single regression model is fit to data from multiple sites —possibly the entire population of sites that installed some program measure of interest. For example, a billing analysis may estimate program- wide natural gas savings due to high- efficiency residential furnaces by fitting a regression to billing data from all program participants and a con trol group of nonparticipants. The standard error of such regression

- based estimates can be calculated with standard regression

related methods. Because the standard error applies to the estimate of total savings due to

a measure

— rather than site

- level sav ings—this standard error is rolled up into sector- or portfolio

- level savings uncertainty using the root -sum-of- squared

- error formula. (In other words, it is treated in precisely the same manner as stratum

- level sampling error.)

6.4 Mitigating Systematic Err or Determining the steps needed to mitigate systematic error is a more complex problem than mitigating random error, because various sources of systematic error are often specific to individual studies and procedures. To mitigate systematic error, evaluators typically need to invest in additional procedures (such as meter calibration, a pretest of measurement or survey protocols, a validation study, or a follow- up study) to obtain additional data to assess differences between participants who provided data and those who did not.
To determine how rigorously and effectively an evaluator has attempted to mitigate sources of systematic error, the following may be examined:

1. Were measurement procedures ( such as the use of observational forms or surveys ) pretested to determine if sources of measurement error could be corrected before the full

- scale fielding?

2. Were validation measures ( such as repeated measurements, inter

- rater reliability, or additional subsample metering) used to validate measurements?

3. Was the samp le frame carefully evaluated to determine what portions of the population, if any, were excluded in the sample ? I f so, what steps were taken to estimate the impact of excluding this portion of the population from the final results?

4. Were steps taken to minimize the effect of non -response or self

- selection in surveys or other data collection efforts? If non

- response appears to be an issue, w hat steps

were taken to evaluate the magnitude and direction of potential non- response bias?

5. Has the selection of formulas, models, and adjustments been conceptually justified? Has the evaluator tested the sensitivity of estimates to key assumptions required by the models?11 - 35 6. Did trained
, experienced professionals conduct the work ? W as the work checked and verified by a professional other than the one conducting the initial work? Many evaluation reports do not discuss any forms of uncertainty other than sampling error, which is quantified through confidence intervals for energy or demand savings. This is misleading because it suggests that (1) the confidence interval describes the total of all uncertainty sources (which is incorrect) or (2) the other sources of uncertainty are not important relative to sampling error. Sometimes, however, uncertainty due to other sources of erro r can be significant. A quality report should discuss a ll potentially significant sources of uncertainty so that research consumers can fully assess the evaluation’s rigor.

**6.4.1 Measurement Error**  Measurement error can result from inaccurate mechanical devices (such as meters or recorders), inaccurate recording of observations by researchers, or inaccurate responses to questions by study participants. Basic human error occurs in taking physical measurements or conducting analyses, surveys, or documentation acti vities.
For mechanical devices―such as meters or recorders―it is theoretically possible to perform tests with multiple meters or recorders of the same make and model to assess the variability in measuring the same value . However, for meters and most devices regularly used in energy efficiency evaluations, it is more practical to use manufacturer or industry study information on the likely amount of error for any single piece of equipment.
Assessing the level of measurement error for data obtained from rese archers’ observations or respondents’ reports is usually a subjective exercise, based on a qualitative analysis. This is because it is often impossible to make objective quantitative measures of these processes. The design of recording forms or questionnai res, the training and assessment of observers and interviewers, and the process of collecting data from study participants are all difficult to quantify.
Special studies of a subsample can be used to provide an assessment of the uncertainty potential in evaluation study results. For example:

• It is possible to have more than one researcher rate the same set of objects to evaluate the level of agreement between ratings.

• By conducting short- term metering of specific appliances for a subsample, an evaluator can verify information about appliance use.

• Participants can be re

- interviewed to test their answers to the same question at different times.

• Pretests or debriefing interviews can be conducted with participants to determine how they interpreted specific q uestions and constructed their responses.

**6.4.2 Non** 

**- Coverage and Non** 

**- Response**  Another challenge is estimating the effect of excluding a portion of the population from a sample (sample non-coverage) or of the failure to obtain data from a certain portion of the sample (non-11 - 36 response). The data needed to assess these error sources are typically the same as those needed to resolve the errors; but such data are usually unavailable.

However, for both non- coverage and non

- response, it is sometimes possible to design s pecial studies to estimate the uncertainty level introduced.

• If a particular portion of the population was not included in the original sample design, it is possible to conduct a small-scale study on a sample of the excluded group. For example, conducting a special study of respondents who are in a particular geographical area or who are living in a certain type of housing can help determine the magnitude and direction of differences in calculated values for this portion of the population.

• In some situati ons―such as a survey―it is also possible to conduct a follow -up study of a sample of members from whom data were not obtained. This follow-up would also provide data to determine if non- respondents were different from respondents, as well as an estimate of the magnitude and direction of the difference.11 - 37 

### 7 Appendix B. Fundamental Estimates and Uncertainty Calculations This section describes basic estimators commonly used in energy efficiency evaluations. Standard errors and other important formulas are also provided. These are fundamental to quantifying uncertainty , and they provide the foundation for basic sample design. For all formulas and examples in this section assume the data are collected through a simple random sample of size n from a very large population. 22

Many research questions can be phrased in terms of :

• A population average , such as average savings among program participants or proportion of participants with gas heat

• A population total , such as total savings among all program participants or total number of customers with gas heat. For consistency, this section’s results are generally expressed in terms of averages. To estimate a population total, simply multiply the estimated average by the population size. The resulting estimate’s standard error is the population size times the standard error of the average estimate. Because both the estimator and its standard error are multiplied by the population size, the relative precision is unaffected when translating between estimates of population averages and estimates of population totals.

7.1 Estimating a Population Proportion Many energy efficiency evaluation tasks use survey data, which are typically used to estimate proportions. To estimate the proportion of the population having characteristic x (s uch as the proportion of utility customers who are aware of a given program), we use this formula:

p̂ = n x
n

Where:

n x = the number of sample points with characteristic x

n = the sample size.
To quantify the uncertainty surrounding this estim ate, calculate the standard error and then calculate the precision.

22 When the population is not very large, a non

- negligible finite population correction will apply to standard errors. Simple random samples with finite population corrections are discussed in detail in Section 8.1, Simple Random Sam pling in Appendix C.11 - 38 The standard error of a proportion is most often 23 calculated as:

SE � ( p̂ ) = � p̂ (1 − p̂ )

n

The absolute precision is then calculated as:

Absolute Precision ( p̂ ) = z ∙ SE � ( p̂ )

Not e that the absolute precision equation does not involve dividing by the original estimate. This is different from energy savings estimates , wh ere uncertainty is generally expressed in terms of relative precision. However, in process- related contexts, relat ive precision for a proportion can be a confusing measure, as the next example shows.

Example B-1 In a survey of 400 participants regarding their experience with a rebate program, we estimate the proportion of program participants satisfied with their reba te amount as p̂ = 92% . We can then calculate the absolute precision at the 90% confidence level:

Absolute Precision ( p̂ ) = 1. 645 � 0. 92 ( 1

− 0. 92 )
400 = 2. 2%

Thus, we are 90% confident that the proportion of participants satisfied with the rebate is betwee n 89.8% and 94.2%.
The relative precision, however, is calculated as:

Relative Precision ( p̂ ) = 1. 645 � 0. 92 (1

− 0. 92 ) 400 0. 92 = 2. 4%

The relative and absolute formulations are both describing the same range of values, but the relative version express es the confidence interval ( CI ) width as a proportion of a proportion. It says the CI has a width of 2.4% of 92%.
Not only is this confusing, it also leads to precision values that depend on how study results are communicated. The same study results could be communicated in terms of the proportion of participants who are not satisfied with the rebate amount. In this case, we have:

23 When p̂ is very close to one or zero, confidence intervals should be calculated through alternative means, such as the exact binomial method (see Example B

- 2). An oft

- cited rule is that the exact method should be used if either n x or n − n x is less than five.11 - 39 Absolute Precision ( 1

− p � ) = 1. 645 � 0. 08 ( 1

− 0. 08 )
400 = 2. 2%

Relative Precision ( 1

− p � ) = 1. 645 � 0. 08 ( 1

− 0. 08 ) 400 0. 08 = 27

. 8%

While the absolute precision is the same as before, the relative precision is more than 10 times larger than previously calculated. As a result, someone reading the results might think the “unsatisfied” estimate is less precise than the “satisfied” estimate, despite the fact they convey identical information. [End of Example]

In general, we recommend that precision for population proportions be e xpressed in absolute terms, especially when the research question is attitudinal or demographic. However, when the research target is a direct indicator of savings (such as the proportion of program-provided

measures that are actually installed), relative precision may be preferred

. In Example B-1, the population proportion was estimated as p̂ = 92%

. Because the sample was of size n = 400 , the data must have comprised n x = 368 positive survey responses and

n − n x = 32 negative responses. Neither of these is less than five, so we were justified in using methods that assume p̂ has an approximately normal sampling error. The next example illustrates the exact binomial method , which does not require the normality assumption. 24

Example B-2 To verify the inst allation of measures that are recorded in a program database, we survey 50 participants, of whom 48 indicate they have installed the measure noted in the database. Thus, we estimate the percentage of participants who have installed the measure as p̂ = 96%

. However, with only two negative survey responses, we cannot say that the sampling error of p̂ is approximately normal. Therefore , we need a method for obtaining a confidence interval that does not appeal to normality through a z -value. One option is the exact binomial method.
In a survey of n = 50 randomly selected people, th e number of positive responses, n x , follows a binomial distribution with 5 0 trials and an unknown “success” probability p for each trial. To construct a 90% CI for p , we calculat e the upper and lower CI bounds separately.

24 The exact binomial never understates uncertainty, but it often overstates it. This conservatism may be appropriate for some applications, and inappropriate for others. See Agresti (2003) or Brown, Cai, and DasGupta (2001) for details and alternative methods. In spite of the apparent simplicity of estimating a population proportion, there is no full consensus on the most desirable confidence interval for this problem among practicing statisticians. Alan Agresti, Bren t Coull, George Casella, and others have attached insightful comments to the Brown, Cai, and DasGupta paper.11 - 40 For the CI lower bound, we must answer the question, “ What is the smallest p for which the probability of obtaining 4 8 or more ‘successes’ is less than 5 %?” In Excel, this question can be answered using

= Binom. inv (5 0 , p , 0.9 5)

For a given value of p , this function returns the smallest integer m for which the probability that

n x ≤ m is at least as large as 0.9 5.

If we choose a value p for which the function returns m = 48

− 1 , then we know that the probability of 4 8 or more successes is no greater than 5 % for the chosen p

. After finding a p for which the function returns a value of 47, we adjust p upward until the function returns a value of 4 8. Write p̂ lower for the largest p for which the function returns a value of 47. Then we are 95% confident that p ≥ p̂ lower . In this example, the exact binomial method yields p̂ lower = 87

. 9%

. A similar process yields the CI upper bound, p̂ upper = 99

. 3% . Thus, our estimate is p̂ = 96% , and the exact binomial 90% confidence interval for p is

87 .9% ≤ p ≤ 99

. 3% For comparison, the normal- based confidence interval is

91 .4% ≤ p ≤ 100%
The normal- based confidence interval understates uncertainty relative to the exact binomial confidence interval. [End of Example]

In an extreme case, all survey responses may be affirmative. Then with no variability in the data, there is no basis for constructing a normal-based CI. However, it would not be credible to report 100% confidence that 100% of the population is in the affirmative category. The exact binomial method will yield a credible CI in such cases.

7.2 Using a Sample Mean to Estimate a Population Mean Evaluation s often need to estimate the average energy consumption for particular equipment types, such as residential refrigeration. When no useful auxiliary information is available, 25 the population average is estimated by the sample mean,

x̅ = ∑ x i

n

25 Auxiliary information is discussed in the next section.11 - 41 To quantify the uncertainty surrounding this estimate, calculate the standard error and then the precision. T he sample mean’s standard error is:

SE � ( x̅ ) = s √

n
Here, the sample standard deviation, s , is calculated as:

s = � ∑ ( x̅ − x i ) 2

n − 1

The absolute and relative precision are then calculated as:

Absolut e Precision ( x̅ ) = z ∙ SE � ( x̅ ) = z ∙ s √ n ⁄

Relative Precision ( x̅ ) = z ∙ SE � ( x̅ )
x̅ = z ∙ s √ n ⁄

x̅
Example B-3 A metering stud y of 70 CFLs finds the hours of use to average 2.0 per day, with a standard deviation of 0.82 hours. Precision can then be estimated as:

Absolute Precision ( x̅ ) = 1. 645
∙ 0. 82 hrs/day √ 70 = 0. 16 hrs/day

Relative Precision ( x̅ ) = 1. 645
∙ � 0. 16 hrs/day
2. 15 hrs/day � = 7. 5%

Thus, we are 90% confident that average CFL usage is between 1.84 and 2.16 hours per day. Alternately, we can say that the mean hours of use is 2 hours per day, with ± 9.8% precisi on at the 90% confidence level.

[End of Example]

7.3 Using a Ratio Estimator to Estimate a Population Mean When estimating the population mean of some variable y that is closely correlated with some other variable x― which is known for every member of the population―a ratio estimator should be used to take advantage of the correlation. The known variable x is called an auxiliary variable

. In energy efficiency evaluation s , this is most often seen in realization rates, wher e the goal is to estimate the evaluated savings total, and the program database includes claimed savings estimates for each member of the population.
For commercial and industrial projects, claimed savings values often incorporate site

- specific information, such as square footage of conditioned space and hours of operation. In these cases, claimed values vary from project to project and the values can reasonably be expected to correlate with evaluated savings values.11 - 42 The primary interest is in estimat ing the population mean of some variable y (denoted μ y ), where the variable x i is known for every member of the population. (Thus, μ x , the population mean of the x i , is also known.) Then the ratio- based estimate of μ y is 26

μ̂ y = ∑ y i ∑ x i ∙ μ x

The ratio estimator is technically biased, but its (unquantifiable) bias will generally be negligible compared to its standard error, provided the sample is not too small (ideally, the sample size should be at least 30). This can be a problem when separate ratio estimators are used for small strata; to avoid this issue savings from small strata should be estimated using a combined stratified ratio estimator, as described in Appendix C. Sample Design and Weighted Estimates

.
The ratio estimator is similar to the estimator obtained by fitting the regression model y = bx

. However, software that is not survey- oriented generally does not treat uncertainty correctly for (design- based ) ratio estimators. 27 This deficiency is especially pronounced with weighted estimators, because design

- based weights describe selection p robabilities (see Appendix C. Sample Design and Weighted Estimates ), whereas ordinary regression weights quantify observation- level standard errors.
The only source of uncertainty in this estimate is the uncertaint y in the estimated realization rate,

r̂ = ∑ y i ∑ x i Estimator uncertainty is quantified through the standard error. Th e realization rate’s standard error is: 28

Standard error of realization rate = SE � ( r̂ ) = 1 √

n � � ( y i − r̂ ∙ x i ) 2
x̅ 2

∙ ( n − 1 )

26 All summations in this section are taken over the sample, not the population. This p oint can sometimes lead to confusion when working with ratio estimators.

27 Sample

- based inference, which is based on the selection probabilities inherited from the sample design, is often called design

- based . By default, regression software usually applie s model

- based inference.

28 The denominator in this expression uses the sample mean x̅ , rather than the population mean μ x . This is consistent with Särndal 1992 (page 181, eq. 5.6.12) and the California Evaluation Protocol, but Lohr 1999 (page 68, eq. 3.7) uses the population mean instead. None of these references explicitly compare s the two choices. Both possibilities are mentioned in Cochran 1977 (page 155, eqns. 6.12 and 6.13) and in Thompson 2002 (page 69, eqns. 5 and 7), but neither reference states a clear preference. One reason for our preference is that the standard error cou ld be “gamed” by choosing small

- scale projects if the population mean were used.11 - 43 Thus, the standard error of the ratio- based estimate of μ y is:

SE � �μ̂ y � = SE � ( r̂ ∙ μ x ) = SE � ( r̂ ) ∙ μ x = 1 √

n ∙ μ x x̅ ∙ � � ( y i − r̂ ∙ x i ) 2

n − 1

To express these standard errors more succinctly, write:

s ( ratio ) = � � ( y i − r̂ ∙ x i ) 2

n − 1

Then the expressions become:

SE � ( r̂ ) = s ( ratio) √

n ∙ 1
x̅

SE � �μ̂ y � = SE � ( r̂ ∙ μ x ) = s ( ratio) √

n ∙ μ x x̅

To see how ratio

- based estimates leverage auxiliary data to increase study efficiency, compare this formula with the standard error of the sample mean in the previous section. The ratio- based standard error only has to account for the portion of variability in the y i that is not explained by the reali zation

- rate

- adjusted x i . In cases where the realization rate itself is of primary interest, precision may be best described in absolute terms. However, when a population average (or total) is the estimation target, relative precision is usually neede d. Depending on context, the precision is calculated with one of the following expressions.

Absolute Precision ( r̂ ) = z ∙ SE � ( r̂ )

Relative Precision ( r̂ ) = z ∙ SE � ( r̂ ) r̂

Relative Precision( μ̂ y ) = z ∙ SE � �μ̂ y � μ̂ y = z ∙ SE � ( r̂ ∙ μ x ) r̂ ∙ μ x = z ∙ SE � ( r̂ ) r̂

Note that the relative precision of the estimated evaluated mean , μ̂ y = r̂ ∙ μ x , is exactly the same as the relative precision of the realization rate, r̂ . This is because SE � ( r̂ ∙ μ x ) = SE � ( r̂ ) ∙ μ x , so the evaluated total’s relative precision expression has cancelling factors of μ x in its numerator and denominator.

Example B-4 In an impact evaluation for a commercial efficiency program, n = 20 projects are randomly selected for on- site verification. For each site, we have both claimed and evaluated savings11 - 44 estimates. 29 The claimed total for the sampled sites is 607,415 kWh and the evaluated total for the sampled sites is 745,104 kWh, so t he estimated realization rate is 1.227.

T he data and the line y = 1. 227 ∙ x are plotted in Figure 2

. Figure 2 : Verified Versus Claimed Savings Values

For these data, s ( ratio) = 6, 176 kWh and y� = 39
, 216 kWh. Thus, at the 90% confidence level, the re lative precision is :

Relative Precision( r̂ ∙ μ x ) = 1. 645
∙ 6, 176 √ 20 ⁄
39
, 216 = 5. 8%

If we ignored the auxiliary ( claimed ) data and used the sample mean estimator, N ∙ y� , instead of the ratio estimator, we would need to replace s ( ratio) with the standard deviation of the sample’s verified savings numbers (in this case, s = 12
, 132 kWh). We would then obtain this:

Relative Precision ( N ∙ y� ) = 1. 645
∙ 12
, 132 √ 20 ⁄
39
, 216 = 11

. 4%

Here, the ratio estimator’s precision is roughly one- half of th e mean

- based estimator’s precision. This is because the ratio estimator’s s -factor only needs to account for deviations between verified savings values and realization rate

- adjusted claimed values ( y i − r̂ ∙ x i ) . However, the

mean

- based s

- factor (t he usual sample standard deviation) must account for deviation between each verified savings value and the mean of the verified savings values ( y i − y� )

. Figure 3 shows the spread of the two types of deviations for this example.

29 Claimed values are the values in the program database, and evaluated values are engineering estimates based on data collected on

- site during the evaluation. y = 1.227x

15 25 35 45 55

15 25 35 45 55Verified kWh (thousands)

Ex Ante kWh (thousands)11 - 45 Figure 3 : Comparison of Verified Savings Deviations

[End of Example]

To develop intuition, it is helpful to think of the sizes of s ( ratio) and s relative to y� , rather than in absolute terms. Example B-4 had s ( ratio) y� ⁄ = 15

. 7% and s y� ⁄ = 30

. 9% . The expression

s ( ratio) y� ⁄ is called the error ratio (ER), and s y� ⁄ is the coefficient of variation (CV). These quantities describe the typical deviation size as a percentage of the t ypical project size. In general, the deviations captured by s ( ratio) and s may reflect a number of unpredictable factors. For s ( ratio) , the deviations between verified savings and adjusted claimed savings may result from factors such as poor data handling at the time of implementation, changes in site conditions since implementation, or changes in the number of shifts operating at the site. The standard deviation s may be influenced any of these factors, plus general variability among project size s. As a result, the ER and CV do not obey any firm rules, except that the ER will generally be smaller than the CV whenever verified savings is roughly proportional to claimed savings. 30 (Also, most evaluators would agree that an ER of 15.7% and a CV of 30.9% are quite small for a commercial program.)

Example B-5 The program database for a commercial gas efficiency program indicates 9.42 million Mcf [thousand cubic feet] of claimed ( claimed )savings program-wide, so we will conduct 40 site visits to verify th e claimed savings. The 40 sampled sites account for a total of 2.00 mMcf in claimed savings, and our site visits verify a total of 1.70 mMcf in savings. Then we have:

30 In general, the ratio estimator will be more efficient than the mean

- based estimator if the correlation between x and y is greater than 0.5
∙ CV( x )

∙ CV( y ) (Cochran, 1977, page 157). -30 -15

0 15 30kWh in Thousands

Deviations from Mean Deviations from Adj. Ex Ante11 - 46 r̂ = 1.7 mMcf 2.0 Mcf ⁄ = 85

. 0%
y� = 1.7 mMcf 40 ⁄ = 0. 0425 mMcf

x̅ = 2.0 mMcf 40 ⁄ = 0. 0500 mMcf
Our data yields s ( ratio) = 0. 0233 mMcf , so the error ratio is :

ER = 0. 0233 mMcf 0. 0425 mMcf ⁄ = 54

. 8%

At the 90% confidence level, t he realization rate’s absolute precision is :

Absolute Precision ( r̂ ) = 1. 645
∙ s ( ratio) √

n ∙ 1
x̅ = 1. 645
∙ 0. 0233 √

40 ∙ 1
0. 05 = 0. 121

In other words, we have 90% confidence that the population realization rate is within 12.1 percentage points of 85%.
We estimate the program

- wide total savings as 0. 85
∙ 9. 42 mMcf = 8. 01 mMcf.
To calculate the relative precision of this estimate, we use : 31

Relative Precision ( r̂ ∙ μ x ) = 1. 645
∙ s ( ratio) √ n ⁄ y� = 1. 645
∙ 0. 0233 √ 40 ⁄
0. 0425 = 14

. 3%

So, we are 90% confident that the actual program savings is within 14.3% percent of 8. 02 mMcf.
If we ignored the auxiliary ( claimed ) data and used the sample mean estimator, N ∙ y� , instead of the ratio estimator, we would have to replace the error ratio, s ( ratio) y� ⁄ = 54

. 8% , with the coefficient of variation, s y� ⁄

. As noted earlier, the CV will be g reater than the ER when evaluated and claimed values are strongly correlated. For example, if the CV in this example is 93.1%, then the mean- based estimator would be much less precise:

Relative Precision ( N ∙ y� ) = 1. 645
∙ 0. 931
∙ 1 √

40 = 24

. 2% [End of Example]

31 Recall that the relative precision of the population total estimate is the same as t he relative precision of the population mean estimate, because both of the estimates and their standard errors differ by a factor of N from one setting to the other.11 - 47 7.4 Estimating a Difference or Sum S ums and differences of estimated quantities arise frequently in evaluation work. Two prominent examples are:

• Combining savings across domains or strata. Large studies are often composed of multiple distinct resea rch tasks for which the savings from the various research domains are to be summed to estimate the composite savings.

• Calculating savings as a difference. Savings is the difference between consumption in an inefficient scenario and consumption in an effic ient one. Because energy efficiency evaluations seek to estimate these savings, evaluators often need to estimate a difference rather than a mean or proportion.

Assum e independent, unbiased estimates
, x� and y� , of target quantities x and y

. The dif ference or sum of the two estimates is an unbiased estimate of the difference or sum of the targets :

x ± y � = x� ± y�

The standard error of the estimated difference or sum is then a function of bot h estimators . In general, this is:

SE ( x� ± y� ) = � SE ( x� ) 2 + SE ( y� ) 2 + 2
∙ Cov ( x�

, y� )

Here, Cov ( x�

, y� ) is the covariance of the two estimators. When the two estimators are based on separate, independently drawn samples, their sampling errors will be independent and their covariance will equal z ero. In such cases, the formula reduces to:

SE ( x� ± y� ) = � SE ( x� ) 2 + SE ( y� ) 2

When the sampling errors are not independent, the evaluator will either need to estimate the covariance 32 or employ an alternate method, such as the bootstrap.

The abso lute and relative precision are then estimated as:

Absolute Precision ( x� ± y� ) = z ∙ SE � ( x� ± y� )

Relative Precision ( x� ± y� ) = z ∙ � SE � ( x� ± y� ) x� ± y� �

Example B-6 A utility ran a CFL program and a refrigerator -recycling program, so the e valuator randomly sampled 30 projects from the CFL program and independently sampled 35 projects from the recycling program. The CFL sample led to an estimated program savings of 20 GWh, and the

32 The procedure for evaluating the covariance will depend on the particular estimators a nd their relationship to one another.11 - 48 refrigerator -recycling program had an estimated savings of 5 GWh. The total portfolio savings was then estimated as 25 GWh.
Assume both program- level estimators had 10% relative precision at the 90% confidence level. To evaluate the uncertainty of total savings, we first calculate the standard error for each progra m:

SE � ( CFL Savings ) = 10%
∙ 20 GWh
1. 645 = 1. 22 GWh

SE � (Refrigerator Savings) = 10%
∙ 5 GWh
1. 645 = 0. 30 GWh

The total program relative precision is then :

Relative Precision ( Portfolio Savings ) = 1. 645
∙ � ( 1. 22 ) 2 + ( 0. 30 ) 2
20 + 5 = 8. 2%
[End of Example]

7.5 Estima ting a Product In some instances, the product of two estimates is required. A common example of this is in using installation rates, where the proportion of measures installed is multiplied by an estimated per-unit savings to arrive at final verified savings.

In general, the exact standard error of a product is quite complicated, 33 but when the two estimators’ sampling errors are independent, the standard error is :

SE ( x� ∙ y� ) = � ( x� ∙ SE ( y� ) ) 2 + ( y� ∙ SE ( x� ) ) 2 + ( SE ( x� )

∙ SE ( y� ) ) 2

33 The delta method yields a reasonably simple approximation that includes a covariance term. However, in evaluation work, there are few circumstances in which a product of two non

- independent estimators is needed. In these rare cases, one should either apply the bootstrap method or, if the covariance can be estimated, the delta method.11 - 49 Example B-7 For an evaluation of an HVAC program, the estimated gross annual unit energy savings is 200 kWh, with a standard error of 12 .2 kWh/year . (This corresponds to 10% rel ative precision.)
The client and regulator have agreed that net savings will be calculated using the net- to -gross ( NTG ) ratio from a previous year’s evaluation. The earlier evaluation reported an NTG estimate of 80% with a SE of 3.2% (absolute precision) at the 90% confidence level. Net unit savings is then estimated as 200 kWh
∙ 0.8 = 160 kWh per year.

Because the NTG estimate is independent of the gross estimate, the relative precision of net per

unit savings is:

1. 645 � ( 80%
∙ 12 .2 ) 2 + ( 200
∙ 3. 2% ) 2 + ( 12 .2
∙ 3. 2% ) 2
160 = 12

. 0%

Note that the net savings estimate is less precise than the gross savings estimate (12% versus 10% relative precision, respectively). This is due to the additional uncertainty introduced through the NTG factor. [End of Example]

7.6 Summary of Analytical Techniques

Table 8 summarizes the basic formula s used for analysis of simple random samples.

Table 8: Sample Analysis Formula s for Large Populations

Estimator and Target Quantity Expression Standard Error Data T ype

Sample p roportion ( p ̂ ) ; Population proportion ( p ) n x
n 1 √

n ∙ � p ̂ ( 1

− p ̂ ) = s ( p ) √

n Binomial

Sample mean ( x ̅ ) ; Population mean ( μ x ) ∑ x i

n 1 √

n ∙ � ∑ ( x ̅

− x i ) 2

n
− 1 = s √

n Quantitativ

e

Ratio e stimator ( r ̂

∙ μ x ) ; Population mean ( μ y ) ∑ y i ∑ x i ∙ μ x 1 √

n ∙ � ∑ ( y i − r ̂ x i ) 2

n
− 1 ∙ μ x
x ̅ = s ( ratio) √

n ∙ μ x
x ̅ Quantitativ

e

Sum (or difference) * x � ± y � � SE ( x � ) 2 + SE ( y � ) 2 Either

Product * x �

∙ y � � ( x �

∙ SE ( y � ) ) 2 + ( y �

∙ SE ( x � ) ) 2 + ( SE ( x � )

∙ SE ( y � ) ) 2 Either

* The indicated standard error formula is only valid if estimators are statistically independent (see the previous two subsections).11 - 50 

### 8 Appendix C. Sample Design and Weighted Estimates For the estimators in Appendix B, it was assumed the sample was drawn through simple random sampling from a large population. This section discusses estimation with more general sam ple designs. Much of the discussion focuses on stratified designs and related topics, such as weighted estimators and sample optimization. We also discuss sampling with probability proportional to size and two

- stage sampling for assessing savings for large projects.

8.1 Simple Random Sampling In many ways, simple random sampling (SRS) is the most natural and intuitive sample design. In fact, more complicated designs can often be thought of as modifications or combinations of SRS.
As the name suggests, SRS with out replacement is the simplest random sampling approach, equivalent to “drawing n names from a hat.” 34 The defining feature is that the final sample could be any set of n distinct names, and all such sets are equally likely. Thus, for an SRS of size n from a population of size N , each individual unit has selection probability n N ⁄

.
**8.1.1 Sample Means with FPC**  The only difference between this section and the sample mean discussion in Appendix B is that a very large population is no longer assumed.

Example C-1 For estimat ing the average number of incandescent bulbs still operating in residences within some utility’s territory , the estimation target is the population mean,

μ x = x 1 + x 2 + ⋯ + x N N
Here,

N = utility’s total number of residential customers (the population size)

x i = the number of incandescent bulbs operating at the i th residence.

To estimate μ x , we directly verify the number of incandescent bulbs in each of n homes, where the homes are selected via SRS. Based on these data, the most natural estimate of μ x is the sample mean:

x̅ = 1

n � x i

sampled i

34 The names are drawn without replacement, which means once a name is drawn, it is excluded from subsequent selection rounds. Thus, no name can be drawn more than once.11 - 51 The standard error of the sample mean of an SRS is:

SE � ( x̅ ) = � 1

− n N ∙ 1 √

n ∙ � � ( x i − x̅ ) 2 ( n − 1 ) sample = � 1

− n N ∙ s √

n

[End of Example]

Readers who are familiar with the statistical properties of sample means but not familiar with finite population inference may be surprised by the factor of � 1 − n N ⁄ in the standard error expression.

This is called the finit e population correction (FPC) , and it is a direct result of the SRS sample design. The FPC can be thought of as accounting for the fact that when the sample represents a significant fraction of the population, the uncertainty about the population mean is reduced. Note that when the population size is very large compared to the sample size, the ratio n / N will be close to zero, so the FPC will be close to one. In other words, the FPC is negligible for large populations. 35 In contrast, when the sample size is large so that n / N is close to one, the FPC (and hence the standard error) will be close to zero. A very large sample size means that most of the population has been measured directly, leaving little uncertainty about the population mean.
Determining an appropriate sample size is a critical step in planning a study. This determination is generally based on an agreed -upon precision target and some fixed confidence level. The general procedure uses the relevant precision formula and the target precision and confidence levels to express the necessary sample size in terms of important population quanti ties.
For the sample mean under SRS, the relative precision formula is typically used:

Relative Precision ( x̅ ) = z

∙ SE � ( x̅ )
x̅
The simplest way to calculate the sample size proceeds in two steps:

1. Calculate an initial sample size
, n 0 , using the large -population standard error formula (that is, the formula without the FPC).

2. Adjust the initial sample size to account for the FPC in the true standard error.
The next example illustrates Step 1 and is followed by a brief discussion of the parameters that drive sample sizes. Step 2 is discussed at the end of this section.

35 The proportion, sample mean, and ratio estimator sections of Appendix B provided standard error formulas that are valid under the assumption that the FPC is negligible.11 - 52 Example C-2 To estimate the population mean to within 10% of its true value with 90% confidence, Step 1 ignores the FPC to obtain the initial sample size, n 0 . This is the smallest integer that yields

0.10 ≥ 1. 645
∙ s / � n 0 x̅
Equivalently, n 0 is the smallest integer that satisfies this equation:

n 0 ≥ � 1. 645
0. 10 � 2 ∙ � s x̅ � 2

The quantity s / x̅ is called the sample coefficient of variation (CV). This factor will not be known until after the data are collected. Past experience is the best guide for determining plausible values for the CV.

If the sample

- based CV is greater than was expected when the sampling plan was developed, t he study will fail to meet the agreed -upon confidence/precision target. For large studies, it may be advisable to (1) conduct a pilot study to estimate the CV in advance of the primary data collection effort or (2) plan for staged data collection so that s ample sizes for later stages can be adjusted to reflect the CV observed through earlier stages. In all cases, the evaluator and the client should agree in advance on the measures to be taken to ensure an adequate sample size. [End of Example]

As shown in the calculation in Example C-2 , the large

- population sample size formula is:

n 0 = � z ∙ CV

e rel. � 2

W here:

CV is the coef ficient of variation, the standard deviation divided by the mean

e rel. is the desired level of relative precision

z is the critical value of the standard normal distribution value for the desired con fidence level

For example, for 90% confidence, 10% precision , and a CV of 0.5, t he initial sample size is :

n 0 = � 1. 645
∙ 0.5
0. 10 � 2

= 67 .7

Therefore, a sample of size 68 should be used here if the FPC is negligible. (Researchers often assume a CV of 0. 5 when determining sample sizes, and because 90/10 confidence/precision is a common target, samples of size 68 are very common.)11 - 53 One reason CVs of 0.5 are often reasonable in evaluation work is that the savings values are typically positive for all (or ne arly all) projects. If 95% of a program’s projects have savings between zero and 200% of the mean savings, and if the savings values are approximately normally -distributed, then a CV of 0.5 will apply. 36 This value, however, should not be applied without due consideration of the expected nature of program savings. The justification noted here does not apply if project savings are heavily skewed towards large savers (in this case, the normality assumption fails). A stratified design (described later in this a ppendix) can often resolve this sort of skew and yield an effective CV that is closer to 0.5. In general, comparable previous studies and evaluation experience are the best guides for assessing likely CV values.
Because the FPC reduces standard error, it also reduces sample size required for any fixed levels of precision and confidence and fixed CV. The finite population adjustment reduces the necessary sample size as follows:

n = n 0 ∙ N

n 0 + N
In Example C-2, if the target pop ulation is of size N = 200, then the population is only three times the size of the sample. In this case, the finite population adjustment reduces the required sample size from 68 to 50:

n = 68
∙ 200
68 + 200 ≈ 50

**8.1.2 Population Proportions and Ratio Estimators**  **W ith FPC**  Proportion esti mates and ratio estimates can both be interpreted as versions of sample means. Thus, under SRS, these estimators’ standard errors and sample sizes undergo finite population adjustments that are identical to their sample mean analogues.
The estimators themselves are unchanged from the large population case:

p̂ = n x
n r̂ ∙ μ x = ∑ y i ∑ x i ∙ μ x

Their standard errors, however, are multiplied by a finite population correction, just as in the sample mean case:

36 Recall that for a normal distribution, approximately 95% of the population will fall within two standard deviations (SD) of the mean. If the CV equals 0.5, then the SD is one half of the mean. Thus, the 95% interval, mean ± 2 SD, is the same as mean ± mean (the mean, plus or minus itself). In other words, if the CV is 0.5 and the data are normal, the 95% CI will range from 0 to 200% of the mean. Again, if one is willing to assert that the data will be normal and that most of the members of the population will fall between 0 and 200% of the mean, then a CV of 0.5 is appropriate.11 - 54 SE � ( p̂ ) = � 1

− n N ∙ � p̂ ∙ ( 1 − p̂ ) √

n

SE � ( r̂ ∙ μ x ) = � 1

− n N ∙ 1 √

n ∙ � � ( y i − r̂ ∙ x i ) 2

n − 1 = � 1

− n N ∙ s ( ratio) √

n ∙ μ x x̅

Sample size calculations for both population proportions and ratio estimators are similar to the sample mean calculations. Calcu late an initial sample size, n 0 , using the large-population standard error formu la and then apply a finite population adjustment.
For population proportions the large-population precision formula is:

e abs. = z ∙ SE � ( p̂ ) = z ∙ � p̂ (1 − p̂ )

n 0
So the initial sample size formula is:

n 0 = � z

e abs. � 2 ∙ p ( 1 − p )

In this formula, z is as before and e abs. is the absolute precision target. If there is no basis for making a priori assumptions about p , then use p = 0.5
, because p ( 1 − p ) obtains its maximum with this value.
For both population proportions and ratio estimators, the FPC reduces the necessary sample size as before. In both cases, the final sample size is:

n = n 0 ∙ N

n 0 + N
Example C-3 For a large population, the requirement for estimat ing a population proportion to within 5 percentage points , with 90% confidence , is this:

n 0 ≥ � 1. 645
0. 05 � 2 ∙ p ( 1 − p )

The quantity p ( 1 − p ) can never be greater than 0.5 ( 1

− 0.5 ) = 0. 25 , so the precision target is guaranteed to be met if :

n 0 ≥ � 1. 645
0. 05 � 2

∙ ( 0.5 ) 2 = 270 .6

Thus, if the population is very large and there is no a priori knowledge of p , then to meet the 90/5 standard, plan for the study to achieve at least 271 complete responses.11 - 55 Now assume there are only N = 550 individuals in the target population. Then the FPC reduces the required sample size to :

n = 270 .6
∙ 550
270 .6 + 550 = 181 .4

In this case, plan for 182 complete survey responses.

[End of Example]

When the ratio estimator r̂ ∙ μ x is used to estimate the population mean μ y , the large -population precision formula is:

e rel. = z ∙ SE � ( r̂ ∙ μ x ) r̂ ∙ μ x = z ∙ s ( ratio) � n 0 � y�
Therefore, the initial sample size formula is:

n 0 ( r̂ ∙ μ x ) = � z

e re l. � 2 � s ( ratio) y� � 2

This formula is identical to the one obtained for the sample mean, except that the standard deviation, s , has been replaced with s ( ratio) , which quantifies only that portion of variability not explained through the auxiliary information.

The quantity s ( ratio) / y� is called the error ratio (ER)

. 37 When the x and y variables are correlated, the error ratio will tend to be smaller than the CV, so the ratio

- based estimator will be more efficient than the sample mean.

As indicated above, the FPC reduces the necessary sample size precisely as before. In both cases, the final sample size is:

n = n 0 ∙ N

n 0 + N

37 The California Evaluation Framework prescribes a model

- assisted approach, based on evidence that deviations between evaluated values y i and adjusted claimed values r̂x i tend to scale in proportion to x i γ for some γ ≈ 0.8

. This approach leads to a different procedure for estimating the error ratio. When greater efficiency may be gained through this well

- studied model

- based approach, researchers are encouraged to apply it.11 - 56 **8.1.3 Summary of SRS Estimators**  The important equations for SRS are listed in Table 9

.

Table 9: Results for Simple Random Samples

Estimator Expression Standard Error Initial Sample Size Sample Size W ith FPC Sample mean ∑ x i

n � 1

− n N ∙ s √

n n 0 = � z

e rel. � 2

∙ ( CV ) 2 n 0 ∙ N

n 0 + N

Sample proportion n x
n � 1

− n N ∙ � p ( 1

− p )

√

n n 0 = � z

e abs. � 2

∙ p ( 1

− p ) n 0 ∙ N

n 0 + N

Ratio e stimator ∑ y i ∑ x i ∙ μ x � 1

− n N ∙ s ( ratio) √

n ∙ μ x
x ̅ n 0 = � z

e rel. � 2

∙ ( ER ) 2 n 0 ∙ N

n 0 + N

8.2 Stratified Random Sampling Stratified sampling entails partitioning the population into distinct groups (called strata ) and drawing samples independently from each stratum. In some cases, the groupings reflect qualitative population characteristics. For example, participants in a commercial HVAC program may be stratified by business type, or participants in a comprehensive nonresidential program may be separated by custom versus prescriptive projects. Strat a may also be created to group the population into size categories according to claimed savings values in the program database.
The main reason for using stratified sampling is to reduce the variance in a population- wide estimator by separating the populat ion into homogeneous groups. Population- level uncertainty is then driven exclusively by within -stratum variation. As a result, when homogeneous groupings are available , stratified random sampling is almost always more efficie nt than simple random sampling. In addition, in cases of study domains with particularly small populations, stratification ensures that every relevant stratum is represented in the sample. (This may not be case in simple random sampling.)
Stratification is a very f lexible tool in its application. For instance, the population of program participants may first be divided into sector and fuel type groupings and then stratified by size. The particular choice of stratification variable (s) will depend on context.

For this section, assume that (1) the population has been partitioned into H non-overlapping strata and (2) the stratum population sizes are given by N 1 , N 2 , ... , N H . Also assume that each stratum’s sample is selected via simple random sampling within the stratum. 38 For example, within stratum h , an SRS of size n h is been drawn from a group of N h individuals, so each

38 Stratification can also be employed with more general probability sampling within each stratum. (This is described in most sample design textbooks.) When an alternative scheme is used, the researcher should clearly describe the sampling scheme and the estimator with references (or direct calculations) explaining why standard error calculations are valid indicators of uncertainty.11 - 57 sampled unit repres ents N h n h

⁄ members of the population. Thus, the weight of a unit sampled from stratum h is w h = N h n h

⁄

. Stratified designs bring new notational requirements. For most objects, a subscripted h will indicate stratum number, and a subscripted all will indicate that an object spans all strata. Most stratified approaches are more easily understood when research tasks are expressed in terms of population totals (and their estimators) rather than population means, so the notation also makes this distinction.
The general conventions for this section are as follows.

Population Quantities

X

all and Y all are the x i and y i population totals

N

all is the total number of population members, N all = N 1 + N 2 + ⋯ + N H

μ all is the population mean of the x i , μ all = X all / N all

X h and Y h a re stratum

- h population totals of the x i and y i

μ x , h is the stratum

- h population mean of the x i , μ x , h = X h / N h Sample Quantities and Estimators

n all is the total sample size, n all = n 1 + n 2 + ⋯ + n H

x̅ h and y� h are the stratum

- h sample means of the x i and y i

w h = N h n h

⁄ is the weight that applies to stratum- h sample members

x̅ all

(w) and y� all (w) are the weighted sample means of the x i and y i

h ( i ) is the stratum containing unit i
As before, the procedures for determining appropriate sample sizes will be demonstrated after the basic properties of the estimators are established. Stratified versions of sample means, proportions, and ratio estimators are described in this section.

**8.2.1 Stratified M**  **e ans**  The basic idea behind the independent- estimators approach is illustrated in the following example.

Example C-4 For this evaluation, the object is to estimate the total air -conditioning tonnage among all

com mercial retailers in a particular service territory. A sample mean applied to a simple random sample would be very inefficient, because a small number of commercial retailers are orders of magnitude larger than most of the population. (This skew would translate to a very large CV.)11 - 58 If retailer size categories are known through auxiliary data, these size categories may be used as strata for the study. Within each stratum, skew would be limited, so stratum-level CVs should be moderate.
Assume three retailer size categories: stratum one covers small retailers, stratum two covers medium retailers, and stratum three covers large retailers. Write s 1 for the stratum

- one sample standard deviation, and likewise for s 2 , ... , s H . Then the estimated stratum one total is X � 1 = N 1 ∙ x̅ 1 , and its standard error is :

SE �X � 1 � = SE ( N 1 ∙ x̅ 1 ) = N 1 ∙ � 1

− n 1 N

1 ∙ s 1 √

n 1

Calculate X � 2 and X � 3 the same way, and estimate the population total as :

X � all

(w) = X � 1 + X � 2 + X � 3 = N 1 ∙ x̅ 1 + N 2 ∙ x̅ 2 + N 3 ∙ x̅ 3 The superscripted “w” emphasizes that this is a weighted estimator. Its standard error is :

SE �X � all

(w) � = � SE �X � 1 � 2 + SE �X � 2 � 2 + SE �X � 3 � 2

To estimate the p opulation-wide mean, use:

X � all

(w) /( N 1 + N 2 + N 3 )

.
This estimate’s standard error is :

SE ( X � all

(w) )/( N 1 + N 2 + N 3 )

. [End of Example]

The general formula for the stratified -means estimator of the population total is:

X � all

(w) = � X
� h H

h=1 = � N h ∙ x̅ h H

h=1 This estimator can also be written as a weighted sum,

X � all

(w) = � N h ( i )

n h ( i ) ∙ x i sampled i = � w h ( i ) ∙ x i sampled i The weighted sum’s standard error is calculated as f ollows. (Notice that only the within- stratum standard deviations, s h , affect the standard error.)11 - 59 SE �X � all

(w) � = � � SE �X � h � 2 = � � N
h 2

∙ SE ( x̅ h ) 2 = � � N h 2

n h ∙ � 1

− n h N

h � ∙ s h 2

To estimate the population mean , divide the estimated total by the population size:

x̅ all

(w)
= X � all

(w)

N

all

This estimator is called the weighted mean

.
8.3 Stratified Proportions The reasoning in the previous section also applies to population proportions. To es timate the fraction of the population having some particular characteristic, first estimate the total number of individuals with the characteristic and then divide by the population size.
To express these results, we must expand on the notation of Appendi x B:

N

all x is the total number of individuals in the population who have characteristic x.

N

h x is the total number of individuals from stratum h who have characteristic x.

p all is the population proportion, p all = N all x ( N 1 x + N 2 x + ⋯ + N H x ) ⁄

n h

x is the number of sampled individuals from stratum h who have characteristic x.
p̂ h is the proportion of the stratum h sample with the characteristic, p̂ h = n h x n h

⁄

. p̂ all

(w) and N �

all x are our estimates of p all and N all x

. The weighted estimators related to population proportions are:

N �

all x = � N h ∙ p̂ h H

h=1

SE � �N �

all x � = � � N
h 2

∙ SE � ( p̂ h ) 2 = � � N h 2

n h ∙ � 1

− n h N

h � ∙ p̂ h (1 − p̂ h )

p̂ all

(w)
= N �

all x
N

1 + N 2 + ⋯ + N H = ∑ N h ∙ p̂ h N

1 + N 2 + ⋯ + N H

SE � �p̂ all (w) �

= SE � �N �

all x �

N

1 + N 2 + ⋯ + N H

**8.3.1 Stratified Ratio Estimators**  The stratifi ed ratio estimator is based on the ratio of the weighted sum of the sampled y i to the weighted sum of the sampled x i . Rather than applying a different realization rate within each11 - 60 stratum, we apply this single weighted realization rate to all str ata. In the preceding section on stratified means, X � all represented the weighted total of the x i , and the weighted mean was
x̅ all

( w )
= X � all N all ⁄

. The weighted realization rate can be thought of either as the ratio of estimated totals or as the ratio of estimated means:

r̂ all ( w ) = ∑ w h ( i ) ∙ y i sample ∑ w h ( i ) ∙ x i

sample = Y � all ( w )

X � all

( w ) = y� all (w)

x̅ all

(w)

The ratio -based estimate of the population total of the y i is :

Y � all ( w ) = r̂ all ( w ) ∙ X all = y� all (w)

x̅ all

(w) ∙ X all

The standard error is: 39

SE �Y � all ( w ) �

= � μ all x̅ all

(w) �

∙ � � N h 2

n h � 1

− n h N

h � � �y i − r̂
a ll ( w ) ∙ x i � 2

n h − 1 stratum h

sample H

h=1

≈ � μ all x̅ all

(w) �

∙ � � � N h

n h � 2 � 1

− n h N

h � � �y i − r̂ all ( w ) ∙ x i � 2

stratum h

sample H

h=1

= � μ all x̅ all

(w) �

∙ � � w h ( i ) �w h ( i ) − 1 ��y i − r̂ all ( w ) ∙ x i � 2

sample

Typically, μ all x̅ all (w) ⁄ will be close to one, because it is the ratio of the actual mean to the estimated mean. So to see the basic features of the standard error formula, we can ignore this factor. What remains in the first equation in the chain above is very similar to the standard error of the weighted sum, X � all

(w)

. The only difference is that the s h 2 of the weighted sum’s standard error is now replaced by: �s h ( r , w) � 2

= � �y i − r̂ all (w) ∙ x i � 2

n h − 1 stratum h

sample

39 See Särndal 1992, page 181.11 - 61 The last formula in the chain is identical to the formula provided in the California Evaluation Framework. Although the FPC is obscured in the Framework ’s weight-based presentation, the middle expression clearly shows that the formulation does account for the FPC.

**8.3.2 Summary of Estimators for Stratified Samples**  The next two tables summarize results for the estimators developed in this section. Table 10 gives the estimators themselves and thei r standard errors.

Table 10 : Formulas for Stratified Estimators

Estimator Expression Standard Error Weighted s um X � all

( w )
= � N h ∙ x ̅ h = N
∙ x ̅ all

(w) � � N h 2

n h � 1

− n h N

h � s h 2

Weighted p roportion p ̂ all

( w )
= ∑ N h ∙ p ̂ h ∑ N h � � N h 2

n h � 1

− n h N

h � p ̂ h ( 1

− p ̂ h )

Weight ed Ratio Estimator Y � all ( r , w )
= r ̂ all ( r , w )

∙ X all � � N h 2

n h � 1

− n h N

h � � s h ( r , w ) � 2 � μ all

x ̅ all

(w) �

Table 11 provides supplementary formulas.

Table 11 : Additional Formulas

Estimator Unit

- level Standard Deviation Estimates Other Expressions Weighted s um s h 2 = � ( x i − x ̅ h ) 2 ( n h − 1 ) sample h NA

Weighted p roportion s p , h 2 = n h x

n h ∙ � 1

− n h x

n h � p ̂ h = n h x

n h

Weighted Ratio Estimator � s h ( r , w ) � 2

= � � y i − r ̂ all ( w )

∙ x i � 2

n h − 1 sample h r ̂ all ( w )
= y � all (w)

x ̅ all

(w)

8.4 Planning and Optimizing Stratified De signs The basic result in the optimization of stratified designs is called the Neyman allocation

. Among all possible allocations of the n sample units to the H strata, the lowest overall variance will be achieved if:

n h = n ∙ � N h ∙ s h N

1 ∙ s 1 + ⋯ + N H ∙ s H �11 - 62 This formula has one major shortcoming that may render it unacceptable for planning large scale studies—it does not consider cost-efficiency. If units from Stratum 1 are much more expensive to survey than units from Stratum 2, then the cost

- optimal sample design should allocate fewer units to the more expensive stratum.

The cost-w eighted Neyman allocation addresses this concern. Use c h for the marginal cost of sampling a single unit from stratum h. Assume a fixed budget for data collection. Then among all possible resource allocations, the lowest overall variance will be achieved if, for some n ,

n h = n ∙ � N h s h � c h ⁄

N

1 s 1 � c h ⁄ + ⋯ + N H s H � c h ⁄ �

Both the Neyman allocation and the cost-weighted Neyman allocation work the same with other estimators. Simply replace the stratum -level standard deviation s h with the appropriate selection from Table 11

.

Table 12 : Sample Al location Formulas Step Formula Estimate maximum acceptable overall variance Var � X � all � = ( X all ) 2

∙ � e rel.

z � 2

Allocate sample among strata.

n h = n ∙ � N h s h � c h ⁄

N

1 s 1 � c h ⁄ + ⋯ + N H s H � c h ⁄ �

At the planning stage, of course, data- driven estimates of stratum

- level standard deviations are not available. Planning estimates may come from other studies, general past experience, or agreed -upon values based on known database qual ity standards. 40

8.5 General Probability Samples and PPS In simple random sampling without replacement, it was demonstrated that with a sample of size

n from a population of size N , each individual unit has selection probability of:

π i = n N
More genera l sample designs are available, however, such as probably proportional to size (PPS). The idea behind PPS is to sample n units from the population, each with probability proportional to its size. Because such a scheme necessarily requires auxiliary inform ation for determining the π i , the typical auxiliary information notation is used for this section.

40 This is especially relevant for ratio estimators, because large deviations between evaluated and claimed values often reflect p roblems in the program database, rather than variation in consumer behavior.11 - 63 x i is the auxiliary information for site i. (In evaluation work, this is usually the claimed savings estimate from the program database.)

y i i s the variable of primary interest for site i.
The goal is to estimate the population total, Y = y 1 + ⋯ + y N . In practice, auxiliary data (the x i ) are used as a proxy for the true savings sizes (the y i ) in calculating the π i . Insofar as the x i are consistently proportional to the y i , PPS estimation will result in very low standard errors. 41

S trict PPS can be difficult to implement in a manner that both (1) yields no repeat entries in the sample and (2) produces a sample of fixed size
, n

. 42 However, there are several available variants that are easy to implement, but loosen one or both of the requirements noted.
The variant called Poisson sampling (illustrated in Example C-5) produces samples with no repeat entries, but with varia ble sample sizes. This variant does not require size stratification, because project sizes are appropriately accounted for through probability weighting.

Example C-5 Determine the sample size target, n, and use the auxiliary data to set selection probabil ities

.

π i = n ∙ x i

x 1 + x 2 + ⋯ + x N In a spreadsheet, generate a random number (distributed uniformly between 0 and 1) for each project and then designate each project as sampled if its random number is less than its π i value.

The n standard estimator of the population total is:

Y � = � y i

π i sampled i This estimator’s standard error is estimated as :

SE � �Y � � = � � ( 1 − π i ) � y i

π i � 2

sampled i [End of Example]

41 The same statement holds for ratio estimators, so PPS does not have any general efficiency advantage over ratio methods. It is only an alternative approach that avoids the need for size stratification and, thus, may be simpler to employ in some contexts (especially for within

- site subsampling, which is described in the next section).

42 See Särndal, et al

. , pp. 90

- 7. A principle difficulty is that the second

- order inclusion prob abilities can be difficult to evaluate for any given scheme that produces the desired first

- order probabilities. Advanced statistical software packages (such as STATA and SAS) can draw samples and analyze data for most PPS variants, so these difficulties a re not fatal. However, as the algorithms would not be easy to implement in a spreadsheet, these methods may not be practical for field work.11 - 64 Other PPS variants are available ( see Särndal, et al

. , pp. 85-99).

8.6 Two

- Stage Sampling for Large Projects Nonresidential programs often include a small number of very large projects. In many cases, direct evaluation of every measure within a large project would impose an unacceptable burden on the customer. As a result, evaluators must rely on a subsample of measures within each large project in the set of sampled projects. This is called two

- stage sampling. 43

The principles described in the preceding sections apply both to the overall samp le and to each subsample. This section explains how to integrate subsample results with the broader program evaluation. Our guidance is similar to that given in ASHRAE Guideline 14.

Example C-6 An industrial energy efficiency program is being evaluated using a stratified design that includes a single stratum for very large projects (designated as stratum H ). For this example, assume the following: (1) a weighted- sum estimator will be used to combine stratum- level results and (2) all measures at any sampled site that is not a member of the large projects stratum will be directly evaluated

.
For each stratum other than stratum H, the estimated total savings is :

X � h = N h ∙ x̅ h and SE ( X � h ) = � N

h 2

n h � 1

− n h N

h � s h 2

Fo r a sampled site i within stratum H , we do not directly evaluate the savings x i . Instead, we estimate x i using verified values x i
, 1 , x i
, 2 , ... , x i
, m for some sample of measures within site i. The particular method for estimating x i based on the sampled x i
, j depends on the site- level sample design and evaluation plan. However, in all cases it is possible to calculate the estimate, x� i , and its standard error, SE ( x� i ) . The total savings estimate for stratum H is then :

X � H = N H ∙ x� 1 + x� 2 + ⋯ + x� n H
n H = N H ∙ x� ̅ H

The standard error of this estimate includes both the usual sampling error (as with the other X � h ) and within- site sampling errors:

43 The distinguishing feature of two

- stage sampling is that a sample of secondary units ( for example , measures) is selected within each sampled primary unit ( for example , project). One

- stage sampling refers to the case where all secondary units are selected from each sampled primary unit. Cluster sampling is usually synonymous with two

- stage sampling, but some textboo ks reserve this term for one

- stage sampling. Also, two

- stage sampling is not the same as two

- phase sampling, in which a large initial sample is observed through low

- cost interactions ( for example, phone surveys), and the initial sample data are used to in crease efficiency for a small sample involving more expensive interactions ( for example , site visits). (Two

- phase sampling is discussed in Section 8.7
, Two

- Phase [Nested] Sampling .)11 - 65 SE �X � H � = � N

H 2

n H � 1

− n H N

H � s H 2 + � SE ( x� i ) 2
sample H
It is not uncommon to conduct a full census of very large sites. In such cases, n H = N H , so the first term in the standard error is zero. Th erefore, the terms SE ( x� i ) 2 are the sole contributors to the estimator’s standard error for any census stratum.
As always, the total program savings is estimated as :

X � all

(w) = � X
� h H

h=1 and SE �X � all

(w) � = � � SE �X � h � 2

[End of Example]

Example C- 6 illustrates an important feature of two

- stage sampling —each finite population correction applies only to the level at which the relevant sampling occurs. Thus, the FPC due to first -stage sampling applies to program- level estimates, while within

- site sampling may lead to FPCs which apply within the SE ( x� i )

. ASHRAE Guideline 14 presents this same approach, but with a slightly different perspective on the origin of random deviations between the x� i and x i . In Guideline 14, the standard errors of the x� i are assumed to account for mea surement, modeling, and similar sources of random error.
This section’s guidance is compatible with Guideline 14. In general, dominant error sources should always be accounted in the SE ( x� i ) , and the dominant errors may be due to modeling error in one context and sampling error in another, depending on site- level evaluation strategies.
The following example illustrates an important point regarding the proper handling of auxiliary data when site

- level sub -sampling is used.

Example C-7 For an industri al energy efficiency program, the evaluator is using a stratified design and has created a single stratum containing the program’s largest projects (designated as stratum H ). The evaluator plans to evaluate savings directly for every measure at sampled sit es that are not members of stratum H . For this example, assume the evaluator plans to use a weighted ratio estimator to estimate the total program savings.
For a sampled site i in stratum H , the evaluator uses whatever means are available to estimate y i efficiently―that is, to minimize SE ( y� i )

. 44 For some sites, this may include within

- site ratio estimation or a PPS estimator. In such cases, the evaluator may review claimed savings assumptions on site and adjust claimed values to reflect actual h ours of use and similar inputs, provided that the adjustments are (1) applied to sampled and non- sample d measures alike and (2) based on information that is equally available for sampled and non- sampled measures.

44 Recall that for ratio estimators, y i represents verified savings and x i represents claimed savings estimates.11 - 66 For example, if the claimed values in the program database assume a 16 -hour daily schedule for every measure at a given site, but the site actually operates for 24 hour per day, the measure

level claimed values may be adjusted accordingly. The main requirement is that such adjustments be made with out giving the site’s sampled measures any special consideration. 45

Also, because claimed values cannot be adjusted for every site in the population, this sort of a priori adjustment applies only to measures within a sampled site and only to the calculatio n of y� i and SE ( y� i )

. The original claimed values must still be used in calculating the program- level standard error.

In this case, the estimated the realization rate is determined as :

r̂ all ( w ) = N 1 ∙ y� 1 + N 2 ∙ y� 2 + ⋯ + N H−1 ∙ y� H-1 + N H ∙ y� � H N

1 ∙ x̅ 1 + N 2 ∙ x̅ 2 + ⋯ + N H−1 ∙ x̅ H-1 + N H ∙ x̅ H The only difference between this expression and the weighted- sum ratio given in the preceding section on stratified ratio estimators is that this expression uses estimated (rather than directly observed) y� values for the stratum

- H sample. With this minor adjustment, estimate the population total Y all as:

Y � all ( w ) = r̂ all ( w ) ∙ X all In these equations, the x i refer to the claim ed savings values from the program database (unadjusted) and the X all is the claimed total (unadjusted) for the entire population. The standard error is estimated as :

SE � �Y � all ( w ) � = � μ all x̅ all

(w) � � � N h 2

n h � 1

− n h N

h � �s h ( r , w ) � 2 H

h=1 + � N H

n H � 2 � SE � ( y� i ) 2
sample H

Here, the standard errors of the y� i may reflect adjustments to measure

- level claimed values, as discussed above.

8.7 Two

- Phase (Nested) Sampling When an M&V protocol requires on- site metering or other labor

- intensive procedures at sampled sites, a two -phase ( nested ) design can often reduce study costs without compromising rigor. A two -phase study is conducted as follows:

1. Select a large sample of projects/sit es/measures (the P hase 1 sample). Conduct low- cost evaluation research for sites in the P hase 1 sample (for example, phone surveys may be used to verify installation and size or quantity). Use the information obtained to update claimed savings values for all sites in the P hase 1 sample.

45 These claimed adjustments need not be highly detailed, because the final estimate y� i will be adjusted to reflect empirical data and rigorous measure

- level analysis. The goal is only to reduce SE ( y� i ) by taking advance measures to diminish the deviations between measure

- level verified and claimed savings values.11 - 67 2. S elect a subsample of Ph ase 1 projects for intensive M&V (this is the P hase 2 sample)

. Use the M&V data to evaluate verified savings for each of the P hase 2 projects.

3. Analyze the P hase 2 data using a ra tio estimator with P hase 1 claimed updates as auxiliary data.

In a two -phase study, the total savings is estimated as :

Y � = r̂ ∙ X � = � ∑ y i Sample 2 ∑ x i

Sample 2 � ∙ �N ∙ ∑ x i Sample 1

n 1 �

Because the claimed values have been updated to reflect basic verification data, a large source of variation between claimed and evaluated has been eliminated . This can result in drastic reductions in the effective error ratio. However, the standard error formula needs to be adjusted to reflect the fact that the auxiliary data are only available for a s ample and not the whole population. With the adjustment, th e standard error is:

SE � �Y � � = N ∙ � � 1

− n 1 N � s y 2

n 1 + � 1

− n 2 N � s ratio 2

n 2 Here, s ratio calculated from the deviations between the updated claimed values ( P hase 1) and the final evaluated savings values ( P hase 2). This approach reconciles two important aspects of evaluation rigor:

• Program- level sampling rigor. This refers to minimizing sampling error, which is a function of sample size, population size, and variability between reported and verified savings values. (This variability is capt ured by the error ratio.)

• Site

- level estimation rigor. This refers to minimizing the errors in site

- level savings estimates. In other words, minimizing the deviations between a site’s verified savings value and its actual savings.

Two -phase sampling may be used to increase sampling efficiency (equivalently, to increase sampling rigor for a given study cost) without reducing site -level evaluation rigor.

# Chapter 12: Survey Design and Implementation Cross-Cutting Protocols for Estimating Gross Savings The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

Robert Baumgartner , Tetra Tech

Subcontract Report NREL/SR

- 7A30

- 53827 April 201312 - 1 

### Chapter 12 – Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 2 The Total Survey Error Framework ....................................................................................... 4 2.1 TSE Framework for Evaluating Survey and Data Quality .............................................. 4 2.2 Sampling Errors ............................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Nonresponse Errors .......................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Coverage Errors ............................................................................................................... 6 2.5 Measur ement Errors ......................................................................................................... 7 3 Developing Questions .......................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Order of Response Alternatives ..................................................................................... 14 3.2 Rating or Ranking? ........................................................................................................ 14 3.3 Su mmary of Best Practices for Question Design and Order in a Questionnaire ........... 16 3.4 Survey Administration (Mode) Considerations ............................................................. 16 3.5 Using Multiple Survey Modes: Mixed-Mode Surveys .................................................. 19 4 Minimum Reporting Requirements for Energy Efficiency Evaluation Surveys ................. 21 5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 22 6 References ............................................................................................................................ 23 7 Resources ............................................................................................................................. 2512 - 2 

### 1 Introduction Survey research plays an important role in evaluation, measurement
, and verification (EM&V) methods for energy efficiency program evaluation s, as t he majority of energy efficiency program evaluations us e survey data.

EM&V efforts are only as accurate as the data used in analyse s. However, despite the prominent role of survey research in EM&V for energy efficiency programs, it is rare to see description s of survey research methods and procedures presented in sufficient detail for readers to evaluate the quality of data used in ge nerat ing the findings

. This chapter presents an overview of best practices for designing and executing survey research to estimate gross energy savings in energy efficiency evaluations. A detailed description of the specific techniques and strategies for designing questions, implementing a survey, and analyzing and reporting the survey procedures and results is beyond the scope of this chapter. So for each topic covered below, readers are encouraged to consult articles and books cited in References , as

we ll as other sources that cover the specific topics in greater depth.
This chapter focuses on the use of survey methods to collect data for estimating gross savings from energy efficiency programs. Thus , this section primarily addresses survey methods used to collect data on the following :

• Characteristics of energy consumers (residentia l and nonresidential), includ ing appliance and equipment ownership and reported behaviors ( The results of a well

designed survey help in estimat ing gross savings attributable to energy efficiency programs.)

• V erif ication of installation , hours of use, operating conditions, and persistence of new energy- efficient equipment

• E stimat ion of self -reported changes in behaviors used by households or business es in response to energy feedback information

• Market characteristics and sales of appliances and equipment (This information is used to establish a baseline for evaluating the impact of energy efficiency programs on market transformation.)

• E stimat ion of the response to retrofit and energy audit programs designed to increase the efficiency of energy use in households and businesses

. As s urveys also provide the primary means of identifying and assessing non- programmatic effects
, such as freeridership, spill over , and market effects
, they provide the basis for calculating net savings.
In defining and describing b est p ractice s for survey research, the American Statistical Association states (American Statistical Association 1980) : “The quality of a survey is b est judged not by its size, scope, or prominence, but by how much attention is given to dealing with the many important problems that can arise. ” Evaluating survey research and survey data in the

manner described in that quotation requires:12 - 3 • An understanding of the different sources and problems that can arise in designing and executing survey research

• An awareness of b est p ractice s for preventing, measuring, and dealing with these potential problems

. T his chapter contains guidelines for selecting appropriate survey designs and recommends some administration procedures for different types of energy efficiency EM&V surveys.12 - 4 

### 2 The Total Survey Error Framework Total s urvey e rror (TSE) is a framework that allow s researchers to make informed decisions fo r maximiz ing data quality by minimizing TSE within the constraints of a given research budget (Groves and Lyberg 2010). The TSE framework ( widely used as a paradigm in survey research ) is applied in evaluating specific types of survey research design . It is also used in evaluating the survey data collected to measure the behaviors of energy consumers for estimat ing gross savings resulting from energy efficiency programs.

In addition to TSE , other sources of error

― such as modeling decisions, low internal and/or external validity, and use of an inappropriate baseline

― may also be present in estimates of gross energy savings. However, t his chapter deals on ly with TSE . ( Other chapters discuss the appropriate use of modeling and research design for specific end -uses, such as lighting, HVAC, and retrofits. )

For this chapter, the following key terms require definition:

• Population of i nterest

. The population to which results are to be generalized, sometimes known as the “target” population.

• Sampling frame

. A direc tory, database, or list covering all members (or as many as possible) of the population of interest.

• Sampling element and unit of analysis

. Persons, groups, or organizations from which data are to be collected.

• Survey errors

. Deviation of a survey response from its underlying true value, caused by random sampling error, coverage error, nonresponse error, and measurement error.

• Mode- effects

. D ifferences in the same measure, arising from differences in the mode of data collection used (such as interviewer

- administered and self

- administered surveys).

2.1 TSE Framework for Evaluating Survey and Data Quality TSE provides a basis for developing a cos t- benefit framework by describ ing statistical properties (or fitness for use) of survey estimates that incorporate a range of different error sources

. The development of a cost -benefit framework is beyond the scope of this chapter; however, Groves (Groves 1989) describes how to reduce errors using the principles of TSE in combination with data on the costs of specific survey procedures.
Within a sample of respondents representing the population of interest, TSE recognizes that survey research seeks to mea sure accurately particular constructs or variables. For a specific survey, resulting measures might deviate from this goal due to four error categories:

• Sampling errors

• Nonresponse errors

• Coverage errors

• Measurement errors

.12 - 5 The TSE framework explicitly considers each of these potential error sources and provides guidelines for making decisions about allocations of available resources . The result is that the sum of these four error sources ( the total survey error) can be minimized for estimates developed from survey data.

The subsequent sections contain discuss ions of each error type and its relevance to EM&V for energy efficiency programs. This chapter also describes current b est p ractice s for identifying, measuring, and mitigating these errors.

2.2 Sampling Errors Sampling errors are random errors result ing from selecting a sample of elements from the population of interest, rather than from conducting a census of the entire population of interest. For practical or monetary reasons, it is often necessary to u se a sample relative to an entire population. Although differences will likely occur between the sample and the population, so long as the sample has been based on probability sampling methods, these differences will likely be in substantial

.
A s ampling error is the TSE component that is most frequently estimated, using measures such as the standard error of the estimate

. Two m ethods commonly used to reduc e sampling error are i ncreasing the sample size or ensuring the sample adequately represents the entire population

. ( Sample designs, sampling errors, confidence intervals and precision of estimates, and sample selection are discussed in Chapter 11: Sample Design )

2.3 Nonresponse Errors For any survey, some sampled customers likely will not complete the survey . Consequently, nonresponse error may occur if the nonrespondents differ from the respondents on one or more variables of interest . Nonresponse error may also occur when respondents fail to answer individual questions or items in the survey. Note that “nonresponse” i s not necessarily the same

as “nonresponse bias.” Such bias occurs when differences emerge between respondents and nonrespondents on one or more measures impo rtant to the analysis of gross energy savings.

For energy efficiency EM&V surveys, the salience of the topic likely corresponds to the survey response rate ( that is, interested individuals are more likely to respond) . Consequently, nonresponse bias should be treated as a potential issue in designing survey implementation procedures

.
**2.3.1 Best Practices for Minimizing Nonresponse Errors**  The following techniques have proven effective in reducing nonresponse among various target audiences:

• Reduce the respondents’ costs in completing survey s. This is done by building trust and legitimacy in the respondents’ eyes and by convincing the respondents they will receive a benefit from responding. The tools for this include a dvance letters, follow-up attempts, extending the data collection period, and incentives.

• Highlight sponsorship of the survey when it involves an organization with high credibility among the respondents, such as an electric or gas utility, a regulatory commission, a state or federal agency ( for example, the U.S. Department of Energy),12 - 6 or a respected non -governmental organization. Having a credible sponsor usually increases the response rate.

• When survey ing organizations, identify appropriate respondent s to report on an organization’s behalf. Then appeal to that individual to respond as the organization’s representative. If a superior in the organization identifies an individual as the designated respondent, cite the superior when corresponding with the target respondent.

• Avoid defining specific survey topic s when introducing the survey to sampl ed customers. Rather, describe the survey in terms as general as possible to reduce the likelihood of respondents making selection s by their interest in a topic. The potential for nonresponse bias can be estimated using these methods:

• Collecting data (often a subset of survey questions) from nonrespondents offers the most direct measure of nonresponse bias, although it can be difficult to obtain a representative sample of nonrespondents.

• Compar ing the responses of early responders (responders on the first contact) with those of responders who are more reluctant or difficult to reach. This strategy assumes similarities between nonrespondents and reluctant or hard

- to

- reach respondents. Where the p otential for nonresponse bias has been identified, it is possible to weight the data to attempt to correct for underrepresentation of specific segments of the population. For example, where characteristics of the population are known, sample weights can be developed to adjust the proportion of these characteristics in the sample to match the characteristics of the population. Even when sample weights are used to adjust for nonresponse, however, the researcher has no assurance that the results account for differences between the individual respondents and nonrespondents from a particular segment

.
2.4 Coverage Errors When a sample ( even a probability sample ) excludes certain members of the population of interest, coverage errors may occur due to di fferences between the portions of the population excluded and the remainder of the population. A c ommon example of this is a telephone survey that omit s households without landline s. This also occurs in surveys of organizations that are selected based on t heir Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC ) codes, because new businesses may not have been classified yet and some businesses may have been classified incorrectly . Noncoverage might also result from the exclusion of some population members due to geographic areas, language differences, physical challenges impair ing the ability to respond, and individuals living in institutions

.
An issue currently faced when using general population telephone surveys is the increasing number of households without landline telephones

― recent ly estimate d at more than 30% of all U.S. households (Blumberg and Luke 2011). The likelihood of a household being “wireless only” relates to a number of demographic characteristics, such as:

• Age (younger adults are less likely to have landlines)12 - 7 • Household types (unrelated adults living together are more likely to be wireless )

• O wn/rent status (renters are more likely wireless )

• Household income (adults living in poverty are more likely wireless ). Further, the study indicated that one in six adults in the United States receive s most or all telephone calls on wireless phones, even though there is a landline telephone at the residence

. These data suggest telephone survey samples that do not includ e wireless phone numbers may produce data subject to “coverage error.” (However, for surveys of program participants in which customers provided contact information, the chance of coverage bias due to missing cell phone-only households is reduced.)

A related issue is the “do not call” list maintained by some utilities . Customers who have requested that they not be contacted regarding certain matters are a potential source of coverage bias for energy efficiency surveys.

**2.4.1 Best Practices for Minimizing Coverage E**  **rrors** The following techniques have proven effective in reducing nonresponse among various target audiences:

• Evaluate the sample frame carefully to determine whether the listings match populations of interest. In your review, consider these questions: (1) Is the list up to date? (2) Are telephone numbers or other contact information current? (3) Does the list include wireless and landline phone numbers?

• Use dual sampling frames for general population surveys. For example, use cell phone number samples in ad dition to directory

- based (land

- line) samples.

• Define the population accurately for which the survey results are appropriately generalized . Thus, any segments not covered in the sample frame are clearly identified

.
2.5 Measurement Errors For most surveys, m easurement error presents the most common and problematic error type. The term “measurement error” covers all biases and random variance aris ing when a survey does not

measure its intended target . (This discussion does not include random errors, where respondents might answer a question differently over repeated trials. That results in increased variance, but not bias.)

In this chapter , m easurement error is described as a systematic pattern or direction in difference s between respondents’ answers to a question and the correct answer . Such error occurs during data collection, rather than from sam pling, nonresponse, coverage, or data processing. For example, respondents tend to over- report behaviors they believe are looked upon favorably and underreport behaviors they believe are viewed unfavora bly (social desirability bias).

Measurement error result s from the following factors:

• Respondent behavior s or responses to questions12 - 8 • Interviewers’ influence on respondents’ an swers (interviewer effects)

• Question and questionnaire design

• Survey method of administration (mode).
The next sections describe how each of the first three measurement error sources can affect data quality and the best practices for reducing these effect s. At the end of this section is a list of best practices for minimizing measurement errors. T he effects of survey administration methods on measurement error are discussed in Survey Administration (Mode) Considerations

.
**2.5.1 Respondent**  **B ehavior**  **s and**  **R esponses**  S ocial desirability, acquiescence bias, and recall errors present t he three most relevant bias

sources , based on respondent behaviors.

2.5.1.1 Social D esirability B ias This refers to the tendency of respondents to misreport their attitudes or behavior s intentionally in way s that make them seem appear to be doing “the right thing” in the eyes of interviewers or researchers . For example, in more than 50 y ears of behavior studies on voting, survey respondents have consistently reported voting at a higher rate than the turnout at the polls has actually indicate d. Similarly, as energy efficiency actions are widely viewed as socially desirable behaviors, it is expect ed that some respondents will over

- report that they engag edin energyefficien t behaviors or would have purchased an energy- efficient appliance even had a rebate not been offered

. Voting behavior s provide a common focus for the study of socially desirable responding, as a well

- established measure exists (official records of voter turnout) against which voting self

reports can be validated

. However, no such validator exits for measures designed to determine whether a respondent would have purchased an energy- efficient appliance without an incentive

. Thus, f or questions about energy efficiency actions and behaviors, wording that legitimizes socially undesirable behavior can be used to mitigat e social desirability bias . ( This strateg y has also been shown to reduce social desirability bias in surveys of voting behavior.)

For energy efficiency surveys, a question measuring self- reports of energy efficiency actions taken by respondents might be word ed as :
We often find that people have not done things to reduce energy use in their homes . They aren’t sure how to do them, they don’t have the right tools, or they just haven’t had the time. For each of the following activities, please tell me if you have done this in your home. (Holbrook and Krosnick 2010)

S ocial desirability bias primarily emerges as an issue for interviewer

- administered surveys. Consequently, removing the interviewer ’s presence for self

- administered survey modes reduces the pressure for socially desirable responding.

2.5.1.2 Acquiescence B ias This refers to the tendency for respondents to (1) select an “agree” response more often than a “disagree” response or (2) select a positive ly -worded response category more often than a negative ly -worded response category, regardless of a question’s substance.12 - 9 In several studies using split -sample question wording experiments, Schuman and Presser (1996 ) demonstrated a classic example of acquiescence bias . They consistently found a difference between the percentage of respondents select ing the “ a gree” response when asked to agree or disagree with this : “Most men are better suited emotionally for politics than women .” This wording received a higher “agree” rate than did the question, “Would you say that most men are better suited emotionally for politics than are most women ?”

When respondents were presented with a forced choice question in other response categories indicating that men and women were equally suited or that women were better suited than men in this area, the result was a consis tently lower agreement rate

. For questions asked in the agree/disagree format , the percentage of responses indicating men were better suited for politics was consistently from 10 to15 percentage points higher than the results of the forced

- choice format.
In questions asking about energy efficiency actions, acquiescence bias is expected when statements are worded in a positive direction.

2.5.1.3 Recall Errors These present another potential bias source based on respondent behaviors. Survey questions often ask respondents to recall specific events or to report on the frequency with which they have engaged in certain behaviors. Cognitive scientists and survey researchers have identified these factors correlat ing with errors in recall of ret rospective events or be haviors:

• Intervening related events or new information related to the original event may

cause individuals to lose the ability to recall accurately the spe cific details of any one event.

• Recall becomes less accurate with the passage of time

.

• Salient events are remembered more accurately than less

- salient events (Eisenhower et al. 1991). For energy efficiency evaluations, the length of a recall period can be an important element in estimating gross energy savings. Respondents typically are asked to recall whether an event (such as purchase of an energy

- efficient appliance) or the frequency of a behavior (such as the number of CFLs purchased) occurred with in a specified time period

.

• Recollections of relatively infrequent events, such as purch ases of a major appliance, are subject to telescoping errors

. That is, the events may have occurred earlier or later than was reported . Respondents purchasing a major appliance relevant to the survey but outside of the specified timeframe may report the event as o ccurring within the timeframe.

• Recall decay

― the inability of respondents to recall events or frequenc ies of behaviors

― tends to affect the accuracy of a respondents’ recall of the frequency of relatively routine events (such as the number of CFLs pu rchased in a specific period).

**2.5.2 Satisficing**  One way respondents may introduce measurement error in to their responses is by “ satisficing ”— taking actions enabl ing one to meet the minimum requirements for fulfilling a request or12 - 10 achieving a goal . When a survey question requires a great deal of cognitive work, researchers have found that some respondents use satisficing to reduce that burden (Krosnick 1991). The following behaviors have been observed in respondents attempting to reduce the amount of cognitive effort involved in responding to a survey:

• Choosing “no opinion” response options frequently when it is offered

• Using the same rating for a battery of multiple objects rated on the same scale

• Tending to agree with any assertion, regardless of its content (acquiescence bias)

• Choosing socially desirable responses. Satisficing tends to occur in questions designed to measur e knowledge, attitudes, and self- reports of behavior. The likelihood of respondents’ engaging in satisficing is associated with

re spondent s’ cognitive abilit ies , motivations , and task difficult ies

.
**2.5.3 Interviewer**  **Errors and Effects**  In interviewer- administered surveys, the interviewer ’s presence can negatively influence the quality of survey data in several ways, as noted below and in the extensive literature addressing interviewer errors and effects in sample surveys ( Biemer et al. 1991):

• As an interview is a social interaction, both the observable characteristics of interviewer s and the manner in which interviewer s interact with respo ndents can influence responses to survey questions.

• Interviewers can administer survey s differently to different respondents. For example, interviewers may (1) fail to follow skip patterns correctly
, (2) ad lib or change the wording of specific questions, or (3) falsify data

.

• In response to respondent s’ questions or difficulties, interviewers may probe or offer assistance in ways that affect respondents ’ answer s. The u se of telephone interviews and self

- administered survey s eliminates some potential effects related to social interaction s between interviewers and respondents

. Interviewer training

― especially training that entails monitoring performance during interview s
― provides the most effective way to identify and address p otential sources of interviewer errors and effects

.
2.5.3.1 Questionnaire and Q uestion D esign Researchers tend to view questionnaires and questions as measurement devices
, elicit ing information from respondents. As a result, r espondents ’ perspective s are frequentl y overlooked when questionnaires and questions also serve a s a source of information for respondents to draw upon as they provide useful, informative answer s to questions asked (Schwartz 1999).

Both t he questionnaire (layout
, formatting , and length) and the questions (wording, response categories, and context and order of questions) present information to respondents and thus can affect responses

.

2.5.3.1.1 Questionnaire Length I t is commonly known that the longer the questionnaire, the more likely it is that res pondent fatigue or loss of concentration becomes a n issue. However, the answer to the question, “H ow12 - 11 long is too long?” differs for different survey modes and topics

. The interviewer’s skill is also a critical factor in terms of developing rapport with a respondent and maintain ing the respondent’ s motivation

. In general, long surveys can be completed most successfully through personal interview s, while telephone surveys are most likely to be completed successfully when they are short. There is less of a consensus on the effect of questionnaire length for s elf

- administered surveys (mail and Internet) . Some research suggests that self -administered survey modes, especially Internet surveys, need to be relatively short to prevent respondents from abandoning the survey before it is completed. However, experience has shown that long self- administered surveys ( ranging from 20 to 30 minutes) can be successfully administered, especially for mail questionnaires

.

2.5.3.1.2 Open

- Ended and Closed

- Ended Questions Although the great majority of energy efficiency evaluation survey questions are closed -ended, there are advantages to using an open-ended format for certain questions

. For example, some researchers believe that open- ended questions about quantities—such a s the numbers of times a respondent visited a specific w ebsite

— produce less bias than closed -ended questions. Specifically, t his tends to apply to grouped, closed

- ended response categories, such as “at least

one time per week” and “one to three times per m onth.”

R esponse categories for closed -ended questions convey information about researcher s’ expect ation s. Also, many respondents tend to avoid extreme (high and low) scale points. However, an open-ended question for which response categories are not provid ed avoids potential data- quality issues

. Similarly, for questions addressing the relative importance of issues facing the country, the closed

- ended response categories offered to respondents indicate the issues that researchers think are most likely to be mentioned. This reduces the likel ihood of respondents addressing issues not on the list. De spite this , closed -ended questions are used more often, as they are easier to code, process, and analyze . A general rule for using closed- ended questions is to en sure the response categories are comprehensive (Krosnick and Presser 2009).

2.5.3.1.3 Respondents’ Interpretation of Questions Because respondents must understand questions being asked, the r esearcher must determine whether the respondents’ understanding of the questions match es the researcher ’s inten t. Even for a seemingly straightforward question ( for example , “What things do you typically do in your household every day to conserve energy?”) , it is important to have some knowledge of the respondents’ typical task s.

Differences tend to occur in the literal understanding of the question ( Schwartz 1999). For example, although respondents are likely to understand the literal meaning of a question, they must still determine the types of actions or activities of int erest to the researcher . Consequently, in surveys about energy efficiency, r espondents may as k themselves questions such as:

• “Should I report turning off lights when I leave the room, or is that too obvious?”

• “ If I have an automatic set -back thermostat, is that considered an everyday activity?”12 - 12 For questions open to multiple literal interpretations, researchers can guide respondents by using common examples of the types of information sought.

2.5.3.1.4 Question Order The order of questions in a survey affect s responses. When answering a specific question, respondents are likely influenced by cues and information from previous questions. For example, previous questions can present a priming effect

— making certain issues more salient . Asking about the importance of energy efficiency before asking respondents about their energy efficiency behaviors likely impl ies that those behaviors should be consistent with respondents’ stated views on the importance of energy efficiency.

**2.5.4 Best Practice**  **s for**  **M inimizing**  **M easurement**  **E rrors** 

• Use pretesting to identify potential measurement errors
, such as instances in which respondents either misinterpret a question or are unable to provide an accurate

answer

.

• U se salient events or dates in recall questions to mark the relevant time pe riod (bounded recall). Where possible, reduce burdens on respondents by shortening the recall period s.

• Word the questions carefully so respondents understand it is permissible to report engaging in non- socially desirable behaviors.

• Use cognitive interviewing as part of the survey pretest to explore how respondents interpret the questions and construct responses (Madans et al. 2011).

• To minimize acquiescence bias, avoid “agree/disagree” questions. Instead, use questions explicitly present ing positi ve (agree) and negative (disagree) responses in the question stem, such as: “Would you say that most men are better suited emotionally for politics than are most women, t hat men and women are equally suited, or that women are bett er suited than men in this area?”

• Use multiple

- item measurement scales when assessing attitudes or reported behaviors , and pre- test these scales to ensure unidimensionality and internal consistency. A multiple

- item measurement scale consists of a number of individual questions comb ined into a single value. Using multiple- item measures usually increases the reliability of the measure.

• Train interviewers and monitor the quality of the ir work through observational interviews to reduce interviewer errors and interviewer effects.

**2.5.5 Best Pr**  **actices for Measuring Self**

**- Reports of Behaviors**  E valuations of energy efficiency programs often use self

- reports of energy

- efficient behaviors (or behavioral intentions) . Th us, self -report surveys are designed to (1) identify barriers in achieving gross en ergy savings and (2) help explain differences in energy consumption between treatment and control group customers in programs with experimental designs. The best practices for these surveys of attitudes, behaviors, and behavioral intentions are described in the following sections

.12 - 13 2.5.5.1 Multiple Item Measurement Scales Since the 1930s, s urvey researchers have used multiple

- item scales to measure attitudes or reported behaviors. Based in psychometric theory, the rationale for multiple

- item
, self -reported behavior measurement suggests four primary advantages:

1. A set of multiple items can represent the construct (attitude or behavioral report) more completely than can a single item

. 2. Combining items reduces potentially idiosyncratic influences of any single item

. 3. A ggregating across items increases the reliability ( or precision ) of measure s.
4. Using multiple items more finely distinguishes among respondents, potentially providing a measurement scale appropriately treated as continuous (Nunnally 1978). In many cases, m ultiple

- item scales of attitudes or self-reported behaviors treated as intervallevel or continuous variables (item 4 in the list above) present important implications for statistical analyses of these data. Measures of central tendencies or disper sion s prove appropriate for interval or continuous variables, and relative difference s in scores between groups of respondents can be calculated. M ultiple

- item scales also produce variables well suited for use in regression models estimating gross energy savings.

T wo procedures have allowed the development of summated multiple

- item measures :

1. F actor analysis to verify multiple items measur ing a single underlying construct (unidimensionality)

2. A measure of internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha (coefficient of reliability)

or a similar measure of the internal consistency of the measurement scale

.12 - 14 

### 3 Developing Q uestions
To measur e respondent self

- reports of attitudes or behaviors in closed -ended questions, the design of the questions entails decisions about these critical elements:

• The order of response categories to be presented to respondents

• The use of a rating or ranking scale

• The type of rating scale

• The use of a middle or neutral category in a rating scale

. A summary of curr ent evidence and best practice s for each of these decisions is discussed below.

3.1 Order of Response Alternatives The responses to closed -ended questions can be influenced by the order in which response categories are presented

. For self

- administered questio nnaires and “show cards” used in personal interviews

― where response categories are presented visually

― research has shown a primacy effect often occurs. That is, respondents tend to select the answers offered early in the list

. However, where response categor ies are presented verbally by an interviewer (whether on telephone or in person) , a recency effect tends to occur , where respondents select answers offered later in the list (Sudman et al. 1996). These research findings demonstrate the need to rotat e the order of response alternatives offered to respondents.

3.2 Rating or Ranking? Although rating scales commonly are used in energy efficiency evaluation surveys, some situations have shown ranking to be a more effective method for measuring the importance of a specific issue or behavior . When the primary goal for a question is to determine the order of two or more objects, a ranking format may be most useful ( Visser et al. 2000).

**3.2.1 Use of Ranking Scales**  Ranking scales avoid the problems of non- differentiati on, which occur when rating scales produce very similar ratings for a set of objects. However, r ating scales are more common ly used in energy efficiency evaluation surveys for the following reasons:

• Ranking is a more cognitively difficult task for respondents to complete, especially when dealing with a relatively large number of items

• R anking scores prove more difficult to analyze. ( As no assurance exists of equal distances between rankings, they cann ot be used appro priately as interval measures.)

**3.2.2 Use of Rating Scales**  As previously mentioned, rating scales are the predominant method used for measuring self

reports of attitudes or behaviors. The basic types of these scales are classified as :

• B ipolar (fr om negative to positive, with a neutral point in the middle)

• Unipolar (from a zero point to a highly positive point, such as a range from “no importance ” to “ extremely important”).12 - 15 After selecting the type of rating scale to use, the next decision is th e length or the number of points on the scale. A quick review of questionnaires for energy efficiency evaluations yield s a wide range, from dichotomous (yes/no) scales to scales having as many as 100 points.
An important consideration in such decisions is whether to us e scale points that divid e the continuum into equal distances. If, f or example, a scale offers a choice between “poor,” “good,” and “very good” but these choices have no numeric labels , then the continuum is not divided equally, as “good” and “very good” appear more closely related than “good” and “poor.”

Scales us ing numerical labels meet the “equal interval” requirement . M any studies suggest data quality can be improved by labeling all scale points, rather than labeling only end points and neutral points (Krosnick et al. 1999). Study findings indicate that applying these two techniques improves the results:

• Using words to anchor end-points and perhaps mid-points

• Using numbers to label each point on the scale.
As to the optimal number of scale points , r eviews of research show the greatest measurement reliability results from seven

- point scales for bipolar scales and five -point scales for unipolar scales.

**3.2.3 Use of Middle Alternatives or Neutral Scale Points**  Having a middle alternative ( o r a neutral alternative ) increases the reliability of a measure , according to s tudies that examined the differences in reliability of an item’s measurement

― specifically, the use of a middle alternative in a scale (O’Muircheartaigh et al. 1999). Some researchers advise using a middle category in a rating scale when a significant number of respondents are likely either to be uninformed or to have no opinion on the issue. Research also shows that the use of a middle alternative changes the frequency distribution of responses across all categories, but it often does not affect the ratio of responses on either side of the scales’ middle point (Schuman and Presser 1981).

A recent alternative is to omit the middle category and then measure the intensity of t he attitude

. In this option, using a scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree ” enables researchers to separat e those who definitely hold a certain attitude from those who are simply inclined in a particular direction (Converse and Presser 1986). A number of experimental studies have shown data quality for a specific measure usually does not differ significantly, regardless of whether a neutral/ no-opinion scale point is offered (Schuman and Presser 1996). In a 2002 study, Krosnick reported :
The vast majority of neutral or no-opinion responses are not due to completely lacking an attitude, but are most likely to result from a decision not to do the cognitive work necessary to report it (satisficing), a decision not to reveal a potentially emb arrassing attitude (social desirability bias), ambivalence, or question ambiguity.12 - 16 This suggests the best practice for measuring attitudes or behavioral intentions entails omit ting the neutral or no-opinion response category and encouraging respondents to report whatever opinion they have.

3.3 Summary of Best Practices for Question Design and Order in a Questionnaire In their chapter on the design of questions and questionnaires, Krosnick and Presser advise the following when designing survey questions ( Kros nick and Presser 2009):

• Use simple, familiar words, avoiding jargon, technical terms, and slang.

• Avoid words with ambiguous meanings; aim for words that all respondents interpret the same way.

• Use specific and concrete wording rather than general and abstract terms

.

• Make response categories exhaustive and mutually exclusive.

• Avoid leading or loaded questions that push respondents toward an answer.

• Ask one thing at a time; avoid double- barreled questions.

• Avoid questions with single or double negations. Further, Krosnick and Presser offer this advice regarding question order:

• To build rapport between respondents and researcher s , make early questions easy and pleasant to answer.

• Questions at the beginning of a questionnaire should explicitly address the survey topic, as described to the respondent before the interview.

• Questions on the same topic should be grouped together.

• Questions on the same topic should proceed from the general to the specific.

• Questions on sensitive topics, which might make respondents uncomfortable, should be placed at the end of the questionnaire.

• Use filter questions to avoid asking respondents questions that do not apply to them.

3.4 Survey Administration (Mode) Considerations The wide range of data collection mo des available to survey researchers tend to fall into one of these categories:

• I nterviewer

- administered modes, such as personal or face

- to

- face interviews and telephone interviews

• S elf

- administered modes, such as mail or Internet surveys

. With a dvances in information and communication technolog ies
, variations exist for each of the primary data collection modes. For example:

• Personal interviews can be conducted by an interviewer who records responses directly onto a laptop or electronic tablet

.12 - 17 • S elf

- admi nistered questionnaires can be administered by audio

- CASI [computer assisted self interviewing]
, with questions recorded on an electronic device and played back to respondents, who enter responses electronically

.

• Telephone interviews can be conducted by W ebcam, in which respondents use either

a voice- over Internet protocol or their phone keys to specify their answers

. The c hoices of data collection modes for energy efficiency evaluations typically involve assessing strengths and weaknesses of a range of factors such as:

• Ability to access to a representative sample of the population of interest

• Types of questions to be asked

• Cost and time required for implementation

• Length, complexity, and content of the questionnaire.

**3.4.1 Face**  **-to- Face**  **Personal Interviews** Con sidered by many survey researchers to be the “gold standard
, ” f ace

- to

- face personal interviews generally result in high response rates, even for relatively long questionnaires (45 minutes or more). Through this approach, interviewers can manage complex que stionnaires and those requiring visual or verbal background or explanations for the survey questions. However
, face

- to

- face personal interview surveys are fielded less often due to their relatively high cost, as compared to other survey modes. Other key d rawbacks are :

• T he longer time required to complete data collection

• T he logistical difficulty of quality control measures , such as observing interviewers conducting the interviews

• T he potential for interviewer effects resulting from interviewer -respondent interaction s

.
**3.4.2 Telephone Interviews**  Telephone interviews have surpassed face

- to

- face personal interviews as the most common interviewer -administered survey mode for these reasons :

• The relatively lower cost per completed interview

• The availability of off-the- shelf random

- digit dialing ( RDD ) samples of the general population;

• The shorter length of time required to complete data collection ; and

• The high proportion of households in t he U nited S tates with a telephone. With the advent of computer- assisted telephone interviewing ( CATI ), telephone surveys can accommodate complex questionnaires that apply skip patterns customized to respondent

answers . Also
, these interviews can be centrally monitored for quality control.
The key drawbacks of telephone interviews are :12 - 18 • The comparatively low (and declining) response rates

• The relatively short time respondents can be expected to remain engaged (usually no more than 15 to 20 minutes)

• The increasing number of households using c all

- screening devices

• The increasing number of households without landline telephone s. Additionally , i t is difficult to ask sensitive questions through telephone interview s, and social desirability bias presents a potential threat.

As a result of decreased coverage and response rates
, telephone surveys are becoming less representative of the population of interest, except when mobile phone numbers are included in the survey. However, using listed samples of utility customers or program participants who have provided contact information can facilitate the contact of general -population households.

Note that w hen contacting a respondent by cell phone to conduct a survey, it is strongly recommended that the survey not be conducted if the respondent is driving a motor vehicle at the time of the call. In these cases, the interviewer should be instructed to make an appointment for a better time to call the respondent.

**3.4.3 Mail Questionnaire Surveys**  While the advantages of having an interviewer administer the questionnaire are noted above, there are also potential advantages for mail and self

- administered questionnaires (without an interviewer). Self -administered questionnaires have been shown to (1) produce more accurate or candid data for sensitive questions and (2) reduce social desirability bias.
Mail questionnaires can be sent to anyone with an address . Also, respondents do not have to be home at any specific time
, as is required for face- to

- face personal interview s or telephone interview s. W hile complet ing a mail questionnaire survey, respondents can look up personal records, utility billing statements, or purchase information

. Although mail questionnaires often are described as the lowest -cost alternative among survey modes , this approach

— in our exper ience

— requires at least two follow -up mailings and, in some

cases , relies on an incentive to increase the response rate . This increases cost of fielding the survey. Other drawbacks typically associated with mail questionnaire surveys are :

• R elatively low response rate s (in many cases
, rate comparable to a telephone survey)

• Longer data collection periods

• Skip patterns must be relatively simple to avoid confusing respondents

• Loss of control over who answers the questions

• Loss of control regarding the order in which questions are viewed and answered

.
**3.4.4 Internet Surveys**  Internet surveys have increased in popularity, especially as the percentage of households and individuals with access to the Internet has increased

. These surveys offer the advantage of lower12 - 19 cost (no expenses for paper, printing, mailing, telephones , or interviewer s). Further, once the fixed costs of programming and set-up have been incurred, a much larger sample size can be used

― even internationally

― with very small marginal cost increases

.
In ternet surveys usually require very short data collection times , with most responses received within one week, although follow-up contacts should be made with nonrespondents to increase response rates . Note, however, that coverage bias for potential respondents who do not have access to the Internet remains an issue with online surveys.
Consistency in the appearance of the survey is also an issue. While e nhanced Internet survey software allows for complex skip patterns and sophisticated graphic s, different hardware and software used by respondents can result in differences in a questionnaire ’s appearance and presentation.
As with mail questionnaire surveys, the absence of an interviewer requires that the questions be relatively simple and straigh tforward

. Still
, with Internet surveys, the respondents’ willingness to answer sensitive questions candidly is increased and the likelihood of social desirability bias is decreased.

3.5 Using Multiple Survey Modes: Mixed

- Mode Surveys In this century, a major trend in survey research has been the increased use of combin ed survey implementation modes (Dillman et al. 2009). It has long been a practice to mix modes in :

• The survey’s contact phase (f or example, using an advance letter to contact respondents for telephone surveys or face

- to

- face interview s)

• Completing different portions of a survey.
What has been relatively new in survey research , however, is use of mixed -mode surveys in which some respondents provide data using one mode, while others provid e data using a second (or third) mode (Couper 2011).

This section describes this relatively new approach to mixed -mode surveys. The ir increasing use has been driven by several factors, including declining response rates, coverage problems in single-mode surveys, and the development of new survey modes— such as interactive voice response (IVR) and Internet- based methods

.
Research has show n that mixed

- mode surveys can achieve higher response rates and better coverage of populations of interest

. As different methods have different strengths and weaknesses, using a variety of methods can provide complementary results ( de Leeuw 2005). Still , mixed- mode surveys present drawbacks —such as increased measurement error

— because different survey modes can produce different responses to the same question ( Christian et al. 2008).
In a 2011 publication addressing questions about using a mixed-mode survey, Mick Couper cite d two strategies in dealing with potential mode differences :12 - 20 • The unimode construction approach constructs questionnaires to be as identical as possible.

• The correction approach entails accept ing fundamental differences in data collection by different modes and designing the data collection instrument to maximize the benefits of each mode ; statistical adjustments then are made across the modes used. (Couper 2011.)

A third strategy is to combin e t hese approaches when designing and implementing mixed-mode energy efficiency evaluation surveys. For example, in mixed -mode surveys using telephone and Internet, the fixed -page telephone interview survey

― where respondents are asked questions in a specified sequence by CATI

― can best be replicated by an Internet survey, where respondents see one question at a time, and can not progress to the next question until the first is answered

. Also, a n IVR Internet survey can also be used to replicate the presence of a n interviewer for such mixed -mode surveys.
For a mixed-mode survey using mail and Internet questionnaires, the scrolling

- page Internet survey design best replicates mail questionnaire design, where respondents can turn ahead pages if they wish to see questions in the survey.
Replicating in two survey modes how questions are presented provides an opportunity to increase the effectiveness of energy efficiency evaluation surveys, while increas ing coverage and response rate s. New technologies and advance ments in survey research capabilities will continue to provide additional ways of mixing modes and to increas e survey effectiveness and quality.12 - 21 

### 4 Minimum Reporting Requirements for Energy Efficiency Evaluation Surveys Survey research organizations

― such as the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and the Council of American Survey Research Organizations

― require their members follow appropriate professional guidelines for disclosing and reporting survey methods and findings. The goal of these organizations is to advance the state of knowledge and practice by providing sufficient information to permit review and replication by other researchers

.
AAPOR offers various guidelines regarding the minimum essential information on survey methods to be disclosed in research reports :

• Survey sponsor and the firm conducting the survey

• Survey p urpose and specific objectives

• Questionnaire and exact/full wording of questions as well as any other instructions or visual exhibits provided to respondents

• D efinition s of populations under study

• Description s of the sampling frame used to identify populations under study

• Sample design, including clustering, eligibility criteria and screening procedures, selection of sample elements, mode of data collection , and the number of follow-up attempts

• Sample selection procedures ( how sample cases were selected )

• Documentation of response or completion rates, numbers of refusals
, and other dispositions

• Discussion of the findings’ precision, including sampling error, where appropriate

• Description s of special scoring, editing, data adjustment, or indexing procedures used

• Methods, locations, and dates of fieldwork or data collection

• Copies of interviewer instructions for administering the questions

. Following the di sclo sure and reporting guidelines available on the AAPOR w ebsite serve s to advance knowledge and the state of practice for energy efficiency evaluation research and
, ultimately
, results in better -quality data and better decisions on energy efficiency programs.12 - 22 

### 5 Conclusion This chapter has provided an overview of the current state of survey research regarding the evaluation of energy efficiency programs through (1) developing estimates of gross energy savings , (2) determining well market effects , and (3) identifying process issues . For each topic covered

— summarized below— readers are encouraged to consult articles and books cited in References as we ll as other sources cover ing these topics in much greater depth:

• Sources of survey error, such as nonresponse, coverage, and measurement

• Best practices for measuring self -reports of attitudes and behaviors

• Best practices for question wording and question order

• Selection of survey modes and use of mixed- mode approaches

• Minimum guidelines for reporting and disclosure of survey research

.12 - 23 

### 6 References

American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR)

. www.aapor.org/Best_Practices1.htm

.
American Statistical Association . (1980). What Is a Survey? Washington, DC.

Biemer, P.; Groves, R.M.; Lyberg, L. E.; Mathiowetz, N. A.; Sudman , S.
, eds. (1991). Measurement Errors in Surveys . John Wiley & Sons.
Blumberg, S. J.; Luke , J.V . (2011). “Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey

. ” Division of Health Interview Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless201112.pdf

. Christian, L.M.; Dillman, D.A.; Smyth , J.D. (2008). “The Effects of Mode and Format on Answers to Scalar Questions in Telephone and Web Surveys.” Lepkowski, J.; Tucker, C.; Brick, M.; de Leeuw, E. D. ; Japec, L.; Lavrakas, P.; Link, M.; Sangster , R. eds. Advances in Telephone Survey Methodology

. Wiley

- Interscience. www.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/papers/2006/theeffectsofmodeandformat.pdf

. Converse, J.M. ; Presser , S . (1986). Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire. Sage Publications.
Couper, M.P. (2011). “The Future of Modes of Data Collection. ” Public Opinion Quarterly. (75:5 ); pp. 889 -908. http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/75/5/889.full.pdf+html

. de Leeuw, E.D. (2005). “To Mix or Not to Mix Data Collection Modes in Surveys. ” Journal of Official Statistic s. (21:2 ); pp. 233-255. http://igitur -archive.library.uu.nl/fss/2011-0314- 200305/EdL-to%20mix%202005.pdf

. Dillman, D.A. ; Phelps, G.; Tortora, R.; Swift, K.; Kohrell, J.; Berck, J.; Messer , B. (2009). “Response Rate and Measurement Differences in Mixed -Mode Surveys Using Mail, Telephone, Interactive Voice Response (IVR), and the Internet

. ” Social Science Research . (38 :1); pp. 1-18.

Eisenhower, D.; Mathiowetz, N.A.; Moganstein , D . (1991). “Recall Error: Sources and Bias Reduction Techniques. ” Biemer, P.; Groves, R.M.; Lyberg, L.E.; Mathiowetz, N.A.; Sudman , S. eds. Measurement Errors in Surveys

. John Wiley & Sons. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118150382.ch8/summary

. Groves, R.M.; Lyberg , L . (2010). “Total Survey Error: Past, Present, and Future. ” Public Opinion Quarterly . (74:5 ); pp. 849-879. http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/74/5/849.full.pdf

. Groves, R. M. (1989). Survey Errors and Survey Costs . Wiley Series in Survey Methodology. Wiley

- Interscience: New York.12 - 24 Holbrook, A.L.; Krosnick, J.A. (2010). “Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout Reports: Tests Using the Item-Count Technique. ” Public Opinion Quarterly. (74:2 ); pp. 37-67. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1569295##

. Krosnick, J.A. (1991). “Response Strategies for Coping with Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measurement in Surveys

. ” Applied Cognitive Psychology

. (5); pp. 213-236.

Krosnick, J. A. ; Presser , S . (2009). “Question and Questionnaire Design. ” Wright
, J.D.; Marsden
, P.V. eds. Handbook of Survey Research (2 nd Edition). Elsevier: San Diego. http://comm.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/docs/2010/2010%20Handbook%20of%20Survey%20 Research.pdf

. Krosnick, J.A.; Robinson, J.P.; Shaver, P.R; Wrightsman , L. eds. (1999). “Maximizing Questionnaire Quality. ” Measures of Political Attitudes

. Academic Press, San Diego. http://comm.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/docs/1999/1999_robinson02_krosnick.pdf

. Madans, J .; Miller, K.; Maitland, A.; Willis , G. (2011). Question Evaluation Methods: Contributing to the Science of Data Quality. John Wiley and Sons.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.) McGraw- Hill, New York.
O’Muircheartaigh, C.; Krosnick, J.; Helic , A. (1999). “Middle Alternatives, Acquiescence, and the Quality of Questionnaire Data. ” Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Meeting, St. Petersburg, Florida. http://ideas.repec.org/p/har/wpaper/0103.html

. Schuman, H.; Presser , S

. (1996). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys : Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context . Sage Publications.

Schuman , H.; Presser , S. (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording and Context. Academic Press.

Schwartz, N. (1999). “Self

- Reports: How the Questions Shape the Answers .” American Psychologist . (54:2 ); pp. 93-105. http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&ui d=1999-00297-001

. Sudman, S.; Bradburn, N.; Schwartz , N . (1996). Thinking About Answers: The Application of Cognitive Processes to Survey Methodology

. Jossey

- Bass, San Francisco.

Visser, P.S.; Krosnick, J.A.; Lavrakas, P.J. (2000). “Survey Research

. ” Reis , H.T.; Judd , C.M. eds. Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. Cambridge University Press.12 - 25 

### 7 Resources

Bradburn, N.; Sudman, S.; Wansink, B. (2004). Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design– For Market Res earch, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires. John Wiley & Sons.

Wikman, A .; Warneryd, B. (1988). “Measurement Errors in Survey Questions. ” Social Indicators Research . (22 :2); pp. 199-212. www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27520814?uid=3739568&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&u id=3739256&sid=21101416225633

.

# Chapter 13: Assessing Persistence and OtherEvaluation Issues CrossCutting Protocols The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures

Daniel M. Violette , Navigant Consulting

Subcontract Report NREL/SR

- 7A30

- 53827 April 201313 - 1 

### Chapter 13 – Table of Contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................2 2 Persistence of Energy Savings ................................................................................................3 2.1 Addressing Persistence .................................................................................................... 3 2.2 State of the Practice in Assessing Persistence ................................................................. 7 2.3 Database/Benchmarking Approaches .............................................................................. 8 2.4 The Challenges of New Technologies and Measures ...................................................... 9 2.5 In

- Field Persistence Studies (Survey and On

- Site Data Approaches) ........................... 10 2.6 Persistence Recommendations and Conclusions ........................................................... 17 3 Other Evaluation Issues ........................................................................................................20 3.1 Addressing Synergies Across Programs ........................................................................ 20 3.2 Errors in Variables, Measurement Errors, and Tracking Systems ................................. 21 3.3 Dual Baselines ............................................................................................................... 25 3.4 Rebound Effects ............................................................................................................. 26 4 References .............................................................................................................................28 5 Resources ..............................................................................................................................31 6 Appendix A: Program- Specific Persistence Study Challenges and Issues ...........................32



### List of Figures Figure 1: Relationship of Measure Life, Savings Persistence, and Initial Savings Estimates ........ 5 Figure 2: KEMA (2004) Table E-1 ............................................................................................... 13 Figure 3: Proctor Engineering (1999) Table ES-1 ........................................................................ 16 Figure 4: Satorra (2008) Simulation Results ................................................................................ 24



### List of Tables Table 1: Factors Influencing Persistence ........................................................................................ 7 Table 2: Nexus (2008) “Recommended Estimates of Measure Life

— Decimals” ....................... 14 Table 3: Persistence Study Challenges and Issues ........................................................................ 32 Table 4: Measure and Behavioral Programs ................................................................................. 34 Table 5: Methodology Summary .................................................................................................. 3513 - 2 

### 1 Introduction Addressing other evaluation issues that have been raised in the context of energy efficiency programs, this chapter focuses on methods used to address the persistence of energy savings
, which is an important input to the benefit/ cost analysis of energy efficiency programs and portfolios. In addition to discussing “p ersistence ” (which refers to the stream of benefits over time from an energy efficiency measure or program ), t his chapter provides a summary treatment of these issues:

• Synergies across programs

• Rebound

• D ual baselines

• E rrors in variables ( the measurement and/or accuracy of input variables to the evaluation).
This first section of this chapter contains a definition of persistence and identifies issues in its evaluation. The s tate of the practice in persistence is addressed
, examples taken from persistence studies are presented , and recommendations for addressing persistence are presented at the end of the section. The other evaluation issues are addressed in the second section of the chapter

. Appendix A presents a matrix of persistence issues and methods by program type.13 - 3 

### 2 Persistenc e of Energy Savings Understanding persistence is critical to making good decisions regarding energy efficiency investments , so this section outlines program evaluation methods that can be employed to assess persistence

― the reliability of savings over time. Energy efficiency program b enefits are measured as the net present value (NPV) of a stream of benefits based on the energy and demand savings 1 achieved by the program. Depending on the mix of measures and their assumed lives, these benefits may extend to 15 years (or more) for some measures

. As a result, assumptions about the persistence of savings over time influence the energy efficiency benefit- cost tests. Extrapolating savings beyond the evaluation period has often been based on engineering judgment, m anufacturer specifications, and some empirical work (the factors used to develop projections of measure lifetimes and degradation).
The protocols developed under the Uniform Methods Project ( UMP ) in other chapters generally focus on estimating first- year s avings. There is also some discussion, however, about estimating first - and second-year savings when more participants from a second program year are needed for the impact evaluation. These initial evaluations are often quite detailed
, assess ing both the savings and the quality of the program in terms of installation, engineering calculations, and equipment selection ( where on

- site visits are used to validate initial “ claimed” estimates ).

2.1 Addressing Persistence Persistence of savings encompasses both the r etention and the performance degradation of

measures . Together, these factors are used to estimate how the claimed persistence values used in program planning can be updated based on evaluated savings values. 2 Different jurisdictions define and treat the components of overall persistence differently. As a result, defining what is meant by overall persistence and addressing some of the subtle context issues are important to the discussion.
There are a number of subtle aspects to the context and definition o f overall persistence. C onsistent and practical definitions for use in developing estimates of the overall persistence of savings over time were developed for the Joint Massachusetts Utilities (Energy and Resource Solutions 2005). 3 In that study, overall p ersistence is divided into two components: (1) measure life and (2) savings persistence.

1 This chapter focuses on estimating energy savings, but the persistence of reductions in demand may also be important for some measures and programs. Issues raised here may also be important for programs and policies focused on reducing demand during peak p eriods.

2 In this chapter and consistent with other chapters, claimed savings means the same as ex ante savings and evaluated savings is used instead of ex post savings. This note is to eliminate confusion for those more familiar with the use of “ ex ante ” (initial savings estimates) and “ ex post” (evaluated savings) terminology in describing evaluation methods.

3 This study for the Joint Massachusetts Utilities’ defines “measure life” as the median number of years that a measure is installed and operati onal. This definition implicitly includes equipment life and measure persistence. However, savings persistence is the percentage of change in expected savings due to changed operating hours, changed process operation, and/or degradation in equipment effici ency relative to the baseline efficiency option.13 - 4 Recognizing that definitions for persistence and realization of savings are not nationally consistent, the definitions based on the Massachusetts framework and outlined below provide a structure that can be addressed by evaluation and verification methods. That is, these definition s use categories of effects and factors that can be quantified using evaluation methods. For example, it is difficult to estimate tech nical measure life based on on- site inspections
, as there may be many reasons that a measure is no longer in place. Thus , technical measure life and other

reasons for measure non-retention are combined in the definition “measure life
, ” which is simply the time a measure can be expected to be in place and operable.

**2.1.1 Definitions**  The definitions of key terms used in this chapter are these.

2.1.1.1 Measure Life or Effective Useful Life Th is is th e median number of years that a measure is in place and operational after installation

. This definition implicitly includes equipment life and measure persistence (defined below), but not savings p ersistence.

• “Equipment life” is the number of years installed equipment will operate before it fail s.

• “ Measure persistence ” ta kes into account business turnover, early retirement or failure of the installed equipment, and any other reason the measure would be removed or discontinued.

2.1.1.2 Savings Persistence Th is is th e percent age of change in expected savings due to changed operati ng hours, changed process operation s, and/or the performance degradation of equipment efficiency relative to the baseline efficiency option. For example, an industrial plant that reduces operation from two shifts to one shift may then have a savings persistence factor of 50%, as only half of the projected energy savings would be realized. Also, i mproper operation of the equipment may negatively affect savings persistence , so training and commissioning could improve savings persistence. Finally, most e quipment efficiency degrades over time , so annual energy savings may increase or decrease relative to the efficiency degradation of the baseline efficiency option.
Figure 1 illustrates how the two persistence factors are used to produce savings that are ad justed for persistence: Savings Adjusted for Persistence = ( Measure Life Factor ) x ( Savings Persistence Factor ) x ( Initial Savings Estimate ).13 - 5 Figure 1: Relationship of Measure Life, Savings Persistence , and Initial Savings Estimates 4

**2.1.2 Factors for Selecting a Persistence Study**  The following are s everal important factors to consider when selecting the type of study to examine energy savings persistence

.
2.1.2.1 Available Claimed Estimates of Persistence There are al most always initial claime d estimates of the assumed stream of savings f or a program (based on current estimates of measure life and degradation) . T hese estimates are used in the initial benefit /cost analyses conducted as part of program design or in the benefit / cost tests of initi al program evaluations efforts. As a result, most studies of persistence test the initial claimed stream of savings against the evaluated results to check for significant differences

. 5 Th e outcome is often presented as a realization rate ( that is , t he evaluated values divided by the initial claimed values), which is the year -by- year savings estimate used in benefit / cost studies.

4 Source: Adapted from Energy and Resource Solutions (2005).
5 Starting with a set of claimed savings allows for the use of evaluation methods that leverage these initial data through the use of ratio est imates and a “realization rate” framework.13 - 6 2.1.2.2 Uncertainty in Claimed Estimates When deciding whether to conduct a new study of persistence

― and the corresponding level of effort required― consider the confidence that the evaluator or decision

- maker has in the claimed stream of savings values. If the uncertainty is perceived as being high and a sensitivity analysis shows that plausible revisions to persistence of energy savings substantively changes the results of benefit/ cost tests , then a new study may be worthwhile. Such an undertaking regarding persistence may result in revis ions to the current claimed estimates

. For example, measures that account for greater savings , have shorter measure life values, or may be subject to near -term degradation in savings are more important to evaluate, as they will have a greater impact on the resulting benefit/cost tests. However, changes in measure life that do not take effect until the 14 th or 15 th year of the measure may be discounted in the NPV calculation ( discussed below) . Thus, in terms of the effect on the benefit/cost calculation, the additional work needed to estimat e these values may not be worth while

.
2.1.2.3 Discounting Values of Energy Savings O ver the Life of the Measure The stream of program benefits over time is discounted, resulting in near

- term savings estimates that have a larger impact on the NPV of benefits tha n the values fu rther out in the future. For example, the effect of research on the measure life of a second refrigerator retirement that extend s it from six years to eight years would be muted somewhat in the benefit/ cost analysis due to discounting. Specifically, t he energy savings from this updated measure lif e of two additional years would be muted in its application by discounting the benefits for year seven and year eight. The impact of discounting depends on the discount rate being used and the measure life

. 6

2.1.2.4 Differences in Baseline and Energy Efficiency E nergy Stre ams of Benefits Energy savings calculations are based on the difference between the post energy efficiency state and the assumed baseline. If the baseline equipment has the same level of degradation in performance, then the energy savings factor due to degradation would be 1.0 and it would be appropriate to assume constant energy savings over the life of the energy efficiency measure. 7 In fact, if the relative persistence of savings is higher for the energy efficiency measures compared to a baseline consisting of standard measures , then energy savings not only persists, but can increase over time.

6 For example, if a discount rate of 5% is used, the savings will be reduced by 0.78 multiplied by the energy savings at five years. At 10 years and a 5% discount rate, the new value would be 0.61 multiplied by the energy savings. At a discount rate of 7% for a 10

- year period, the value would be 0.51 multiplied by the energy savings.

7 The report from Peterson et al. ( Peterson et al. 1999) is a good example of degradation being measured for both an efficient app liance offered by an energy efficiency program and standard equipment. This study showed that the high

- efficiency coils start with and maintain a higher efficiency than standard efficiency coils. The slower degradation rate increases the life of the equipm ent, and the equipment uses less energy over its operational lifetime. Even though both high

- efficiency units and standard units showed performance degradation over time, the lower rate of degradation in the high

- efficiency units resulted in a recommended degradation factor exceeding 1.0 in most years. This factor increased from 1.0 to 1.08 over the 20

- year expected life of the unit, indicating that savings not only persisted, but actually increased relative to the baseline over the assumed life of the equi pment.13 - 7 Th es e four factors are meant to address the following questions:

• If a persistence study is conducted, is there a reasonable likelihood that the new trend in energy savings over time would be substantively different from the assumptions used in the initial benefit /c ost analyses ?

• Would the NPV benefits of the program change with a new persistence factor, the discount rate being used, and the likely change in the baseline energy use level that may also be due to performance issues of the baseline equipment ? There may be good reasons to assess persistence
, as many factors can influence the stream of energy savings over a three - to 10- year period. The most common of these factors are listed in Table 1

.

Table 1: Factors I nfluencing Persistence
Residential Sector Programs and Measures Commercial and Industrial Sector Programs and Measures

1. Changes in ownership 2. Maintenance practices 3. Changes in equipment use 4. Behavioral changes 5. Occupancy changes 6. Inappropriate installation of equipment
7. Manufacturer performance estimates that do not reflect in

- field operating conditions. 1. Business turnover 2. Remodeling 3. Varying maintenance 4. Operating hours and conditions 5. Inappropriate installation of equipment 6. Manufacturer performance estimates that do not reflect in

- field operating conditions

.

Sensitivity anal yses using the benefit/cost models can highlight those measures for which adjustments in persistence will have the largest impact. This information can then be used to prioritize persistence evaluation efforts. Thus, b efore deciding whether additional anal yses are needed, test the sensitivity of NPV benefits to potential changes in the persistence of savings

. This can help determine whether the impact may be large enough to merit a substantial study effort, or sufficiently small , requiring only a modest retention study.

2.2 State of the Practice in Assessing Persistence Professional judgment plays a significant role in selecting a method for assessing persistence. The California E nergy E fficiency Evaluation Protocols ( CPUC 2006) has several types of retention, degradation, and measure life/effective useful life ( EUL ) studies from which to select, based on the priority given to the issue by regulatory staff or other stakeholders.
Evaluators seem to rely on the following two processes for developing est imates of persistence :13 - 8 • Database or Benchmarking Approach. This entails d evelop ing and regularly updating 8 a database of information on measure life and performance degradation.

• Periodic In

- Field Studies

. This entails p erform ing selected in -field studies of program participants from earlier years. These two approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive . The database/benchmarking approach is often used when (1) there are a large number of energy efficiency measures , (2) there are concerns about the sample sizes required for in -field studies, and (3) the cost of conducting in

- field persistence studies is an issue. Periodic studies may be used for updating a database of measure life and performance degradation . Such studies are a lso useful when focusing only on those measures that account for a large fraction of the savings . Additionally, in- field studies of program participants that are conducted a number of years after participation provide direct information on persistence of savings for that program.

2.3 Database/Benchmarking Approaches Th e th ree examples of database /benchmarking approaches presented below are based on :

• Engineering judgment

• E xperience with the energy efficiency measures

• I nfo rmation on local and regional conditions to develop tables of measure lives for use in energy efficiency program planning. These values are often used as deemed values for persistence and applied to produce estimates of the energy savings over time ( as in puts to benefit/cost calculations). An assessment of this approach follows the examples. (References to each study are provided for those wanting more information on the methods used beyond the short descriptions provided below. )

**2.3.1 Example**  **Study 1: GDS Associates (GDS Associates**  **2007)** Objective: The measure life values presented in this report were developed to meet the following conditions:

• Accurately reflect conditions for measures installed by energy efficiency programs in the New England states that have supported this research effort

• Satisfy any Independent System Operator -New England ( ISO

- NE ) requirements ( for example, for definition and documentation sources)

• Work as common values, accepted by all New England states for the forward capacity market ( FCM ) ( that is , the ISO- NE forward capacity market)

. Methodology: “R eviewed all secondary data collected and developed a preliminary list of potentially applicable residential and C&I [commercial and industrial] me asures. This list was

8 As it is important that these benchmarking studies be updated on a regular basis, the cost of these updates should be included in the cost estimate for using this approach. While these studies may not appear costly on a

one

- time basis, the effor t required to update the database regularly can be significant. This is important, as these databases are sometimes the source of deemed values for measure life and persistence of savings used in evaluation efforts.13 - 9 then distributed to program administrator staff within the SPWG [State Program Working Group] for review and to obtain additional program- specific measure life values and associated documentation sources. GDS compiled all responses and developed initial measure life recommendations for SPWG member consideration. ”

**2.3.2 Example**  **Study 2 :**  **KEMA (**  **KEMA 2009)**  Objective and Methodology: “ The principal objective of this study was to update the current measure life estimates used by the Focus Evaluation Team and the Focus Program. The evaluation team’s approach to this study consisted entirely of secondary research ; the team did not conduct primary research, fieldwork, or produce a savings persistence study.” (E mphasis added.)

**2.3.3 Example**  **Study 3: Ene rgy and**  **Resource Solutions ( ERS**  **2005)** Objective: “The primary goals of the Common Measure Life Study were as follows:

• Define measure life and related terms, such as persistence

• Review the provided table of current measure lives

• Survey other utility energy efficiency programs

• Develop a table of technological measure lives

• Recommend common measure lives and persistence assumptions to be used by the sponsors.” Methodology: “ERS [Energy and Resource Solutions] reviewed the tables of agreed -upon and disputed measure lives provided by the sponsoring utilities. As tasked in our proposal, we researched several sources to use in support of selecting individ ual measure lives. We first thoroughly researched the CALMAC [California Measurement Advisory Council] database. The CALMAC database provides a public depository for all persistence, technical degradation factor (TDF) and other related studies performed in the State of California. Next, we surveyed many electric utilities and state utility commissions throughout the nation, obtaining other utilities’ tables of measure lives. We obtained measure life tables used in 8 states by at least 14 different utilities. Finally, we performed a literature search, referenced technical sources and consulted equipment manufacturers to establish a table of technical lives for each measure. In conjunction with these efforts, we specifically researched the effect of N ew Construction versus Retrofit status on measure lives, as well as the effect of Small versus Large businesses.”

2.4 The Challenges of New Technologies and Measures The methods in the three examples above have produced useful estimates for a wide number of

me asures where practical information exists from measure installations and fieldwork . However, new technologies and measures installed less frequently pose greater challenges for this judgment-based benchmarking approach. For many widely implemented energy e fficiency
measures, both the evaluation work and additional on- site engineering work ( such as installation and maintenance) provide a basis for the use of inform ed engineering judgment. A series of retention/survival rate studies in California ―conducted fr om 1994 to 2006

― found that most claimed estimates could not be rejected by the in- field studies . However, the in -field studies13 - 10 often had small sample sizes for certain measures and short time frames that did not allow for many failures to occur in the data set.

Some important measures in these engineering and expert- developed measure life tables may not have fared well. Both r esidential lighting and commercial lighting have provided a large fraction of savings, and the persistence of these savings has been controversial. Nexus (2008) found that the life for certain lighting measures depends not only on the equipment, but also on the program design.

S kumatz (Skumatz et al. 2009 ) (Skumatz 2012) critiques the database/benchmarking approach, which is based on e ngineering judgment combine d with literature reviews

. Skumatz (2012) identifies strengths and weaknesses in this approach compared to on- site data collection , and she offers suggestions for improving current estimates. Skumatz notes that measure life values exist ing in tables often vary by more than 25%, and that this has “precisely the same impact on a measure’s or program cost

- benefit ratio” as savings values that are off by 25%.
While this comment has merit, the measure life and persistence factors will start at 1 .0 in the initial years of the program and then gradually change. This change in savings is offset to some degree by the discounting of benefits from five , 10, and 15 years out. Also, this single measure with varying measure life values across engineering

- based tables may not represent the composite effective life of a group of measures that make up a program.

2.5 In -F ield Persistence Studies (S urvey and On-S ite D ata A pproaches) Methods that make use of in

- field data collected on program participants at some point after they participated in an energy efficiency program generally rely on:

• Surveys or on- site visits to determine whether the measure is still in place and operable, or, if the measure was removed, when and why 9

• S tatistical analyses using regression

- based methods to estimate retention/survival models that produce estimates of the survival or failure rates of energy efficiency

measures. The California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols 10 specified these three categories of methods used for in- field studies of persistence :

9 One reviewer suggested that the surveys referred to in this section should specifically include online approaches. The topics of using online surveys to obtain customer

- specific information and combining online surveys with other methods are discussed in the “Survey Research” chapter.

10 The methodology language from the California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols ( California Public Utilities Commission 2006) has been adapted to fit the measure life definition and persistence structure used in this chapter. One difference is the use of persistence as the overarching term for all types of changes in energy savings over time, which the California Protocols document addresses in the “ Effective Useful Life Protocol ” section (p. 105). The California Protocols still contain the most compreh ensive discussion of methods for assessing persistence

.13 - 11 • Retention Studies provide the percentage of the measures that are in place and operable at a point in time . Retention studies identify technology design, define operable conditions, and describe how operable conditions could be measured.

• Measure Life/ EUL estimates the median numbers of years that the measures installed under the program are still in place and operable. This value is calculated by estimating the amount of time until half of the units will no longer be in place and operable.

• Performance Degradation uses both technical and behavioral components to

measur e time

- related and use -related changes in energy savings relative to a standard efficiency measure or practice. In general, both standard equipment and energy efficiency equipment become less efficient over time
, regardless of the equipment measure life. This factor is a ratio reflecting the decrease in savings due to performance degradation from the initial year savings.

**2.5.1 Retention and Measure Life Studies**  A retention study determines the number of installed and operable measures at a given point in time. A measure life study is an extension of a retention study, where there is adequate data to allow for the development of a statistical model ( commonly called a “ surviv al analysis ”) to estimate failures that might occur after the data are measured.

Information from the retention model provides an estimate of the measures that were installed and operating at a point in time , which allows the evaluator to calibrate the claimed savings and produce adjusted evaluated estimates of savings over time. The current estimates of persistence are adjusted to account for the new information and the stream of savings over the year. These estimates could , for example, be adjusted in year four to be consistent with the retention study. This ratio for year four would then be used to adjust the savings in all subsequent years.

The measure life estimation methods , which are based on survival analysis , provide more information . However, estimating measure life requires a much larger sample —one that contains an adequate number of both installed and missing ( that is, uninstalled or replaced) equipment.
The following are two types of r etent ion and m easure lif e methods , which have been used to estimate the survival models that produce estimates of measure life. (Studies using these methods are described later in this section.)

2.5.1.1 In -P lace and O perable S tatus A ssessment (U sing On-S ite I nspections ) The in

- place assessment studies are verified through on

- site inspections of facilities. Typically, the measure, make, and model number data are collected and compared to participant program records, as applicable. As -built construction documents may also be used to verify selected

measures when access is difficult or impossible (such as wall insulation). Spot measurements may be used to supplement visual inspections

― such as solar transmission measurements and low e-coating detection instruments

― to verify the optical properties of windows and glazing systems.
Correct measure operation is observed and compared to the project’s design intent. Often, this observation is a simple test of whether the equipment is running or can be turned on. However,13 - 12 the observation and comparison can extend to changes in application or sector
, such that the operational nature of the equipment no longer meets the design intent. For example, working gas-cooking equipment that had been installed in a restaurant but is now inst alled in the restaurant owner’s home is most likely no longer generating the expected energy savings, so it would not be counted as a program-induced operable condition. 11

2.5.1.2 Non -S ite M ethods Typical non- site methods include telephone surveys/interviews, ana lysis of consumption data, or the use of other data (such as from energy management systems ). The goal is to obtain essentially the same data as would be gotten through an on- site verification ; however , there is the potential for collecting inaccurate data , due to a number of factors ( discussed in Chapter 11: Sample Design ).

2.5.1.3 Examples of Retention and Measure Life Studies Two examples of these types of studies were performed by KEMA and by Nexus Market Research.

• KEMA (KEMA 2004) used a telephone survey to gather information on refrigerators at years four and nine as part of a review of an appliance recycling program.

• Nexus Market Research (Nexus Market Research 2008) used on- site verification data to conduct a measure life study of residential lighting mea sures

. Both studies provide good examples of collect ing information for a basic retention study, and they serve as illustration s of the statistics necessary to estimate a survival model (Allison 1995). 12 Each is discussed below.

Example Study 1: KEMA (KEMA 2004). Conducted with program participants from the years 1994 through 1997, this study looked at retained savings over this period.
For each year, the measure life/EUL estimate reflects the following factors:

• T he time at which half of the recycled applia nces are from participating premises that have added an appliance

• T he time at which half of the recycled appliances would have been out of service without the program influence.

11 In addition to this language, the California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols outline s certain sampling criteria that must be met in California. However, these criteria may vary in accordanc e with the requirements of different jurisdictions.

12 To assist evaluators, the California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols stat es : “Multiple statistical modeling packages ( SAS, Stata, SPSS, R, S+ , and others) provide survival analysis programs. Th ere are several commercial and graduate textbooks in biostatistics that are excellent references for classic survival analysis. One of these used as reference for some of the prior EUL s tudies in California is the SAS statistical package and the reference Survival Analysis Using the SAS System: A Practical Guide by Dr. Paul D. Allison, SAS Institute, 1995. Several model functional forms are available and should be considered for testing. These forms include logistic, logistic with duration squared (to fit e xpected pattern of inflection point slowing of retention losses), log normal, exponential, Weibull, and gamma.”13 - 13 The KEMA study illustrates one way in which the claimed and evaluated measure life values can be used. As stated in the study:
For each of the program years from 1994 through 1997, both refrigerators and freezers have a claimed (or ex ante ) e stimate of measure life/EUL of six years, which has been used in the earnings claims to date. A measure's evaluated measure life/EUL is the value estimated by a persistence study. If a measure’s claimed measure life/ EUL is outside the 80% confidence interval, the measure ’ s evaluated measure life/EUL may be used for future earnings claims. Otherwise, the measures claimed value will continue to be used in earnings claims. Figure 2 is a replication of Table E -1 from the KEMA study, which shows the comparison b etween the claimed and evaluated measure life/EUL estimates. In this case, the measure life results showed that the program was underestimating the measure life/EUL values and that the realization rate exceeds 1.0.

Figure 2 : KEMA (2004) Table E -1

Example Study 2 : Nexus Market Research (2008)

. This study examined the measure life of lighting products distributed through energy efficiency programs in New England.
The definition of measure life is the same as presented above in Addressing Persistence and used in the Energy and Research Solutions (2005) example application presented above. Specifically, Nexus states that :
[T] he measure life estimates do not distinguish between equipment life and measure persistence; our estimates

— one for each measure c ategory—include both those products that were installed and operated until failure ( that is
, equipment life) as well as those that were retired early and permanently removed Program Year Measure End Use Ex Ante Ex Post (estimated from study) Adopted ex post (to be

used in claim) Lower Bound Lower Bound Upper Bound EUL Realization

Rate (adopted ex post/ex ante)

Freezer 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 11.0 1.33 Refrigerator 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 11.0 1.33
Freezer 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 11.0 1.33 Refrigerator 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 11.0 1.33
Freezer 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 1.33 Refrigerator 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 1.33
Freezer 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 1.33 Refrigerator 6.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 1.33 80% Confidence Interval EUL (years) Table E-1 1994-1997 Appliance Recycling Program Summary of Effective Useful Life Estimates

1994

1995

1996

1997 Refrigeration

Refrigeration

Refrigeration

Refrigeration13 - 14 from service for any reason, be it early failure, breakage, or the respondent not liking the product ( that is , measure persistence). Nexus drew a random sample of participants based on the type and number of products they had obtained through the programs. The report states , “ We collectively refer to these sample products as the ‘ measure life products. ’”
Auditors visited 285 homes to inventory lighting products, and Nexus designed a respondent survey to learn more about the measure life products and other lighting products found in the home. Th ese survival analyses w ere based on the following methods and, ultimately, Nexus used estimates resulting from Method 3.

• Method 1: Measure Life Tables

• Method 2: Logit Regression

• Method 3: Parametric Regression Models of Survival Analysis.
The results showed that the measure life for compact fluorescents ( CFLs ) varies by program design ( that is, whether the program was coupon- based, direct install, or a markdown at a retail facility ). The results of the Nexus (2008) study are shown in Table 2

.

Table 2: Nexus (2008) “Recommended Estimates of Measure Life

— Decimals”

Product Measure Life 80% Confidence Interval
Low High Coupon CFLs 5.48 5.06 5.91 Direct Install CFLs 6.67 5.97 7.36 Markdown CFLs (all states) 6.82 6.15 7.44 Coupon and Direct Install Exterior Fixtures 5.47 5.00 5.93 Markdown Exterior Fixtures 5.88 5.24 6.52 All Interior Fixtures Continue using current estimates of measure life

Nexus deemed a representation of the results

― at an 80% confidence interval

― as being accurate enough for the purposes of this study. Nexus recommende d m easure life estimates for three

measures : one for c ompact fluorescent l amps ( CFLs ; coupon, direct install, and markdown) 13 and two for exterior fixtures (markdown and all other programs).

Nexus did not recommend an estimate of measure life for interior fixtures
, as the timing was too early in the measure lifecycle to provide a reliable estimate. This occurs with a number of measure life studies that are conducted to o early (before there have been enough failures or uninstalls to allow for statistical mo deling of measure life ).

**2.5.2 Examples of Degradation Studies**  While t here are few reports that directly focus on the degradation of savings, two types of studies are available , and they are described below:

13 Due to the diversity of program types throughout the region, Nexus used the term “markdown” to refer to both markdown programs (offered in a ll of the states) and buy

- down programs (offered in some of the states).13 - 15 • Focusing on technical degradation (o ne of the cleare st examples is by Proctor Engineering in 1999 [Proctor Engineering 1999])

• Performing billing analyses at some point after participation to capture all of the factors that impacted persistence of savings . (In 2011, Navigant performed a billing analysis of a customer information program, which was used to examine persistence of impacts across two years for a behavioral program. [Navigant 2011]) Example Study 1: Proctor Engineering (Proctor Engineering 1999). The purpose of this project was “to examine the re lative technical degradation of demand side management (DSM) measures compared to standard efficiency equipment. This project covers two major DSM measures: commercial direct expansion air conditioners (Comm. [direct expansion] DX AC) and EMS [energy manag ement systems] .”
Proctor Engineering’s methodology involved establishing a time

- series estimate —derived from available research —for condenser and evaporator coil fouling rates. Proctor used laboratory testing to modify the estimated fouling rates and estab lish a profile for coil fouling. It tested b oth high-efficiency and standard efficiency coils in a controlled laboratory environment , and both

were subjected to continuous fouling. Proctor then monitored t he efficiency of the air conditioner at various intervals to document the effects.
This study found that (1) the impact on standard equipment was greater and (2) the high

- efficiency units actually had a higher level of savings persistence. The end result was that “ testin g shows that the TDF [technical degradation factor ] for this measure is greater than one.” This is an example of degradation needing to be conducted with reference to standard efficiency equipment. Energy efficiency measures may have performance degradatio n, but so does stand ard equipment. If the energy efficiency measures have a lower rate of degradation
, then savings increase (as measured against the standard equipment baseline ).

To assess EMS , Proctor used an on-site methodology rather than laboratory testing. The research data showed that although there is some EMS savings degradation at some locations, other locations show increasing savings. Some of the causes for this persistence are:

• No instances of disconnected or non-operational EMSs were found.

• The vast majority of EMSs appeared to be operated in a competent and professional

manner.

• EMS operators had found that the EMS was a useful tool in performance of their jobs. Proctor Engineering contrasted its work with other EMS studies showing greater degradation due to operational issues. Proctor explained the comparatively high level of persistence it found as being due to the high interest of the program participants in saving energy. The more random group of facilities in the comparison may not have been involved in EMS- related energy efficiency programs.
Proctor also conducted a billing analysis to confirm these findings. For this billing analysis, it combined the consumption data from all of the sites and then estimated the persistence of13 - 16 savings ove r time. The regression process provided statistically significant estimations at the 95% level. 14

The primary purpose of this research was to establish the TDF s, estimated for each measure. The results from Proctor’s study, seen in Figure 3, shows that the degradation factors are greater than 1.0 for the high-efficiency DX AC equipment. This indicat es the degradation was less for the high-efficiency DX AC equipment than for the standard efficiency equipment.

Figure 3: Proctor Engineering (1999) Table ES -1

Still, the difference is small through year 18
, and this size of effect might not show up in benefit/cost analyses due to the discounting required to obtain an NPV of savings benefits.

Example Study 2: Navigant (Navigant 2011). This study examined the short- term persistence of

a behavioral information program using billing data across multiple years , as s hort- term persistence may be an important factor for these programs.

The program was designed to assist and encourage customers to use less energy . These types of programs are increasing in the industry ; for example, OPOWER, Inc.
, offers residential

14 References to statistically significant results in regression analyses must be carefully interpreted. The analysis may have been a test to determine if the effect was significantly different from zero (±100% precision). Alternatively, the test may have actually established a precision level of ±10% or another level of precision, (for example, 30%). A statement of statistically significant results should be accompanied by an explanat ion for interpreting that statement in terms of the level of precision being used in the test of significance. Year EMS Comm DX AC
1 1.00 1.00
2 1.00 1.00 3 1.00 1.00
4 1.00 1.01
5 1.00 1.01 6 1.00 1.01
7 1.00 1.01 8 1.00 1.01 9 1.00 1.01 10 1.00 1.02 11 1.00 1.02 12 1.00 1.02 13 1.00 1.02 14 1.00 1.02 15 1.00 1.02 16 1.00 1.02 17 1.00 1.02 18 1.00 1.02 19 1.00 1.06 20 1.00 1.08 Table ES-1 TDF13 - 17 customers regular Home Electricity Reports about their electricity consumption to help those customers manage their electricity. In combination with other information, these reports compare a household’s electricity use to that of its neighbors and then suggest actions to reduce electricity use. It is hypothesized that present ing energy use in this comparative fashion creates a social nudge that induces households to reduce their consumption

. Navigant evaluated the first 29 months of the program, with an emphasis on the second program year . The following main research questions were addressed in the evaluation and presented in this report:

• Does the program co ntinue to generate savings?

• What is the trend in program savings? Is there a ramp -up period to savings? If so, for how long? Are savings now relatively stable, increasing, or falling?

• Do program savings increase with usage?
The evaluation of this program entailed developing a random control group and conducting a fixed

- effects regression analysis, which is a common evaluation method. This regression method is discussed in the “Whole House Retrofit” chapter o f th is UMP report.
Navigant ’s results showed that the effects of slightly more than 2% of the energy savings persisted across the 29 months examined in the study, after an initial ramp -up period of approximately 10 to 12 months

. The small effect size required a large sample of custome rs for the regression analysis to produce reliable results. For this behavioral program evaluation, there

were more than 20,000 treatment customers and a control group of more than 30,000 customers. Thus, l arge samples are needed to identify small effect sizes from energy efficiency programs.

T his regression framework can be applied to a third and fourth year of data to assess longer- term participation.

2.6 Persistence Recommendations and Conclusions Evaluators address t he issue of persistence of savings from e nergy efficiency programs because of the impact that the stream of savings estimates has on the benefit / cost tests of measures and programs. While s ome measure life values are estimated at more than 20 years, most benefit/ cost assessments are estimated out at least 10 years or, more commonly, 15 to 20 years.
The approaches discussed in this chapter include methods to address measure life and savings performance, which may be impacted by operating conditions, behavioral changes, turnover in building occupancy, changes in measure use, and other factors. To date, the tools and methods that make up the recommended tool kit for evaluators include:

• Benchmarking and database development for measure life values and savings persistence

• On

- site analyses of equipment

• Survey methods for select measures amenable to survey t echniques

• Single-year estimations of equipment retention and operation13 - 18 • Multiyear statistical analyses based on survival models

• Technical degradation studies based on engineering review

• Technical degradation based on laboratory testing

• Billing analyses that capture overall persistence (that is, that assess savings directly and capture all changes in savings for the time period being analyzed).
The review of methods illustrates the different ways persistence can be addressed

. Research is continuing in this ar ea, and methods have been adopted in different jurisdictions. As with any area of evaluation, there will always be improvements. The Appendix to this chapter presents tables outlining program and measure persistence study challenges and issues.

Th e balanc e of this section presents practical recommendations for assessing the persistence of savings. The goal of evaluation is to help stakeholders make good decisions about investments in energy efficiency programs, and this requires both an understanding of th e techniques and applied judgment.

**2.6.1 Recommendations**  1. Before determining whether to undertake a large

- scale persistence study of a program or measure (or even to undertake such a study at all), consider whether the results of the study are likely to have a material impact on the economics of the program. Persistence of savings refers to the stream of savings expected from a measure or program over a period of years. If the study’s revised persistence of savings is expected to be small and to occur 10 or more years or more in the future, then the impact of that change may not have a large e ffect on the cost- benefit economics. Keep these considerations in mind when deciding:

• Benefit

- cost tests are based on NPVs that discount the streams of benefits and costs. A change in measure life by a year or two and changes for long- lived measures may not have much impact after they are discounted.

• The p erformance degradation of energy efficiency measures should be assessed relative to that of the standard efficien cy equipment, as both will have performance degradation. The difference between these two values determines the impact on savings.

2. Select the methodology that best fits the individual circumstances of the measure/program being evaluated.

• Pick the method most appropriate to the magnitude of the effect expected. Before conducting the study, take a forward -looking view of what might be learned

. While this may seem difficult, researchers across the evaluation community and the industry make the se decisions on a regular basis. The key is to ensure that the information produced is worth the effort expended to produce it. The goal is to obtain information that decision makers need for making good decisions regarding energy efficiency investments.13 - 19 • Measures that may have persistence impacts within the first three to seven years are the most important to study because of their near- term effects and the ir potential to influence the benefit / cost tests and program designs.

• As b enchmarking uses the expertise of engineers who have been working in the field for years
, it may be a good approach for many measures, particularly given the large number of measures across all energy efficiency programs. However, past work can be improved upon through the use of mo re systemized approaches
, such as a Delphi -type of analysis. 15

• Although t he b illing analyses method addresses the issue of persistence most comprehensively, there are cautions to consider. The effect may be small
, which will require large sample sizes . Also
, it may be difficult to control for other factors outside the program that cause changes in energy use across a five - or 10-year period. Where quality data exist, a billing analysis is a good method for assessing persistence, but it requires an appropriat e data platform for it to be reliable. 16

3. It is important to be open to the new methods and approaches being developed. Specifically, a panel of participants established at the time of program participation could be used in cross- sectional, time

- series models . This involves incorporating the evaluation of persistence in program design and implementation planning. This type of forward thinking will make persistence easier to address, particularly in

near

- term years when it is most important. 17

4. Certain types of p ersistence studies, particularly database/benchmarking approaches, might best be addressed on a regional basis that includes numerous specific programs. Assessing persistence across a number of regional programs can provide information on the influence of program design on persistence, which might not be found using a series of program- specific studies. In identifying these regional opportunities, it is important to co nsider the influence of program design on persistence. (For example, in the study Nexus performed across New England in 2008, program- specific elements had a large influence on the persistence of lighting

measures. )

15 Skumatz (2012) presents a number of ways these studies can be improved, including the use of Delphi approaches. An expert

- panel approach was used in an evaluation of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance’s market transformation programs by Violette and Cooney (Violette and Cooney 2003).

16 Billing data analyses that try to estimate small effects reliably ( for example , 2% savings) without the required sample sizes and accurate data for the independent variables ( that is, little measurement error) have often not been successful. Quantum ( Quantum 1998) discusses this issue in the context of using a billing analysis to assess persistence for n ew home construction.

17 Panel data methods are suggested as a potential approach in both Skumatz ( Skumatz 2012) and Nexus ( Nexus 2008).13 - 20 

### 3 Other Evaluation Issues This section briefly addresses these evaluation issues : (1) synergy ; (2) errors in variables
, measurement error, and program tracking ; (3) dual baselines; and (4) rebound.

3.1 Addressing Synergies A cross P rograms Evaluators are often asked about potential synergies across programs. For example, certain information programs may result in direct savings impacts, but the programs may also be designed to lead participants into other programs. In addition, there may be effects across programs. For example, a who le -house retrofit program may influence the uptake of measures offered in other residential programs. These synergies are useful for designing programs and portfolio s. Synergies that increase the overall savings from a portfolio of programs are valuable

ev en if one specific program has lower savings due to these synergies.
The industry practice is to use approximate information to assess the relative importance of synergies. Even this level of analysis has generally been limited in evaluations. However, useful information on synergies can be developed by having evaluators:

1. Identify what they believe may be positive and negative synergies ( that is, direction )

2. Determine the rough magnitude of these synergies by benchmarking them as a fraction of the progra ms’ savings.
With this material , portfolio models designed to assess the importance of synergies can produce information useful for assessing investments in energy efficiency and future program /portfolio designs. 18

**3.1.1 Conclusion**  At the present time, the stat e-of- the practice involves identifying and assessing the potential importance of specific synergies across programs , although this is not always requested of evaluators. If assessing synergies becomes part of an evaluator’s reporting requirements, the evaluator could modify surveys to provide useful information on potentially important energy efficiency program design considerations. 19

18 This approach does not have to be information intensive in terms of developing useful data for analyzing synergies a nd benchmarking their magnitude. Two pieces of information are needed: (1) an estimated range of effects, for example, from 5% of program savings to 20% of program savings; and (2) an estimate of where the most likely value falls within this range. Based on these three points―the lower bound, the upper bound
, and an estimate of where within this range the most likely valu e falls―Monte Carlo methods can be used to test the importance and sensitivity of program impacts to identified synergies using Excel

- based tools. An example of this range

- based method can be found in Violette and Cooney ( Violette and Cooney 2003), and a v ersion of this method is discussed in EPRI ( EPRI 2010, p. 5

- 4). This information can be used by the program administrator to inform the design of future energy efficiency portfolios.

19 One reviewer of this chapter pointed out the potential complexities of determining program

- specific synergies and their direction “...to the extent that synergies are increasingly observed or acknowledged, policies regarding the use of individual program cost

- benefit analysis results for justifying the retention of programs may need to be changed in favor of portfolio level benefit cost analyses.” This section was not intended to delve into benefit

cost methods. However, increased attention on synergies across programs is likely to prove useful. Monte

- Carlo models that use different scenarios regarding the magnitude and direction of synergies can help assess the robustness of program and portfolio cost

- effectiveness.13 - 21 3.2 Errors in Variables, Measurement Error s, and Tracking Systems This section outlines the issue s of errors in the input v ariables to an energy savings calculation. Such errors could be caused by an incorrect engineering calculation or by in accurate values of the independent variables used in the regression analyses.
It is important that evaluators consider the accuracy of t he input data and use the best quality data possible. In this conte xt , data accuracy issues include data that are unbiased on average, but

are subject to measurement error. B iased data clearly poses issues for any analysis ; however, measurement error in itself poses challenges for evaluation

. This is true even when the measurement error may be uncorrelated with the magnitude of the value of the variable, and the

error may be equally distributed above and below the true value.

P rogram implementers need to be aware that the d esign s of the data tracking system and the data collection processes have a substantial influence on the accuracy and reliability of data. In turn, the accuracy and completeness of the data influence the estimated realization rates and the ability to achieve the target levels of confidence in these estimates.

While errors in variables can bias the evaluation results either up or down, there are several practical factors in energy efficiency evaluations that tend to result in lower reali zation rates and lower savings estimates. A typical realization rate study uses information from the tracking system to verify that the equipment is in place, working as expected, and achieving the energy savings predicted in the tracking system. Tracking system errors can include not properly recording the site location, contact information, equipment information, location where the equipment is installed, and the operating conditions of the equipment. This will make any associated field verification more difficult and the variance around the realization rate greater.
Different data issues will have different impacts on the estimates; however, i mproved data quality will usually decrease the variance of the realization rate estimate and inc rease confidence and precision. When stakeholders have set high target confidence-and-precision levels, it is important to track accurately the essential data (such as the installed measures ’ location, size, model number, date, contact person) required to produce the initi al tracking system estimate of savings at that site.

The issue of errors in variables and measurement error can be important.

• Kennedy (2003) states: “Many economists feel that the greatest drawback to econometrics is the fact that the data with which eco nometricians work with are so poor.”

• Similarly, Chen et al . (Chen et al. 2007) states: “The problem of measurement errors is one of the most fundamental problems in empirical economics. The presence of measurement errors causes biased and inconsistent parameter estimates and leads to erroneous conclusions to various degrees in economic analysis.” Errors in measuring the depen dent variable of a regression equation are incorporated in the equation’s error term and are not a problem. T he issue is with errors in measuring the independent variables used in a regression model. This violates the fixed independent variables assumption of classical linear regression models : t he independent variable is now a stochastic13 - 22 variable. 20 A good source for a pproaches to addre ss the errors

- in

- variables issue is Chapter 9 in Kennedy (2003).
The program tracking system data used in regression analyses can be a source of potential issues. For example, the inability to track customer participation in multiple programs can cause a

n umber of problems. In these instances, data can be very accurate at the program level, but there is no mechanism to ascertain the effects of participating in multiple programs. For example, if a billing analysis is being conducted of a high- efficiency resi dential heating, ventilating, and airconditioning ( HVAC ) replacement program but the tracking system is not linked to the residential audit and weatherization program that feeds participants into the HVAC program , this will cause bias

. When customers firs t participate in a feeder program but that information is not conveyed in the tracking system used by the HVAC evaluator , then the HVAC program’s savings analysis will be biased, most likely on the low side.

An other well-known errors- in -variables issue relates to models that use aggregate data on DSM expenditures and energy consumption in analyz ing the relationship between expenditures on energy efficiency activities and changes in energy use. 21 Developing the appropriate datasets poses challenges. For ex ample, Rivers and Jaccard (2011) note that :
[O]ur data on demand side management expenditures include all demand side management—in particular it includes both load management expenditures as well as energy efficiency expenditures. Since load management expenditures are not aimed at curtailing electricity demand explicitly... (p. 113).
The report then states that they do not believe this is a problem since

... utilities that were able to provide us with data (as well as in US utilities), load management expenditures amounted to less than 25% of the total, so error in our estimates should not be too severe, and in particular should not change the nature of our conclusions. The authors may be correct, but their assessment was based on judgment with little real analysis of the degree of the issue.
The work by Rivers and Jaccard ( Rivers and Jaccard 2011) and by Arimura et al. ( Arimura et al. 2011) illustrates the degree of effort often required to develop a useful set of aggregate state/ province -level data or utility

- level DSM . Using the Energy Informatio n Administration forms , Arimura states : “The original data set has many observations with missing values for DSM spending, even after our meticulous efforts to find them from various sources.” 22

20 The assumption is that observations of the independent variable can be considered fixed in repeated samples ( that is , that it is possible to repeat the sample with the same independent variable values; [ Kennedy 2003, p. 49 ] ).
21 Two recent publications with examples of this are Rivers and Jaccard (Rivers and Jaccard 2011) and Arimura et al. (Arimura et al. 2011)

. 22 See footnotes 15, 16 and 17 in Arimura et al. (2011) for a discussion of the challenges they addressed in developing values of the key variables ( that is, the utility’s energy efficiency expenditures that could explain changes in energy use and be us ed to assess cost

- effectiveness in terms of cost per kWh saved).13 - 23 Another issue concerns the fact that numerous states have both utility and third

- party program providers, which complicates the development of data that can be used to examine the relationship between utility energy efficiency program expenditures and aggregate energy consumption.

A ttenuation bias is a potential issue when there is measurement error in the independent variables used in regression analyses

. Simply stated, the implication s are these: (1) more noise in the data due to measurement errors will make it more difficult to find significant impacts and (2) those impacts will tend to be biased downwards. 23

Attenuation bias can be a problem in regression models using independent variables that might have large numbers of measurement errors due to :

• D ifferences in reporting of values in databases compiled across utilities

• Assignment/allocation of values at a utility service territory level down to a county level to create more observations. Chen et al. (Chen et. al 2007, 2011) and Satorra ( Satorra 2008) present a graphical example of this bias using a measurement error model developed for a simple one- variable regression

.

• Using the model Y = β X + e and

• having X measured with error
,

• the measurement error model X = x + u, with x uncorrelated with u, var(X) = var(x) + var(u) can be used to assess the reliability of the estimated coefficient

. The reliabili ty of X is defined as rel = 1 - var(u)/var(X) (which results in a number between 0 and 1).
Satorra performed a set of simulations for a sample si ze equal to 10 and used different values for the reliability of the regressor X: 1 (accurate), 0.86, 0.61, and 0.50 (considerable measurement error).

Each simulation is shown in Figure 4

.

23 This is not a new problem. Chen (2007 and 2011, p. 901) discusses how one of the most famous studies in economics had to address attenuation bias. In his famous book A Theory of the Consum ption Function
, Milton Friedman ( Friedman 1957) shows that, because of the attenuation bias, the estimated influence of income on

consu mption would be underestimated.13 - 24 Figure 4: Satorra (2008) Simulation Results

As shown in Figu re 4 , the bias in the coefficient increases as the reliability of X decreases ( that is, measurement error increases) , even if this measurement error is uncorrelated with the variance of X. The slope of the coefficient declines as the reliability of X decli nes. This represents the attenuation bias associated with measurement error.

**3.2.1 Conclusion**  Issues associated with measurement error are often unavoidable in applied regression analysis. On occasion , data collected for one purpose with one level of accuracy may be used as a variable in a model testing for different types of effects. The solution is to reduce measurement error in the independent variables (the reg r essors ) as much as possible

.
Errors in variables, measurement errors
, and general issues with da ta in tracking systems will make it more difficult for the evaluator to identify energy savings at a desired level of confidence. Kennedy (2003) states, “In the spirit of fragility analysis, econometricians should report a range of estimates corresponding to a range of values of measurement variance.” Kennedy presents examples of how this can be accomplished , but this extra effort is best13 - 25 reserved for large

- scale efforts , and it goes beyond current industry standard practice in energy efficiency evaluation.

Nevertheless , having a good data platform from which energy efficiency savings are evaluated is important and needs more emphasis in practical evaluation work.

3.3 Dual Baselines There are several evaluation issues caused by changes― during the lifetime of that measure ―in the baseline against which savings are estimated

. One issue
, remaining useful life (RUL)
, occurs when a program is focused on replacing existing ( lower

- efficiency) equipment with energy efficiency equipment before the old equipment ceases to function or before it would otherwise have be en replaced. The savings could be:

• C alculated simply as the difference between energy use for the replaced measure and the new energy efficiency measure or

• B ased on the difference between the new standard meas ures available in the market

as compared to the new energy efficiency measure.
These savings would be constant for the assumed life of the measure

— that is, no adjusted baseline for that measure is considered for the period after the RUL.
In theory, the use of two baselines can be argued to be the appropriate approach in certain applications

. The baseline for the replaced low- efficiency measures that still had useful life would be the difference in efficiency between the replaced measure and the high

- efficiency measure for the RUL of the replaced measure. For the period after the replaced measure’s RUL, the baseline should shift to the difference between the installed high-efficiency equipment and the currently available standard equipment . (This would be the baseline for the balance of the assumed life of the new high- efficiency measure .) In practice, this is not often done. (S ee the conclusions f or this section).

A similar situation occurs when a replacement is made of equipment that has a measure life span ning a point when a new code requires higher- efficiency equipment. In this case, evaluators must decide whether the baseline should be the effi ciency of the equipment replaced and , in that event, change to a new baseline after the new code or standard is adopted. In general, the working assumption is that the baseline should reflect the energy use of the replaced equipment. If

, however, that equipment would have been replaced with in a few years by new equipment that meets the new code, then there is a question about whether the baseline should shift

.
**3.3.1 Conclusion**  **s** These dual baseline questions are beginning to receive more attention. T wo opinions are expressed in the literature :

• The first and most common is that the complexit ies and uncertaint ies entailed in estimat ing the RULs of the equipment being replaced are excessive compared to their effects on energy savings calculations

.13 - 26 • The second opin ion is that dual baseline the issues are important to address for some certain select measures, such as lighting, where the impacts may be large.
These dual- baseline issues have been addressed in some program evaluations, but have not generally been viewed as important for overall energy efficiency program evaluation because of the ir complexity and uncertainty regarding customer actions. However, the topic of dual baselines deserves more research to assess those specific situations in which accounting for the two baselines might have a substantive effect on energy savings.

3.4 Rebound Effects Rebound occurs when the costs of using energy are reduced due to energy efficiency programs. When famil ies spend less money to cool their home in the summer because of mor e efficient equipment, they might change the ir temperature set point to increase their comfort and their energy use.

Rebound is discussed in the literature according to the following two types:

• Type 1: Rebound is used essentially synonymous with take -back and happens at the participant level. It i nvolve s the question of whether participants who experience lower costs for energy because of a n energy efficiency program measure

— such as the installation of a high

- efficiency air conditioner —then “ take back ” som e of those savings by using more energy. 24

• Type 2 : Rebound takes place in the larger economy because energy efficiency programs have reduced the cost of energy across a number of uses, stimulating the development and use of energy-using equipment. With the exception of low-income programs, Type 1 rebound has not been found to be significant in most energy efficiency program evaluation s. 25 When consumers match marginal benefits with marginal costs, the concept s of bounded rationality and compartmental ized decision making are being recognized as one theory of consumer behavior and decision making. 26 (This is contrary to pure economic theory.) Consumers optimize, but only to the point when the complexity of the decision and the cost of the information bec ome too high. For example, although the efficiency of an air- conditioning (AC) unit varies daily with temperature

24 A reviewer pointed out that, for many customers, the lower costs of energy are not refl ected in the price of a kWh or a t herm of natural gas. Instead, customers use less energy, resulting in a lowering of their monthly bills. This results in customers spending less on energy over the course of a season or year.

25 This chapter is focused on energy efficiency programs. Take

- back is more common in demand response and load management programs where AC units or other equipment are cycled to reduce peak demand for several hours on a few select days. This can result in a warming of the house or building, and the equipment automatically runs a bit more after the cycling event to return the temperature to the original set point. More efficient operational and cycling designs for AC load management programs can greatly reduce take

- back, and take

- back is a more common effect for event

- based load management programs than for energy efficiency programs that influence all hours of a season.

26 The primary reference for this concept is Simon ( Simon 1957), but it is also discussed in Kahneman ( Kahneman 2003).13 - 27 and load; however, a consumer setting the thermostat on the AC unit is probably not going to examine the cost of running that unit each day an d then adjust the thermostat accordingly

. Most customers set their thermostats at a comfortable level, regardless of whether they participate in an AC equipment program (whether for maint en ance or new equipment) that increases the energy efficiency of the unit. In other words, consumers generally do not change their thermostat setting as a result of participating in an energy efficiency program.

Low

- income customers can be the exce ption, as they may change their thermostat set points for both AC and heating after participating in an energy efficiency program designed to increase the efficiency of the equipment. The c hange in energy price is more important to low- income customers , who may have been sacrific ing comfort to meet their household budget before t hey participat ed in the energy efficiency program. Lowering the costs of AC and heating may allow them to set their thermostats at a level that provides more comfort, which may result in greater energy use for this participant segment. While this may cause an increase in the overall energy use for th ese low-income customers, it can provide a large welfare gain and even improved health and safety for low

- income customers

. Going beyond the program participants ’ actions , Type 2 rebound assesses the economy as a whole , as l owering the cost of energy through aggressive energy efficiency programs may make energy more economic al for many new uses. There has been a recent resurgence of interest in this type of rebound, but a full analysis is beyond t he scope of this chapter , which focuses on energy efficiency program evaluation. (Gavankar and Geyer [2010] present a review of this larger rebound issue.) Th ere is substantial literature on th is economy-wide concept of rebound, and address ing most of the key theses in the discussion requires economy-wide models with energy as one of the inputs for the a wide variety of products and services. 27

S earch ing on the terms “ energy efficiency ” and “rebound ” results in many policy papers that present theses on how rebound may be an influence in the larger economy. T he issue seems not to be economic welfare , but other policy goals. Using resources as efficiently and costeffectively as possible always seems like a good policy, unless there is some other constraint. Reducing the cost of energy and allowing people to use energy in additional applications may increase overall welfare. Still, if the goal is to not increase energy use at all, then the downside of reducing energy costs may be concerns about carbon emissions. (It is not the purpose of this chapter, however, to detail this literature, other than noting it exists and offering some practical places to begin a review. )
Using resources as efficiently as possible should be a good start towards any policy designed to reduce energy consumption that may contribute to carbon emissions. This policy could complement pricing and other policies designed to reduce energy use. S tarting from a platform of efficient energy use should not hinder the applicability of other polici es.

27 Other references to discussions of the rebound effect can be found in Vaughn (2012) and in Burns and Potts (2011). Other references are Tierney J. (2011), which presents the issue of rebound as being important, and a counterpoint paper by Afsah (2011.13 - 28 

### 4 References

Allison, P.A. (1995). Survival Analysis Using the SAS System: A Practical Guide

. SAS Institute. Arimura, T.H. ; Li, S. ; Newell, R.G. ; Palmer
, K. (2011). Cost

- Effectiveness of Electricity Energy Efficiency Programs. National Bureau of Economic Research . NBER Working Paper No. 17556. www.nber.org/papers/w17556

. Afsah, S, K. Salcito and C.Wielga (2011), “Energy Efficiency is for Real, Energy Rebound a Distraction,” CO2 Scorecard Research Notes, January. http://co2scorecard.org/Content/uploads/Energy_Efficiency_is_for_Real_CO2_Scorecard_Resea rch_Jan_11_12.pdf

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) . (2006). California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols: Technical, Methodological, and Reporting Requirements for Evaluation Prof essionals

. Oregon: TecMarket Works. www.calmac.org/publications/EvaluatorsProtocols_Final_AdoptedviaRuling_06-19-2006.pdf

. Chen, X.; Hong, H. ; Nekipelov, D. (2007). “ Measurement Error Models. ” Prepared for the Journal of Economic Literature

. www.stanford.edu/~doubleh/eco273B/surveyjan27chenhandenis-07.pdf

. Chen, X. ; Hong, H. ; Nekipelov, D. (2011). “ Nonlinear Models of Measurement Errors. ” Journal of Economic Literature . (49:4); pp. 901 –937. http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/P/cp/p13a/p1344.pdf

. Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI ) ( January 2010), Methodological Approach for Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Smart Grid Demonstration Projects . Palo Alto, CA: 2010. 1020342. www.smartgridnews.com/artman/uploads/1/1020342EstimateBCSmartGridDemo2010_1_.pdf

. Energy and Resource Solutions (ERS) . (November 17, 2005). Measure Life Study. Prepared for The Massachusetts Joint Utilities

. Friedman, M. (1957). A Theory of the Consumption Function . Princeton University Press. www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/s ubcommittees/comlighting/Measure%20Life%20Study_MA%2 0Joint%20Utilities_2005_ERS-1.pdf

. GDS Associates (2007). Measure Life Report: Residential and Commercial/Industrial Lighting and HVAC Measures . Prepared for The New England State Program Working Group for use as an Energy Efficiency Measures/Programs Reference Document for the ISO Forward Capacity Market. http://neep.org/uploads/EMV%20Forum/EMV%20Studies/measure_life_GDS%5B1%5D.pdf

. Gavankar, S.; Geyer
, R. (June 2010). The Rebound Effect: State of the Debate and Implications for Energy Efficiency Research . Institute of Energy Efficiency (UCSB). http://iee.ucsb.edu/files/pdf/Rebound%20Report%20for%20IEE-UCSB_0.pdf

. Kahneman, D. (2003). “ Maps of Bounded R ationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics.” The American Economic Review

. ( 93 :5); pp. 1449–75. www.econ.tuwien.ac.at/lotto/papers/Kahneman2.pdf

.13 - 29 KEMA . (2004). Residential Refrigerator Recycling Ninth Year Retention Study . Study ID Nos. 546B, 563, Madison

. www.calmac.org/results.asp?t=2

. KEMA . (August 25, 2009). Focus on Energy Evaluation: Business Programs: Measure Life Study Final Report

. P repared for the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. www.focusonenergy.com/files/Document_Management_System/Evaluation/bpmeasurelifestudyf inal_evaluationreport.pdf

. Kennedy, P. (2003). A Guide to Econometrics. Chapter 9

. MIT Press. Navigant Consulting, Inc. (February 20, 2011). Evaluation Report: OPower SMUD Pilot Year 2 . Presented to OPower. http://opower.com/uploads/library/file/6/opower_smud_yr2_eval_report_-_final-1.pdf

. Nexus Market Research, Inc. (June 4, 2008). Residential Lighting Measure L ife Study

. Cambridge: New England Residential Lighting Program. www.puc.nh.gov/Electric/Monitoring%20and%20Evaluat ion%20Reports/National%20Grid/121 _NMR_Res%20ltg%20measure%20life.pdf

. Peterson, G.; deKieffer, R.; Proctor, J.; Downey , T. (1999). Persistence #3A: An Assessment of Technical Degradation Factors: Commercial Air Conditioners and Energy Management Systems, Final Report . CADMAC Report # 2028P.
Burns, C; Potts, M (2011). The “Rebound Effect”: A Perennial Controversy Rises Again. Solutions Journal: Spring 2011 (Vol. 4, No. 2 ) http://www.rmi.org/TheReboundEffectAPerennialControversyRisesAgain

. Vaugh, K. (2012). Jevons Paradox: The Debate That Just Won't Die – Response by Amory Lovins, RMI Outlet, March 20. http://blog.rmi.org/blog_Jevons_Paradox
Proctor Engineering. (1999). Summary Report of Persistence Studies: Assessments of Technical Degradation Factors, Final Report . CADMAC Report #2030P.

www.c almac.org/publications/19990223CAD0003MR%2EPDF

. Quantum Consulting . (1998). PG&E Statewide Multi

- Year Billing Analysis Study: Commercial Lighting Technologies Final Report . Berkeley.

Rivers , N.; Jaccard , M. (2011). “ Electric Utility Demand Side Management in Canada

. ” The Energy Journal. (32: 4) ; pp. 93-116. http://bwl.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/lehrstuhl_ind_en_uw/lehre/ws1112/SE_Int._Energ y_Mgmt_1/DSMCanada.pdf

. Satorra, A. (2008). Theory and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Department d'Economiai Empresa . Barcelona. http://statmath.wu.ac.at/courses/TPStrucEqMod/errorinvariables.pdf

. Simon, H . (1957). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice in Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting. New York: Wiley.13 - 30 Skumatz , L.A. et al. (2009). Lessons Learned and Next Steps in Energy Efficiency Measurement and Attribution: Energy Savings, Net to Gross, Non- Energy Benefits, and Persistence of Energy Efficiency Behav ior. http://uc -ciee.org/downloads/EEM_A.pdf

. Skumatz, L. A. (2012). What Makes a Good EUL? Analysis of Existing Estimates and Implications for New Protocols for Estimated Useful Lifetimes (EULs). International Energy Program Evaluation Conference. Rome, Italy.

Tierney J. (2011), “When Energy Efficiency Sullies the Environment”, The New York Times , March 2011.

Violette, D. ; Cooney , K. ( December 8, 2003). Findings and Report: Retrospective Assessm ent Of The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

. Prepared for Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Ad Hoc Retrospective Committee

. Summit Blue/Navigant Consulting. www.theboc.info/pdf/Eval-BOC_SummittBlue_NEEA_2003.pdf

.13 - 31 

### 5 Resources

Ahmad, M.; Deng, A.; Spoor, S.; Usabiaga, M. ; Zhao , I. (2011). Persistence of Energy Savings in Industrial Retrocommissioning Projects . ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Industry. www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2011/data/papers/0085-000028.pdf

. Decision Sciences Research Associates . (1999). 1994 Commercial CFL Manufacturers’ Rebate Persistence Study. Report ID 529D. Pasadena: Decision Sciences Research Associates.

KEMA . (April 24, 2006). 2005 Smart Thermostat Program Impact Evaluation . Final report prepared for San Diego Gas and Electric Company. http://sites.energetics.com/madri/toolbox/pdfs/pricing/kema_2006_sdge_smart_thermostat.pdf

. Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2010). Kaizen Blitz Pilot. Report 1. Prepared for Energy Trust of Oregon.
Ontario Power Authority . (2011). EM&V Protocols and Requirement . Ontario: 2011-2014.

Pacific Gas & Electric . (1999). Commercial Lighting Study. CALMAC. pp. 4-14.
Proctor Engineering. (1998). Statewide Measure Performance study #2: An Assessment of Relative Technical Degradation Rates. Final Report. For California Measurement Advisory Committee.
RLW Analytics . (1998). SCE Non -Residential New Construction Persistence Study. Final Report. For Sou thern California Edison. Study # SCE0064.01; 554; 530.
San Diego Gas & Electric . ( March 2006 ). 1996 & 1997 Commercial Energy Efficiency Incentives Ninth Year Retention Evaluation. www.calmac.org/publications/2006%5FPY96%26PY97%5FCEEI%5F9th%5FYear%5FRetentio n%5FEvaluation%2Epdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (November 2007). Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide. www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/suca/evaluation_guide.pdf

.13 - 32 

### 6 Appendix A : Program

- Specific Persistence Study Challenges and Issues 28 Persistence studies provide useful information for making sensible energy efficiency (EE) investment decisions when the benefit/cost test of a measure is sensitive to changes in savings over time. As such, various persistence study challenges and issues should be examined regarding how energy savings are estimated (e.g., through measure and/or behavioral change). Table 3 summarizes persistence study challenges and issues by energy activity.

Table 3: Persistence Study Challenges and Issues Program Measure or

Activity Characteristics Persistence Study Challenges and Issues

New Installation, Retrofit, and Replace on Burnout • Intervention occurs at the time measures are being replaced.

• Savings result from the difference in energy use between the old equipment and the EE equipment.

• An example is a lighting rebate program that provides incentives to participants for switching to higher

- efficiency lighting measures. • Cost of on

- site data c ollection is high.

• Impractical to wait for half of the units to fail so

as to determine median survival time.

• Some owners prematurely interrupt measure life

for various reasons (such as dissatisfaction with new equipment) and switch back to less

- efficient equipment.

• Measure life estimates are based on failures.

However, as there are few equipment failures in the early stages of equipment life, it is difficult to get an unbiased determination of expected useful life (EUL).

• A lack of plug load sector data.

• Bu siness turnover has a strong effect on

commercial measure lifetime.

• When replacing equipment before the end of

equipment life, the question of whether EE should be calculated by the delta of efficient equipment compared either to (1) replaced equipment, or (2) the equipment required by codes and standards. There is difficulty in predicting future standards. Early Retirement • Accelerates the retirement of inefficient equipment.

• Savings result from load reduction due to absence of inefficient equipment.

• An example is a refrigerator recycling program that gives participants an incentive for terminating the use of inefficient refrigerators. • RUL is not well

- studied, thus, it introduces uncertainties to future savings after the early retirement of the old e quipment.

Behavioral Programs Energy Characteristics Current Persistence Study Challenges and

28 Ms. Angie Lee and Mr. Mohit Singh

- Chhabra of Navigant, Inc., developed this appendix.13 - 33 Activity Issues Feedback 29 • Programs that influence behavioral changes to obtain energy savings.

• Savings result from behavioral changes.

• An example is an informational program that tells households of their energy consumption as compared to their neighbors. • Current standard behavior is going to change, and future standard behavior is difficult to predict.

• A lack of studies on behavioral programs.

• It is diff icult to find an unbiased, uncontaminated

control group.

Educational/Tra ining • Educational programs that provide customers with EE education.

• Savings result from behavioral changes.

• An example is a school education program. • Current standard behavior is go ing to change, and future standard behavior is difficult to predict.

• A lack of studies on behavioral programs.

Operation & Maintenance (O&M) • Provides O&M best practices with low

- cost/no

- cost measures, such as adjusting control settings.

• Savings result from improved O&M.

• An example is retro

commissioning activity. • Retro

- commissioning programs typically have a short useful life 30 , since most of the activities involve adjusting controls.

• Operators who are unaware of the reason

behind adjust ments could revert back to the original settings.

29 Navigant Consulting (2011)

. 30 Ahmad et al. (2011)

.13 - 34 Table 4: Measure and Behavioral Programs
Measure and Behavioral Programs Energy Activity Characteristics Current Persistence Study Challenges and Issues Whole Building New Construction and Retrofit 31 • Combination of both EE measures and O&M best practices.

• Savings result from the difference in energy use between the old equipment and the EE equipment, as well as from O&M best practices over baseline behavior. • It is difficult to separate out the effects of specific measures in a whole

- building system, as most energy evaluations utilize billing analysis or building simulations to estimate whole

- building savings.

Smart Thermostat 32 • Thermostats are used to influen ce AC use.

• Users obtain incentives for allowing the utility to adjust their thermostat set points while reserving the right to override the utility re

- set.

• Savings result from reduction in energy usage occurring from changes in AC use. • A lack of persiste nce studies on smart thermostat programs.

31 RLW Analytics (1998).
32 KEMA (2006).13 - 35 The following table presents candidate methods by study type— measure life, retention and degradation.

Table 5 : Methodology Summary

Method Method Description and Application Data Requirements Applicable Studies Meas

ure Life Reten tion Degrada tion

On

- Site Equipment Installation Verification • Verifications through an on

site inspection: (1) that equipment is in

- place and operable, and (2) whether the application of the equipment has changed.

• Applicable to evaluating measure programs.

• An example is a measure life/EUL study of a commercial lighting incentive program using on

- site audits 33

. • Measure make and model.

• Spot measurements to supplement visual inspection.

• Date installed and date when

measure became inoperable or was removed. x x

On

- site Equipment Measurement and Testing • Measurement (short term or long term) of equipment performance, focused on collecting data and ensuring equipment is use as designed. If it is not, then identifying the reasons the usage differs from the equipment’s design intent.)

• Applicable to evaluatin g measure programs.

• An example is a degradation study of high

- efficiency motors. • Measure make and model.

• Use of equipment as designed.

• Observation of failure rates. x

Laboratory Testing • Measurement of energy use of both EE and standard equipment over time in unoccupied facilities.

• Laboratory testing must account for the operational conditions expected for installations.

• Applicable to evaluating measure programs.

• An example is a degrada tion study comparing existing and high

- efficient air compressors. Energy use of equipment over time. x

33 San Diego Gas & Electric (1999).13 - 36 Method Method Description and Application Data Requirements Applicable Studies Meas

ure Life Reten tion Degrada tion
Benchmarking and Secondary Literature Review • Engineering review of equipment degradation and uncertainties. The literature search should include journ al articles, conference proceedings, manufacturer publications, and publications of engineering societies.

• Applicable to evaluating both measure and behavioral programs.

• An example is an assessment of measure technical degradation rates by conducting a meta

- review on secondary literature. 34 Equipment and/or behavior degradation and uncertainties. x x x

Telephone Surveys/ Interviews • Interviews of program participants about: (1) their consumption patterns compared to EE equipments’ design intent, and (2) w hether the EE equipment is in place and operable.

• Applicable to evaluating both measure and behavioral programs.

• An example is a persistent study of an O&M program studying behavioral retention. 35 Equipment failures and/or replacement behavior, including time of failure and/or replacement, and the number of failures and/or replacements. x x x

Billing Analyses

– Fixed Effects and Statistically Adjusted Engineering Models 36 • Statistical analysis to model the difference between customers’ energy usage pre and post

- analysis periods, using real customer billing data over multiple years.

• Applicable to measure and behavioral programs.

• An example is evaluating multiyear savings p ersistence on commercial lighting technologies. 37 Customer billing data over time. x x

Survival Curves • Linear, logistics, exponential, or hazard models estimating Independence of equipment failure x

34 Proctor Engineering (1998).
35 Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2010).
36 Pacific Gas & Electric (1999).
37 Quantum Consulting (1998).13 - 37 Method Method Description and Application Data Requirements Applicable Studies Meas

ure Life Reten tion Degrada tion equipment survival rate. The model choice depends on equipment characteristics and previous research.

• Applicable to measure and behavioral programs.

• An example is estimating the EUL of equipment installed in a new construction project using survivor function and hazard function. and EUL.

Controlled Experiment • Experiment developed across census, randomly assigning participants into treatment and control groups.

• Applicable to behavioral programs.

• An example is a retention study of a behavioral energy program over multiple years. Customer billing data of control group and treatment group over time. x x