2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan i

VOLUME 1:

2015 TO 2019

ENERGY EFFICIENCY/

PEAK DEMAND REDUCTION 

(EE/PDR) ACTION PLAN

March 26, 2014
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan ii

Table of Contents

E Executive Summary ...........................................................................................1

E.1 AEP Ohio’s Commitment and Strategic Plan Goals............................................. 1

E.2 Summary of 2015-2019 EE/PDR Plan .............................................................. 1

E.3 Summary of EE/PDR Program Results.............................................................. 6

E.4 EE/PDR Plan Summary................................................................................... 6

E.5 Energy, Demand and Emissions Savings ......................................................... 10

E.6 EE/PDRs Investment and Potential Job Creation.............................................. 14

E.7 Benefit-Cost Analysis, Net Benefits and Bill Impacts......................................... 17

E.8 2015 to 2034 EE/PDR Savings Potential Analysis ............................................. 23

E.9 Overview of Program Plans............................................................................ 31

E.10 Plan Implementation..................................................................................... 34

E.11 Evaluation, Measurement and Verification....................................................... 34

E.12 Plan Risk...................................................................................................... 38

E.13 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................ 40

1 Introduction .....................................................................................................41

1.1 AEP Ohio Overview....................................................................................... 42

1.2 EE/PDR Study Goals and Approach................................................................. 43

1.3 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Action Plan Report Organization .................................... 44

2 Plan Development.............................................................................................45

2.1 Plan Tactical Objectives................................................................................. 45

2.2 Planning Process .......................................................................................... 46

2.3 Market Segmentation.................................................................................... 46

2.4 Stakeholder Participation in the Planning Process ............................................ 53

2.5 Attempts to Align and Coordinate with Other Public Utility Programs ................. 54

2.6 AEP Ohio Plan Management........................................................................... 54

3 EE/PDR Plan Summary Results ........................................................................57

3.1 Plan Framework and Summary ...................................................................... 57

3.2 Benefit-Cost Analysis Background .................................................................. 57

3.3 Benefit-Cost Methodology.............................................................................. 59

3.4 Program Development .................................................................................. 62

4 EE/PDR Program Plans .....................................................................................64
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan iii

4.1 Consumer Programs ..................................................................................... 64

4.1.1 Efficient Products (On-Going Program) ................................................ 64

4.1.2 Appliance Recycling (On-Going Program)............................................. 68

4.1.3 In-Home Audit (On-Going Program) .................................................... 70

4.1.4 NEW HOME (On-Going Program)........................................................... 75

4.1.5 BEHAVIOR CHANGE (On-Going Program) ................................................. 77

4.1.6 e

3

smartSM (On-Going Program)............................................................ 79

4.1.7 Community Assistance (On-Going Program)......................................... 81

4.2 Business Programs........................................................................................ 84

4.2.1 Efficient Products for Business (Previously Prescriptive) (On-Going 

Program) ..................................................................................................... 84

4.2.2 Process Efficiency (Previously Custom) (On-Going Program).................. 89

4.2.3 New Construction (On-Going Program)................................................ 92

4.2.4 Express (On-Going Program) .............................................................. 95

4.2.5 Self-Direct (On-Going Program) .......................................................... 98

4.2.6 Retro-Commissioning (On-Going Program)...........................................100

4.2.7 Continuous Energy Improvement (On-Going Program)..........................102

4.2.8 Bid to Win (On-Going Program)...........................................................104

4.2.9 Data Center (On-Going Program) ........................................................106

4.2.10 Demand Response (On-Going Program)...............................................109

4.3 Cross-Sector Programs and Other Activities.....................................................110

4.3.1 Multifamily Program (New Program)....................................................111

4.3.2 Combined Heat and Power and Waste Energy Recovery – CHP/WER (New 

Program) .....................................................................................................115

4.3.3 Customer Power Factor Correction ......................................................119

4.3.4 Transmission and Distribution (T&D) Customer Efficiency Projects (New 

Program) .....................................................................................................120

4.3.5 gridSMART®Enabled EE/PDR Savings..................................................121

4.3.6 Transmission and Distribution (T&D) Loss Reduction Projects (formerly 

T&D and Internal Efficiency Improvements)....................................................122

4.3.7 Education and Training.......................................................................123

4.3.8 Targeted Advertising..........................................................................125

4.3.9 Research and Development ................................................................128

5 Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................133
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan iv

Table of Tables

Table 1. SB 221 Savings Requirements (at Meter) – 2015 to 2019.......................................... 5

Table 2. EE/PDR Plan Savings Results (at Meter) – 2011 to 2012 ........................................... 6

Table 3. Savings Goals and Efficiency Plan Investment – 2015 to 2019................................... 8

Table 4. Incremental Annual Energy (GWh) Savings at Meter – 2015 to 2019 ........................11

Table 5. Incremental Annual Summer Peak Demand (MW) Savings at Meter – 2015 to 2019...13

Table 6. Total Emissions Reductions – 2015 to 2019 ............................................................14

Table 7. Estimated Annual Total Investments by Program (million $).....................................15

Table 8. Number of Jobs Created (2015 through 2019) ........................................................17

Table 9. Cost-effectiveness Ratios – 2015 to 2019 ...............................................................18

Table 10. Benefit-Cost Test Formulas..................................................................................19

Table 11. Present Value Costs – 2015 to 2019 (2015$) ........................................................19

Table 12. Costs Tests – Net Present Value Net Benefits – 2015-2019 (2015 $million)..............20

Table 13. Utility Cost Test (UCT) – Net Present Value Net Benefits (2015 $million).................21

Table 14. 2012 EE/PDR Benchmarking Data ........................................................................26

Table 15. Projected Cumulative Annual Savings at Meter and Costs – 2034............................28

Table 16. AEP Ohio Key Statistics .......................................................................................43

Table 17. Residential Customer Data – 2013 .......................................................................47

Table 18. Consumer Programs Participation - 2013 ..............................................................48

Table 19. Nonresidential Customer Data – 2013 ..................................................................50

Table 20. Business Programs Participant Savings – 2013 ......................................................51

Table 21. Comparative Benefit-Cost Tests ...........................................................................58
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan v

Table of Figures

Figure 1. EE/PDR vs. Supply-Side Investments ..................................................................... 7

Figure 2. EE/PDR Action Plan Structure – 2015 to 2019........................................................10

Figure 3. The Four Stages of Energy Efficiency Potential.......................................................23

Figure 4. Cumulative Annual GWh Energy Savings in 2034 ...................................................29

Figure 5. Cumulative Annual Summer Peak MW Demand Savings in 2034..............................29

Figure 6. Market Potential Annual Energy Savings at Meter as Percent of Economic Potential in 

2034................................................................................................................................30

Figure 7. Peak Demand Savings at Meter as Percent of Economic Potential in 2034 ................30

Figure 8. Steps of the EM&V Process ..................................................................................36

Figure 9. Phases of Energy Efficiency Promotion ..................................................................42

Figure 10. AEP Ohio’s Service Territories .............................................................................42

Figure 11. Four Stages of Energy Efficiency Potential ...........................................................46

Figure 12. Residential Sector Energy Consumption – 2013....................................................49

Figure 13. Consumer Programs Participant Savings – 2013...................................................49

Figure 14. Nonresidential Energy Consumption – 2013 .........................................................52

Figure 15. Business Programs Participant Savings – 2013 .....................................................53
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 1

E EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

E.1 AEP Ohio’s Commitment and Strategic Plan Goals

AEP Ohio is committed to helping customers use energy more efficiently and 

productively by delivering cost-effective programs that provide value to all stakeholders.

The strategic goals of this 2015-2019 Energy Efficiency and Peak Demand Reduction 

(EE/PDR) Action Plan (Plan) are to:

• Deliver a comprehensive and cost-effective Plan providing the opportunity for 

participation by all customer rate classes and every major customer segment 

in every region of AEP Ohio’s service territory.

• Reduce inefficient uses of electricity while improving customer productivity, 

comfort and safety, and increasing satisfaction.

• Provide additional customer financial resources through energy savings for other 

important needs and to offset rising costs.

• Help delay the need for new electricity generation and future related rate 

impacts.

• Continue to provide the lowest cost alternative to new generation.

• Reduce the environmental impacts of fossil fuel generation facilities and the cost 

of compliance with environmental regulations.

• Help provide sustainable jobs for Ohio.

• Increase economic development in Ohio.

• Meet or exceed Ohio Senate Bill (SB) 221 energy efficiency and peak demand 

reduction requirements.1

• Comply with Ohio Revised Code 4901:1-39 for Plan content.2

E.2 Summary of 2015-2019 EE/PDR Plan

This Plan is the third plan developed and submitted for approval to the Public Utilities 

Commission of Ohio (PUCO) by AEP Ohio, following the current approved 2012-2014

EE/PDR Action Plan.3The Plan is modeled based on the current market potential study, 

baseline analyses and actual results from programs delivered through the current Plan. 

 

1

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=127_SB_221

2

See http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/4901%3A1-39

3

See PUCO dockets 11-5568-EL-POR and 11-5569-EL-POR for the 2012-2014 EE/PDR Action Plan
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 2

This Plan has been lengthened from three years to five years for several reasons:

 A market potential study has been completed for this Plan and AEP Ohio agrees 

with PUCO staff’s recommendation in the revised green rules to increase the 

length of time from three to five years for market potential study updates4. The 

current rules do not require Plans to be completed on a three year basis; 

however, Plans have been filed every three years to coincide with the three year 

market potential study update time frame. AEP Ohio intends to file for an 

exception to the three year potential study update requirement in this Plan 

filing.

 A five year Plan reduces administrative burden on the part of AEP Ohio, 

stakeholders and the PUCO, while maintaining adequate oversight and review 

through ongoing annual filings of Plan status reports and EE/PDR rider true ups, 

as well as regular reporting and stakeholder input through the AEP Ohio 

Collaborative of stakeholders. 

 The increase in Plan length will reduce costs for all customers. Plan and market 

potential study development is a significant cost and increasing the Plan length 

by two years is expected to save customers nearly $250,000 in Plan 

development without reducing planning quality or alignment with market 

conditions. 

 Moving to a five year Plan at this time also reflects an experienced AEP Ohio 

EE/PDR staff with the capability to manage the longer-term Plan effectively 

based on their proven track record of cost effective goal achievement.

 AEP Ohio has a history of working collaboratively with stakeholders through its 

Collaborative and with other interested parties and plans to continue that effort 

in an open, transparent and flexible manner throughout this Plan period.

 The period from 2015 through 2018 represents a stable period of 1 percent

incremental energy benchmarks and the conclusion of the cumulative peak 

demand reduction requirements in 2018. Costs are more predictable as well.

 For 2019, AEP Ohio has sufficient banked savings available prior to the 

implementation of the 2015-2019 Plan to pledge a minimum of 1 percent in 

2019 so that this Plan can be designed to meet or exceed 1 percent in that year, 

reducing costs for all customers.

 AEP Ohio’s position at this time is that 2020 represents a critical year of review 

to determine if then implemented federal codes and standards will diminish the 

ability of utilities in Ohio to reach the mandated 2 percent goals past 2019 in a 

cost effective manner, without significantly increasing costs for all customers.

 AEP Ohio and interested stakeholders need more time leading up to 2020 to 

develop the future planning necessary to address this challenge and a five year 

 

4

See PUCO Docket 13-0651-EL-ORD
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 3

plan implementation and approval provides that opportunity. Lower statutory 

goals and/or Plan cost caps may need to be considered in order to continue cost 

effective programs at reasonable costs for all customers.

 Whether the legislative mandates for energy efficiency and peak demand 

reduction remain the same, change or are eliminated, this Plan is provided for 

approval to the Commission for the full term of the Plan. The Plan benefits for

all customers and the state of Ohio are significantly higher than the cost. 

The Plan reflects the continuance of successful existing programs and modifications to 

improve program success. In addition, new programs have been added to the Plan to

encourage greater participation by customers. Collaborative stakeholder input has been 

instrumental in identifying and adding new programs and modifications to existing ones. 

Segmentation continues to be enhanced, enabling targeted marketing to continue 

increasing customer participation. Ongoing Plan viability, customer acceptance, 

customer satisfaction and cost effectiveness are critically important; therefore, the Plan 

continues a rigorous research and development function, to ensure ongoing effective 

energy efficiency programs that deliver strong performance. The research and 

development function will also allow new program opportunities identified over the Plan 

life to be tested, measured and integrated into the program offerings after passing AEP 

Ohio’s screening process. 

Significant effort was made to design the Plan at a lower cost on an annual basis than 

the 2012-2014 approved EE/PDR Action Plan, even though the benchmark requirements 

are higher. The Plan is designed to meet or exceed the benchmark energy efficiency 

and peak demand reduction requirements in Ohio law, while capping Plan costs at the 

2013 approved levels on average for the 2015-2019 Plan.

This Plan allows the flexibility to adjust and shift incentives between programs to 

maximize cost effectiveness and increase customer participation as conditions change 

over the five year period. Any shifting of incentives between residential and 

commercial/industrial customer classes would require separate PUCO approval and is 

not expected at this time. AEP Ohio proposes to develop separate residential and 

business pools of incentive dollars, allocating those incentive dollars to the programs 

that are the most cost effective and have the highest customer participation each year. 

Further, AEP Ohio intends to utilize competitive bidding for business incentive dollars 

through its Bid to Win program in the fall of each year to provide competitive 

intelligence that can be used to set business program incentives in the following year.

Cost management and overall improvement strategies for the 2015-2019 Plan include:

 Provide program opportunities to improve cost effectiveness while also increasing 

customer participation and satisfaction.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 4

 Continue and enhance the successful programs currently being delivered; 

however, focus on adjusting incentives for all programs based on market 

conditions through competitive bidding and ongoing market analyses.

 Pool some incentive dollars into residential and business buckets to be delivered 

to customers through approved programs based on cost effectiveness and 

program participation. Identify methods of reducing the cost of managing and 

delivering incentives.

 Increase multifamily opportunities for new construction and home retrofit 

programs. 

 Investigate building code compliance educational opportunities and attribute 

appropriate savings.

 Focus on total electric residential customer opportunities to increase savings per 

home, including manufactured housing.

 Improve target marketing in all sectors.

 Increase customer awareness of AEP Ohio programs with research and 

segmentation, to increase opportunities for all customers to participate.

 Add Combined Heat and Power and Waste Energy Recovery (CHP/WER) program 

and deliver performance based and highly cost effective customer projects to 

help offset cost effectiveness losses by other programs to codes and standards 

changes.

 Enhance Continuous Energy Improvement (CEI) program to increase customer 

productivity and reduce energy density for large scale energy savings at lower 

cost.

 Provide AEP Ohio side of the meter customer energy efficiency programs such as 

Volt Var and investigate light-emitting diode (LED) street lighting and LED 

outdoor lighting programs.

 Continue to investigate upstream and midstream approaches as well as direct 

opportunities to deliver cost effective energy efficiency measures.

EE/PDR is an important resource for the state of Ohio, AEP Ohio and its customers, 

continuing to be important as future fuel and commodity prices remain volatile and 

environmental regulation becomes more stringent. EE/PDR may become an effective 

resource to help state compliance with potential future federal greenhouse gas 

regulations. Estimates of EE/PDR potential are a key input to the integrated resource 

planning process, which considers the load forecast and both supply-side and demandside resources. The market potential study that informs this Plan is the result of a

current analysis of the EE/PDR market potential in AEP Ohio’s service territory by 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. (Navigant), an experienced EE/PDR consultant, under the

direct supervision and guidance of AEP Ohio. The market potential study included the 

results of a recent baseline study completed in AEP Ohio’s service territory and the 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 5

direct experience of AEP Ohio in its current program Plan performance, as well as 

benchmarking and best practices program analyses from other utility programs. 

Ohio law in SB 221 requires investor-owned electric utilities to achieve incremental 

energy savings each year through EE/PDR programs, with a cumulative 22.2 percent by 

the end of 2025. Utilities also must implement programs designed to reduce peak 

energy demand one percent beginning in 2009, and an additional 0.75 percent per 

year, for a total 7.75 percent through 2018. 

Table 1 presents SB 221 EE/PDR percentage requirements and associated energy and 

summer peak demand requirements for 2015 through 2019, which is the focus of this 

EE/PDR Action Plan.

Table 1. SB 221 Savings Requirements (at Meter) – 2015 to 2019

SB 221 Requirements

At Meter Energy Savings (GWh)

Year Incremental Cumulative (2009 Through)

2015 1.0% 420.8 5.2% 2,295.7

2016 1.0% 424.9 6.2% 2,720.6

2017 1.0% 425.6 7.2% 3,146.2

2018 1.0% 426.3 8.2% 3,572.5

2019 2.0% 854.5 10.2% 4,427.0

At Meter Peak Demand Savings (MW)

Year Incremental Cumulative (2009 through)

2015 0.75% 49 5.50% 479.0

2016 0.75% 55 6.25% 533.9

2017 0.75% 54 7.00% 587.8

2018 0.75% 63 7.75% 650.5

2019 NA NA NA NA

AEP Ohio plans to meet or exceed the SB 221 savings requirements for 2015 to 2019, 

ensuring that all customer classes have energy saving opportunities. The Plan presents 

detailed information on the approach, energy efficiency and demand response 

measures and proposed incentive levels. AEP Ohio anticipates that portions of the Plan 

will need to be adjusted during implementation in response to better information or 

changing market conditions. AEP Ohio will update the PUCO in accordance with the 

rules, and advise the AEP Ohio Collaborative regarding the need for any substantive 

revisions to this Plan.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 6

E.3 Summary of EE/PDR Program Results 

Table 2 presents the actual savings results submitted to the PUCO for 2011 and 2012 

programs.

Table 2. EE/PDR Plan Savings Results (at Meter) – 2011 to 2012

EE/PDR Plan Savings Results 2011 to 2012

At Meter Energy Savings (GWh)

Year Incremental Cumulative (2009 through)

SB 221 

Requirement

GWh 

Achieved

Achievement 

as Percent 

of Sales

SB 221 

Requirement

GWh 

Achieved

Achievement 

as Percent 

of Sales

2011 0.7% 502 1.04% 1.5% 1,117 0.79%

2012 0.8% 571 1.22% 2.3% 1,688 0.90%

At Meter Peak Demand Savings (MW)

Year Incremental Cumulative (2009 through)

SB 221 

Requirement

MW 

Achieved

Achievement 

as Percent 

of Sales

SB 221 

Requirement

MW 

Achieved

Achievement 

as Percent 

of Sales

2011 0.75% 128 1.26% 2.50% 270 0.94%

2012 0.75% 82 0.86% 3.25% 352 0.92%

E.4 EE/PDR Plan Summary 

AEP Ohio proposes to invest up to $441.4 million over five years on energy efficiency

and demand response programs and projects full year savings of 2,705 GWh and 433

MW cumulative annual savings at the meter over a five-year period during calendar 

years 2015 through 2019. The total customer bill savings from this investment 

estimated over the life of the installed EE/PDR measures are projected at approximately 

$1.5 billion, using Participant Cost Test (PCT) net benefit results less program 

administrative costs. Further, the total net benefits based on the Total Resource Cost 

(TRC) test are projected to be about $615 million, including reparticipation over the 20-

year planning horizon, excluding Combined Heat and Power/Waste Energy Recovery

(CHP/WER). With every dollar of program investment yielding over 1.6 dollars in 

benefits, using the TRC test net benefit results. 

The overall Plan projected first year annual cost per kWh saved is $0.16/kWh (note that

this cost is not comparable to a supply-side investment and is only used to compare 

programs and Plans at a high level for reasonableness of cost.) This Plan continues the 

previous Plan’s anticipation that the lower cost lighting opportunities are going to be 

significantly less available over time; however, growing commercial and industrial 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 7

measures are expected to make up for some of those losses. Large institutional or 

industrial combined heat and power projects can be highly cost effective in the right 

applications and may provide significant opportunities to help offset the loss of low cost 

lighting applications. Another opportunity reflected in this Plan is the shift to LED 

lighting. While incremental annual savings will be lower, LED lighting measure life will 

help improve cost effectiveness. 

This Plan reflects an ongoing reduction in lighting savings resulting from changes in 

baselines due to federal lighting standards and projected deeper savings from higher 

cost, but still cost effective, measures and measure combinations. AEP Ohio’s actual 

program experience with costs has been factored into the 2015-2019 Plan cost 

projections.

The lifetime cost of saved energy is estimated to be $0.013/kWh for the 2015 to 2019 

EE/PDR Plan. The lifetime cost of saved energy is more comparable to a supply-side 

generation investment alternative. At current supply-side generation investment 

alternatives including non-dispatchable technologies such as wind and solar, the 

EE/PDR Plan cost compares favorably and is the lowest cost alternative, as shown in 

Figure 1.

Figure 1. EE/PDR vs. Supply-Side Investments

Supply-side investments source: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2013, January 2013, 

DOE/EIA-0383 (2012).

The division of EE/PDR program investment between residential and business 

customers is commensurate with each sector’s relative cost-effectiveness and 

contribution to the Plan. Table 3 provides the projected savings, associated funding for 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 8

AEP Ohio’s 2015 through 2019 program Plan, and projected net present value net 

benefits. 

Table 3. Savings Goals and Efficiency Plan Investment – 2015 to 2019

Consumer 

Sector 

(Incremental 

Annual

Savings at 

Meter)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2015-2019 

Total 

(Cumulative)

NPV Net 

Benefits 

(Million $ 

2015$)

Energy 

Savings (GWh) 130 128 133 138 141 591 $136

% Savings of 

Sector Sales 0.95% 0.95% 0.99% 1.02% 1.05% 4.41% -

Note: Behavior Change program savings are not cumulative. Combined Heat and Power / Waste Energy Recovery savings are 

presented in 2015-2019 Total (Cumulative) only; and are not presented in 2015 to 2019 Incremental Annual Savings.

Demand 

Savings (MW) 21 20 20 20 21 90 -

% Savings of 

Sector Sales 0.61% 0.59% 0.60% 0.60% 0.62% -

Note: Demand savings goals are not cumulative. Behavior Change program savings are not cumulative. Combined Heat and 

Power / Waste Energy Recovery savings are not presented in 2015 to 2019 Incremental Annual Savings.

Total Cost 

(million $) $30.2 $30.6 $34.0 $36.5 $37.1 $168.4 -

Business 

Sector 

(Incremental 

Annual

Savings at 

Meter)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2015-2019 

Total

(Cumulative)

NPV Net 

Benefits 

(Million$ 

2015$)

Energy 

Savings (GWh) 299 309 317 321 326 2,114 $511

% Savings of 

Sector Sales 1.09% 1.12% 1.15% 1.16% 1.18% 7.70% -

Note: Combined Heat and Power / Waste Energy Recovery savings are presented in 2015-2019 Total (Cumulative) only, and are 

not presented in 2015 to 2019 Incremental Annual Savings.

Demand 

Savings (MW) 53 54 54 54 55 343 -

% Savings of 

Sector Sales 1.12% 1.13% 1.14% 1.14% 1.15% -

Demand savings goals are not cumulative. Behavior Change program savings are not cumulative. Combined Heat 

and Power / Waste Energy Recovery savings are not presented in 2015 to 2019 Incremental Annual Savings.

Total Cost 

(million $) $44.2 $46.2 $47.0 $47.5 $48.0 $233.0 -
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 9

Total All 

Sectors 

(Incremental 

Annual

Savings at 

Meter)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2015-2019 

Total

(Cumulative)

NPV Net 

Benefits 

(Million $ 

2015$)

Energy 

Savings (GWh) 429 438 450 459 468 2,705 $615

% Savings of 

Sector Sales 1.04% 1.06% 1.10% 1.12% 1.14% 6.60% -

Note: Behavior Change program savings are not cumulative. Combined Heat and Power / Waste Energy Recovery savings are 

presented in 2015-2019 Total (Cumulative) only; and are not presented in 2015 to 2019 Incremental Annual Savings.

Demand 

Savings (MW) 74 74 75 74 75 433 -

% Savings of 

Sector Sales 0.91% 0.91% 0.92% 0.92% 0.93% -

Note: Demand savings goals are not cumulative. Behavior Change program savings are not cumulative. Combined 

Heat and Power / Waste Energy Recovery savings are not presented in 2015 to 2019 Incremental Annual Savings.

Total Cost 

(million $) $74.4 $76.8 $81.0 $84.0 $85.1 $401.4 -

Other Costs 

(million $) $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $40.0

Portfolio 

Total 

Investment 

(million $)

$82.4 $84.8 $89.0 $92.0 $93.1 $441.4 -

(1) Savings are not projected for Research and Development, Transmission and Distribution (T&D) System Efficiency 

Improvements, Customer Power System Efficiency or Demand Response. AEP Ohio also will conduct program 

evaluation and other essential program support functions, such as compliance and reporting, database management, 

contracting and payables, and Plan cost-benefit analysis. 

(2) Other Costs include support and other services, including Research and Development, General Education and 

Training, Targeted Advertising, and Demand Response, etc. 

Incentive levels and other program elements will be reviewed and adjusted to reflect 

changes in market conditions or implementation processes in order to maximize costeffective savings. 

Plan Structure

Figure 2 presents the proposed Plan structure, including seven consumer sector and ten

business sector programs, as well as nine cross-sector programs and other activities. 

AEP Ohio also will conduct program evaluation and other essential program support 

functions, such as compliance and reporting, financials, database management, 

contracting and payables and Plan benefit-cost analysis. The new programs are 

Multifamily, Combined Heat and Power / Waste Energy Recovery (CHP/WER), Customer 

Power Factor and transmission and distribution (T&D) Customer Efficiency Projects. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 10

Figure 2. EE/PDR Action Plan Structure – 2015 to 2019

E.5 Energy, Demand and Emissions Savings

Table 4 presents the projected incremental annual GWh energy savings for each year 

as well as 2015 to 2019 cumulative total, TRC test results, net present value net 

benefits in 2015 million dollars, lifetime energy saved in thousand MWh, and lifetime 

cost of saved energy in 2015 dollars per kWh over the five-year period from 2015 to 

2019. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 11

Table 4. Incremental Annual Energy (GWh) Savings at Meter – 2015 to 2019

Consumer Sector ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19

‘15-

‘19 

Total 

(cumulative)

% of 

Plan 

Total

Total 

Resource 

Cost Test 

(TRC)

NPV Net 

Benefits

(million 

2015$)

Lifetime 

Energy 

Saved

(thousand 

MWh)

Lifetime 

Cost of 

Saved 

Energy

(2015$ / 

kWh)

Appliance Recycling 17 15 15 15 15 76 2.8% 2.3 $14.9 609 $0.019 

Behavior Change 9 9 9 9 9 9 0.3% 1.2 $0.4 9 $0.207 

Community Assistance 8 9 9 10 9 43 1.6% 0.8 -$5.5 560 $0.060 

e3smart 5 5 5 5 5 24 0.9% 3.0 $9.8 216 $0.011 

Efficient Products 74 74 78 81 84 353 13.1% 1.7 $100.9 3,605 $0.018 

In-Home Energy 10 10 10 11 12 51 1.9% 1.2 $4.4 577 $0.032 

New Home 6 7 7 7 7 34 1.3% 1.4 $10.7 671 $0.015 

Consumer Sector 

Total 130 128 133 138 141 591 21.8% 1.6 $135.7 6,246 $0.023 

% Total of Consumer 

Sector Sales 0.95% 0.95% 0.99% 1.02% 1.05% Note: Behavior Change savings are not cumulative.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 12

Business Sector ‘15 ‘16 ‘17 ‘18 ‘19

‘15-

‘19 

Total 

(cumulative)

% of 

Plan 

Total

Total 

Resource 

Cost Test 

(TRC)

NPV Net 

Benefits

(million 

2015$)

Lifetime 

Energy 

Saved

(thousand

MWh)

Lifetime 

Cost of 

Saved 

Energy

(2015$ / 

kWh)

New Construction and 

Major Renovation 32 36 36 36 36 173 6.4% 2.6 $63.5 1,757 $0.010 

Continuous Energy 

Improvement 14 16 17 15 14 74 2.7% 1.2 $8.3 369 $0.037 

Process Efficiency 65 63 67 65 65 325 12.0% 2.8 $155.7 4,685 $0.007 

Data Center 8 7 7 6 6 34 1.3% 1.2 $3.7 169 $0.041 

Bid to Win 43 45 45 44 45 222 8.2% 1.2 $26.2 2,216 $0.006 

Express 20 22 21 21 21 104 3.8% 1.5 $23.4 790 $0.025 

Efficient Products for 

Business 99 100 105 111 118 515 19.1% 1.7 $150.2 4,732 $0.014 

Retro-Commissioning 3 4 4 4 5 20 0.7% 1.2 $2.2 99 $0.028 

Self-Direct 11 11 12 13 13 26 1.0% 3.3 $25.4 258 $0.021 

Multifamily 4 5 5 4 4 22 0.8% 1.2 $2.4 187 $0.049 

Combined Heat and 

Power/Waste Energy 

Recovery

- - - - - 600 22.2% 1.2 $50.0 9,600 $0.002 

Business Sector 

Total 299 309 317 321 326 2,114 78.2% 1.6 $510.9 24,863 $0.008 

% Total of Business 

Sector Sales 1.09% 1.12% 1.15% 1.16% 1.18% Note: CHP/WER annual savings are not presented. 

PLAN TOTAL

(includes Other 

Costs)

429 437 450 459 467 2,705 100% 1.6 $615.2 31,109 $0.013

% Total of Total Sales 1.04% 1.08% 1.10% 1.12% 1.14% Note: CHP/WER annual savings are not presented. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 13

Table 5 presents the projected incremental annual summer peak demand MW savings 

levels as well as the cumulative total over the five-year period from 2015 to 2019.

Table 5. Incremental Annual Summer Peak Demand (MW) Savings at Meter –

2015 to 2019

Consumer Sector 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2015-2019 

Total 

(cumulative)

Percent of 

Plan Total

Appliance Recycling 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 10.8 2.5%

Behavior Change 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.3%

Community Assistance 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 5.6 1.3%

e3smart 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.6 0.6%

Efficient Products 11.1 10.0 9.7 9.3 9.8 44.7 10.3%

In-Home Energy 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 10.0 2.3%

New Home 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.3 3.2 15.4 3.6%

Consumer Sector 

Total 21.0 19.8 20.2 20.1 20.6 90.4 20.9%

Percent Total of 

Sector Sales 0.61% 0.59% 0.60% 0.60% 0.62% - -

Business Sector 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2015-2019 

Total 

(cumulative)

Percent 

of 

Plan Total

New Construction and 

Major Renovation 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3 15.7 3.6%

Continuous Energy 

Improvement 2.9 3.5 3.5 3.2 2.9 15.7 3.6%

Process Efficiency 14.3 13.6 13.9 13.1 12.8 66.8 15.4%

Data Center 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 3.1 0.7%

Bid to Win 7.2 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.5 36.9 8.5%

Express 4.0 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.6 18.9 4.4%

Efficient Products for 

Business 18.4 18.3 18.7 19.5 20.4 92.9 21.4%

Retro-Commissioning 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 3.3 0.8%

Self-Direct 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 2.7 0.6%

Multifamily 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 5.1 1.2%

CHP/WER - - - - - 81.9 18.9%

Business Sector 

Total 53.3 55.0 54.0 53.8 54.2 343.0 79.1%

Percent Total of 

Sector Sales 1.12% 1.13% 1.14% 1.14% 1.15% - -

Plan Total 74.3 74.8 74.2 73.9 74.8 433.3 -

Percent of 

Total Sales 0.91% 0.91% 0.92% 0.92% 0.93% - -
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 14

Table 6 presents the estimated total emissions reductions based on the projected 

cumulative annual energy savings at meter over the five-year period from 2015 to 

2019.

5

Table 6. Total Emissions Reductions – 2015 to 2019

Consumer Sector

NOx SO2 CO2 Hg

(metric tons) (metric tons) (metric tons) (lbs.)

Appliance Recycling 50 151 40,435 2.5

Behavior Change 6 19 4,976 0.3

Community Assistance 29 88 23,694 1.5

e

3

smartSM

 16 49 13,146 0.8

Efficient Products 

255 775 207,747 12.8

In-Home Energy 34 104 28,028 1.7

New Home 22 68 18,123 1.1

Consumer Sector Total 413 1,253 336,148 20.6

Business Sector

NOx SO2 CO2 Hg

(metric tons) (metric tons) (metric tons) (lbs.)

New Construction & Major Renovation 114 346 92,768 5.7 

Continuous Energy Improvement 49 149 39,993 2.5 

Process Efficiency 213 645 172,987 10.6 

Data Center 23 70 18,768 1.2 

Bid to Win 145 439 117,714 7.2 

Express 69 210 56,230 3.5 

Efficient Products for Business 348 1,056 283,339 17.4 

Retro-Commissioning 13 40 10,795 0.7 

Self-Direct 39 117 31,476 1.9 

Multifamily 15 45 11,941 0.7 

CHP/WER 1,176 3,564 956,081 58.7

Business Sector Total 2,204 6,681 1,792,092 110.0 

PLAN TOTAL 2,617 7,934 2,128,241 130.6 

E.6 EE/PDRs Investment and Potential Job Creation 

The estimated investment for these programs is approximately $88.3 million in each 

year from 2015-2019, for a total $441.4 million, as shown in Table 7. 

 

5 Emissions factors from PJM.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 15

Table 7. Estimated Annual Total Investments by Program (million $)

Consumer Sector 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2015-2019 

Total 

(cumulative)

Percent of 

Plan Total

Efficient Products $13.2 $13.0 $15.4 $17.6 $18.0 $77.3 17.5%

Community Assistance $7.4 $8.0 $8.1 $7.9 $7.9 $39.4 8.9%

In-Home Energy $3.9 $3.8 $4.3 $4.7 $5.1 $21.9 5.0%

Appliance Recycling $2.9 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $2.6 $13.2 3.0%

New Home $1.9 $2.0 $2.5 $2.6 $2.6 $11.7 2.7%

Behavior Change $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $0.4 $2.2 0.5%

e3smartSM $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $0.6 $2.8 0.6%

Consumer Sector Total $30.2 $30.6 $34.0 $36.5 $37.1 $168.4 38.2%

Business Sector 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2015-2019 

Total 

(cumulative)

Percent of 

Plan Total

Efficient Products for 

Business $14.5 $14.6 $15.2 $16.1 $16.9 $77.3 17.5%

Process Efficiency $7.9 $7.5 $7.5 $7.1 $6.8 $36.8 8.3%

Express $4.5 $4.9 $4.7 $4.6 $4.6 $23.3 5.3%

New Construction and Major 

Renovation $3.8 $4.3 $4.3 $4.3 $4.3 $21.0 4.8%

Continuous Energy 

Improvement $2.9 $3.5 $3.5 $3.2 $2.9 $16.0 3.6%

Bid to Win $3.2 $3.4 $3.3 $3.3 $3.3 $16.5 3.7%

CHP/WER $1.7 $2.1 $2.6 $3.1 $3.5 $13.0 2.9%

Multifamily $1.9 $2.5 $2.3 $2.1 $2.0 $10.7 2.4%

Self-Direct $1.1 $1.1 $1.3 $1.5 $1.4 $6.5 1.5%

Data Center $1.9 $1.7 $1.5 $1.5 $1.4 $8.0 1.8%

Retro-Commissioning $0.5 $0.6 $0.6 $0.7 $0.8 $3.3 0.7%

Demand Response $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.5 0.1%

Business Sector Total $44.2 $46.2 $47.0 $47.5 $48.0 $233.0 52.8%

Other Costs 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Percent of 

Plan Total

Targeted Advertising & 

Outreach $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $26.5 6.0%

Research and Development $2.0 $2.0 $2.0 $2.0 $2.0 $10.0 2.3%

Education and Training $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $0.7 $3.5 0.8%

Other Costs Total $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $40.0 9.1%

PLAN TOTAL $82.4 $84.8 $89.0 $92.0 $93.1 $441.4 -

(1) Savings are not projected for Research and Development, Education and Training, Targeted Advertising or 

Demand Response. AEP Ohio also will conduct program evaluation and other essential program support functions, 

such as compliance and reporting, database management, contracting and payables, and Plan cost-benefit analysis. 

(2) Other Costs include support and other services, including Research and Development, General Education and 

Training, Targeted Advertising, and Demand Response, etc.

To firm up cost estimates and make any necessary budget and schedule changes, 

AEP Ohio may re-negotiate existing contracts for ongoing programs or issue Requests 

for Proposals (RFPs) for implementation contractors to bid on the work, and require 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 16

them to submit detailed budgets along with estimated savings and implementation 

schedules. All new programs will be competitively bid through an RFP process. The cost 

for incremental internal management and third party evaluation, measurement and 

verification activities, and future plan development is included in the cost of the Plan. It 

is anticipated that these costs will not exceed ten percent of the total costs for the Plan.

Potential Job Creation

To capture the full economic impacts of the investments in energy efficiency, three 

separate effects (direct, indirect, and induced) must be examined for each change in 

expenditure. The sum of these three effects yields the total effect resulting from a 

single expenditure.

 The direct effect refers to the on-site or immediate effects produced by 

expenditures. In the case of installing energy efficiency upgrades in a home or 

business, the direct effect is the on-site expenditures and jobs of the 

construction or trade contractors hired to carry out the work.

 The indirect effect refers to the increase in economic activity that occurs when 

a contractor or vendor receives payment for goods or services delivered and is 

able to pay others who support their businesses. This includes the equipment 

manufacturer or wholesaler who provided the new technology. It also includes 

the bank that provides financing to the contractor, the vendor’s accountant, and 

the building owner where the contractor maintains its local offices.

 The induced effect derives from the change in spending that energy efficiency

investments enable. Businesses and households are able to meet their energy, 

heating, cooling, and lighting needs at a lower total cost, due to efficiency 

investments. This lower cost of doing business and operating households makes 

greater wealth available for businesses and families to spend or invest in other 

goods and services such as food, clothing, entertainment, or marketing (in the 

case of businesses).

Table 8 shows the total number of potential jobs—direct, indirect, and induced—that 

are estimated would be created from investing $441.4 million in electric energy 

efficiency and peak demand reduction in AEP Ohio customer homes and businesses in 

2015 through 2019. AEP Ohio estimates the number of jobs in Table 8.

6 On average, 

based on this analysis, one job potentially will be created for approximately $100,000 in 

spending.

 

6

Job creation estimates based on data from Green Recovery: A Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a 

Low-Carbon Economy, pages 9 and 27, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts at 

Amherst, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/green_recovery.pdf
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 17

Table 8. Number of Jobs Created (2015 through 2019)

2015 to 2019 Direct Indirect Induced Total

Jobs Created 1,950 1,450 975 4,375

E.7 Benefit-Cost Analysis, Net Benefits and Bill Impacts

Energy efficiency measures were evaluated with respect to each of the four standard 

benefit-cost tests:

7

 Participant Test (PCT): Measures are cost effective from this perspective if the 

reduced electric costs to the participating customer from the measure exceed the 

after-incentive cost of the measure to the customer.

 Utility (or program administrator) (UCT) Cost Test: Measures are cost 

effective from this perspective if the costs avoided by the measures’ energy and 

demand savings are greater than the utility’s EE/PDR program costs to promote 

the measure, including customer incentives. 

 Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) Test: Measures are cost effective from 

this perspective if their avoided costs are greater than the sum of the EE/PDR 

program costs and the “lost revenues” caused by the measure.

 Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test: Measures are cost effective from this 

perspective if their avoided costs are greater than the sum of the measure costs 

and the EE/PDR program administrative costs.

In line with standard industry practice and PUCO rule, AEP Ohio used the TRC test to guide

which EE/PDR programs to include in the Plan. Most measures passed the TRC test. The 

Plan of EE/PDR programs in the Plan are cost effective by industry standards. 

 

7 California Public Utilities Commission. California Standard Practice Manual Economic Analysis of Demand-Side 

Programs and Projects, October 2001, http://drrc.lbl.gov/pubs/CA-SPManual-7-02.pdf.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 18

Table 9 presents the overall benefit cost ratios for the consumer sector, the business 

sector, and the overall Plan including all costs from cross-sector and other activities.

Table 9. Cost-effectiveness Ratios – 2015 to 2019

Consumer Sector

Total 

Resource 

Cost Test 

(TRC)

Utility 

Cost Test 

(UCT)

Participant 

Cost Test 

(PCT)

Rate Impact 

Measure Test 

(RIM)

Appliance Recycling 2.3 2.3 7.7 0.4

Behavior Change 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.3

Community Assistance 0.8 0.6 3.0 0.3

e3smart 3.0 6.1 8.0 0.5

Efficient Products 1.7 3.8 4.0 0.5

In-Home Energy 1.2 1.5 3.4 0.4

New Home 1.4 3.6 3.0 0.5

Consumer Sector 

Total 1.6 2.6 4.0 0.4

Business Sector

Total 

Resource 

Cost Test 

(TRC)

Utility 

Cost Test 

(UCT)

Participant 

Cost Test 

(PCT)

Rate Impact 

Measure Test 

(RIM)

New Construction and 

Major Renovation 2.6 5.8 4.4 0.7

Continuous Energy 

Improvement 1.2 3.7 2.3 0.5

Process Efficiency 2.8 7.6 3.6 0.9

Data Center 1.2 2.8 2.8 0.5

Bid to Win 1.2 10.6 1.5 0.8

Express 1.5 3.5 3.3 0.5

Efficient Products for 

Business 1.7 5.4 2.6 0.7

Retro-Commissioning 1.2 4.5 1.7 0.7

Self-Direct 3.3 6.7 5.1 0.8

Multifamily 1.2 1.7 4.4 0.4

CHP/WER 1.2 18.1 1.2 1.0

Business Sector 

Total 1.6 6.6 2.2 0.8

Plan Total 

(includes 

Other Costs)

Total 

Resource 

Cost Test 

(TRC)

Utility 

Cost Test 

(UCT)

Participant 

Cost Test 

(PCT)

Rate Impact 

Measure Test 

(RIM)

1.6 4.6 2.6 0.7

Projected Net Benefits

The formulas used to determine the net benefits for each benefit-cost test are provided 

in Table 10. After all tests are evaluated by calculating the net present values over the 

lifetimes of the measures covered by the 20-year planning horizon. The total net 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 19

benefits for each benefit-cost test for the 2015-2019 EE/PDR Plan are calculated by 

subtracting the value(s) in the denominator of each formula from the value(s) in the 

numerator. For example, subtracting both Administrative Costs (B) and Incentive Costs 

(C) from the Avoided Costs (A) results in the the UCT net benefits. 

Table 11 presents the present value costs for the 2015-2019 EE/PDR Plan. The Avoided 

Costs (A) and Bill Reductions (E) result from energy savings and are valued as benefits.

The Administrative Costs (B), Incentive Costs (C), and Technology Costs (D) are valued 

as costs. 

Table 10. Benefit-Cost Test Formulas

Cost Test Formula Key of Terms

Utility Cost Test 

(UCT)

UCT = A / (B + C) A = PV Avoided 

Costs

D = PV 

Technology 

Costs

Participant Cost 

Test (PCT)

PCT = (C + E) / D B = PV 

Administrative 

Costs

E = PV Bill 

Reductions

Rate Impact 

Measure Cost 

Test (RIM)

RIM = A / (B + C + E) C = PV 

Incentive Costs

PV = Present 

Value 

Total Resource 

Cost Test (TRC)

TRC = A / (B + D)

Table 11. Present Value Costs – 2015 to 2019 (2015$)

PV Avoided 

Costs 

(A)

PV Administrative 

Costs 

(B)

PV Incentive 

Costs 

(C)

PV Technology 

Costs 

(D)

PV Bill 

Reductions

(E)

$1,711,817,207 $137,105,377 $240,154,491 $959,552,030 $2,245,373,773

Utilty Cost Test (UCT) indicates how much utilty costs will decrease due to the 

projected EE/PDR programs. The UCT examines the EE/PDR costs and benefits from the 

AEP Ohio’s perspective. The UCT allows AEP Ohio to evaluate EE/PDR benefits and 

costs on a comparable basis with supply-side investments. A positive UCT indicates the 

total EE/PDR costs to save energy are less than the AEP Ohio’s costs to deliver the 

same amount of power though new supply side resources. The net benefits from the 

UCT is the reduction in supply costs to AEP Ohio due to reduced energy consumption.

Participant Cost Test (PCT) examines the costs and benefits from the perspective of 

the customer installing the EE/PDR measures. The PCT shows how much the EE/PDR 

program participants are projected to save over the life of the meaures installed.

Rate Impact Measure Test (RIM) indicates how much AEP Ohio’s rates are 

projected to increase or decrease over the long term as a result of the EE/PDR 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 20

measures installed. Unlike typical supply-side investments, EE/PDR programs reduce 

enegy sales. It is also important to consider whether rates overall will increase more or 

less by installing EE/PDR measures than new supply side resources over the long term.

Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) shows how much more or less energy efficiency 

resources cost compared to new supply-side electricity resources in the AEP Ohio 

service area. Unlike other cost tests, the TRC does not take the view of a class of 

stakeholders. The TRC test is essentially the “all ratepayer” test. The TRC is similar to 

the UCT except that the TRC considers the full cost of the measure itself rather than 

only the portion covered by the incentive paid by AEP Ohio. 

Table 12 presents the cost test results in terms of net present value (NPV) net benefits 

based on the projected 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR programs. A positive value indicates cost 

savings, while a negative value indicates increased costs.

Table 12. Costs Tests – Net Present Value Net Benefits – 2015-2019 (2015 

$million)

Consumer Sector

Total 

Resource 

Cost Test 

(TRC)

Utility 

Cost 

Test 

(UCT)

Participant 

Cost Test 

(PCT)

Rate 

Impact 

Measure 

Test 

(RIM)

Efficient Products $100.9 $179.3 $384.4 ($283.5)

In-Home Energy $4.4 $9.3 $39.9 ($35.4)

Appliance Recycling $14.9 $14.9 $53.4 ($38.5)

Behavior Change $0.4 $0.4 $5.2 ($4.8)

New Home $10.7 $25.7 $41.7 ($31.0)

E3smartTM $9.8 $12.4 $26.2 ($16.4)

Community Assistance ($5.5) ($12.9) $43.9 ($49.4)

Consumer Sector Total $135.7 $229.1 $594.7 ($459.0)

Business Sector

Total 

Resource 

Cost Test 

(TRC)

Utility 

Cost 

Test 

(UCT)

Participant 

Cost Test 

(PCT)

Rate 

Impact 

Measure 

Test 

(RIM)

Efficient Products for Business $150.2 $288.3 $295.1 ($144.9)

Process Efficiency $155.7 $208.5 $179.5 ($23.8)

New Construction and Major 

Renovation $63.5 $85.0 $116.5 ($53.0)

Express $23.4 $49.3 $89.4 ($66.0)

Self Direct $25.4 $30.8 $35.8 ($10.4)
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 21

Retro-Commissioning $2.2 $9.6 $7.2 ($5.0)

Continuous Energy Improvement $8.3 $36.4 $54.1 ($45.7)

Bid to Win $26.2 $134.9 $65.2 ($39.1)

Data Center $3.7 $12.7 $26.1 ($22.5)

Combined Heat and Power and 

Waste Energy Recovery $50.0 $275.2 $40.5 $9.5 

Multifamily $2.4 $6.6 $21.5 ($19.1)

Business Sector Total $510.9 $1,137.3 $930.9 ($420.0)

Plan Total (includes Other 

Costs)

TRC UCT PCT RIM

$615.2 $1,334.6 $1,525.2 ($910.8)

Table 13 shows the projected UCT results by program by year for 2015 to 2019.

Table 13. Utility Cost Test (UCT) – Net Present Value Net Benefits (2015 

$million)

Consumer Sector 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2015-2019 

Total

Efficient Products $39.7 $37.7 $35.7 $33.7 $32.5 $179.3 

In-Home Energy $1.9 $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $9.3 

Appliance Recycling $3.3 $3.0 $2.9 $2.9 $2.8 $14.9 

Behavior Change $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.4 

New Home $5.3 $5.2 $5.8 $5.3 $4.2 $25.7 

e3smartSM $2.7 $2.6 $2.4 $2.4 $2.3 $12.4 

Community Assistance ($3.1) ($2.9) ($2.9) ($1.9) ($2.1) ($12.9)

Consumer Sector Total $49.8 $47.4 $45.9 $44.3 $41.7 $229.1 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 22

Business Sector 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

2015-

2019 Total

Efficient Products for 

Business $60.3 $58.2 $57.3 $57.5 $55.0 $288.3 

Process Efficiency $46.2 $42.9 $42.9 $39.7 $36.8 $208.5 

New Construction and 

Major Renovation $17.2 $18.5 $17.6 $16.6 $15.0 $85.0 

Express $10.5 $11.0 $10.1 $9.3 $8.4 $49.3 

Self-Direct $6.7 $6.0 $6.4 $6.4 $5.2 $30.8 

Retro-Commissioning $1.8 $1.9 $2.0 $2.1 $1.9 $9.6 

Continuous Energy 

Improvement $7.2 $8.4 $8.2 $7.2 $5.4 $36.4 

Bid to Win $29.8 $29.5 $27.8 $26.2 $21.5 $134.9 

Data Center $3.3 $2.8 $2.5 $2.3 $1.8 $12.7 

Combined Heat and 

Power and Waste Energy 

Recovery

Not presented. $275.2

Multifamily $1.2 $1.6 $1.4 $1.3 $1.1 $6.6 

Business Sector Total $184.3 $180.9 $176.1 $168.5 $152.3 $1,137.3 

Plan Total (includes 

Other Costs)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015-

2019 Total

$226.0 $220.2 $213.9 $204.8 $185.9 $1,334.6 

Projected Electric Bill Reductions

The projected reductions in electric bills for participants in each consumer and business 

sector program over the life of the measures installed during 2015 to 2019 is 

approximately $1.5 billion. This amount includes the Plan cost of the programs.

The next section discusses the approach to estimating EE/PDR potential, along with an 

overview of EE/PDR Potential results for 2015 to 2034, and then program plans are 

presented, followed by conclusions and recommendations. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 23

E.8 2015 to 2034 EE/PDR Savings Potential Analysis

AEP Ohio’s program Plan was developed by incorporating elements of the most 

successful energy efficiency and peak demand reduction programs across North 

America many of which are already being delivered by AEP Ohio, into program plans 

designed for the Ohio market and AEP Ohio customers in particular. AEP Ohio used a 

benchmarking process to review the selected programs, with a focus on successful AEP 

Ohio and other programs in the Midwest to help shape this Plan. 

As detailed in Figure 3 there are four major types of EE/PDR potential:

1. Technical potential for all technologies.

2. Economic potential, the amount of EE/PDR available that is cost effective.

3. Achievable potential, the amount of EE/PDR available under current market 

conditions and available investments.

4. Program potential, the amount of EE/PDR available given limited resources, 

available time and duration of the efficiency program planning period. 

AEP Ohio’s EE/PDR Action Plan is focused on capturing cost-effective program potential

in its service territory while achieving SB 221 requirements for 2015 to 2019. Most 

energy efficiency measures that were known not to be cost-effective were pre-screened 

and eliminated from all potential scenarios. Some measures not cost-effective were 

included as part of an overall program delivery strategy for high customer satisfaction 

and participation. 

Figure 3. The Four Stages of Energy Efficiency Potential

Not Technically 

Feasible

Not Technically 

Feasible

Not Cost 

Effective

Not Technically 

Feasible

Not Cost 

Effective

Market and 

Adoption 

Barriers

Not Technically 

Feasible

Not Cost 

Effective

Market and 

Adoption 

Barriers

Program Design, 

Budget, Staffing, and 

Time Constraints

Program 

Potential

Achievable Potential

Technical Potential

Economic Potential

Source: Reproduced from “Guide to Resource Planning with Energy 

Efficiency November 2007”, US EPA. Figure 2-1.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 24

AEP Ohio undertook the EE/PDR potential study with the following key tasks:

 Conduct a baseline market profile study, which included conducting telephone 

surveys and on-site surveys with random samples of AEP Ohio’s residential and 

non-residential customers. The telephone surveys collected information on 

customers’ awareness of AEP Ohio programs and energy efficiency measures, as 

well as customers’ energy efficient equipment decision making criteria. The onsite surveys conducted detailed inventories of customers’ energy using 

equipment, as well as building shell characteristics. 

 Develop baseline consumption profiles, and develop initial building simulation 

model specifications.

 Characterize the EE/PDR measures.

 Conduct an EE/PDR benchmarking and best practices analysis.

 Conduct benefit-cost analysis (discussed in Section E.7). 

 Estimate EE/PDR potentials.

 Develop EE/PDR program plans.

A summary of each of these tasks follows.

Baseline Market Assessments

AEP Ohio conducted a baseline study of the residential market segments in 2013 to 

characterize AEP Ohio’s service territory in terms of customer numbers, age and size of 

household and housing stock, key building characteristics, saturation of efficient 

technologies, and customer awareness of and decision making about efficient options. 

Appendix A in Plan Volume 2 includes detailed baseline survey results.

Baseline Consumption Profiles and Simulation Model 

Specifications

Segment-level commercial and industrial sales data delivered by AEP Ohio provide a 

good starting point to determine customer energy use in broad end-use categories, 

such as lighting, heating, and cooling. These profiles were the calibration points in 

developing hourly computer models of energy consumption. With building 

characteristics from the baseline study, the models were used to estimate savings from 

EE/PDR measures.

The derivation of the residential electricity market profile relied on monthly consumption 

data and benchmark monthly profiles of end uses to derive annual electricity 

consumption for seasonal and non-seasonal uses. The starting point in this exercise was 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 25

the AEP Ohio system-level residential electricity consumption by month for 2012-2013. 

The household total electricity consumption by month was calculated from this data. 

There are four seasonal end uses that were tabulated (heating, cooling, hot water, and 

lighting) in addition to the non-seasonal end uses (includes appliances, plug loads, and 

other). Results of the baseline study were used for technology saturation data.

Characterizing EE/PDR Measures

Characterization of EE/PDR measures requires: 

 Estimating the baseline energy consumption for each end-use (heating, cooling, 

cooking, hot water, etc.) or unit energy consumption (UEC).

 Estimating the incremental savings from each measure – improving from the 

baseline to the new technology.

 Determining the incremental costs and lifetimes for each of the new 

technologies.

In addition, the baselines must consider that different classes of buildings have different 

penetrations of technologies, such as existing homes compared to new construction.

A combination of approaches to characterize the EE/PDR measures was used for this 

study. For EE/PDR measures having impacts that do not vary with climate, data was 

used from several different sources, including: ongoing AEP Ohio programs, the 2013

residential and baseline study, the Ohio Statewide TRM for climate-dependent 

measures, and engineering estimates, as well as publicly available and well-respected 

sources, such as the California Database on Energy-Efficiency Resources (DEER) 

database. The approach adjusted the DEER energy and demand impacts for AEP Ohio’s 

customer operating parameters as necessary based on the local weather. In addition to 

using data from ongoing AEP Ohio programs, or the draft Ohio Statewide TRM for 

climate-dependent measures, the analysis used a combination of building simulation 

modeling and engineering estimates specifically developed for AEP Ohio to estimate 

EE/PDR measure per unit savings. 

For EE/PDR measure costs, in addition to using data from ongoing AEP Ohio programs 

or the draft Ohio Statewide TRM for climate dependent data, AEP Ohio primarily used 

the California DEER database, adjusted by geographic multiplier factors from industry 

sources, such as the RS Means Mechanical Cost Data.8A variety of sources were used 

to establish measure lifetimes, including, ongoing AEP Ohio programs, the draft Ohio 

Statewide TRM, manufacturer data, typical economic depreciation assumptions, and the 

California DEER database. Appendix C in Plan Volume 2 provides detailed measure 

descriptions and characterizations.

 

8

http://rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 26

EE/PDR Benchmarking and Best Practices Assessment

To ensure that the demand side management (DSM) potential estimates developed are 

reasonable and appropriate, and to identify the best practices of DSM programs, AEP 

Ohio conducted a benchmarking assessment on other utilities’ DSM programs, in Ohio 

and in neighboring states, that have similar DSM requirements and Plans and available 

data about them. To identify common best practices of top performers, the analysis 

compared detailed program results by customer sector of those utilities identified as 

achieving high levels of DSM savings for below-median costs.

Table 14 shows the 2012 and 2013 median EE/PDR benchmarking data for AEP Ohio 

and eleven other Midwest utilities, including overall spending, savings, costs, and 

energy costs. Appendix B in Plan Volume 2 provides more benchmarking results. 

Table 14. 2012 EE/PDR Benchmarking Data

Spending 

as 

Percent

of 

Revenue

Energy 

Savings 

as 

Percent

of 

Sales

Peak 

Demand 

Savings as 

Percent of 

Peak 

Demand

Retail 

Cost of 

Energy 

$/kWh

Cost of First 

Year Savings

(1)

$/kWh $/kW

All Region Median 2012 1.2% 1.2% 0.8% $0.11 $0.10 $671

AEP Ohio 2012 1.2% 1.1% 0.7% $0.09 $0.10 $688

AEP Ohio 2013 (2) 1.7% 1.3% 1.0% $0.08 $0.10 $642

(1) Note: Cost of First Year Savings is not comparable to a supply-side investment and is only used to compare 

programs and Plans at a high level for reasonableness of cost.

(2) AEP Ohio 2013 results have not been evaluated. 

For 2012, the utilities with the largest relative energy savings and below-median costs 

achieved energy savings at about 1.4 percent of annual sales. The utilities with the 

largest relative peak demand savings and below-median costs saved about 1.1 percent 

of peak demand. AEP Ohio saved more than the median amount of savings from the 

utilities’ benchmarked in 2012 and 2013, and AEP Ohio’s program costs were lower than 

the median program costs.

EE/PDR Program Potentials

AEP Ohio developed estimates of EE/PDR measure potentials in terms of technical, 

economic, and “achievable” potential (the program results that are realistic for 

AEP Ohio to achieve through cost-effective EE/PDR programs). Economic potential was 

estimated using the TRC test as described above as the economic “screen” to apply to 

technical potential estimates in order to determine whether the measures are “costeffective” or not, and inform which measures were to be included or excluded. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 27

Achievable EE/PDR market potential estimates the amount of EE/PDR potential that 

could be captured by realistic EE/PDR programs that include cost effective EE/PDR 

measures over the forecast period covered by this EE/PDR potential analysis. 

Achievable EE/PDR potential can vary with EE/PDR program parameters, such as the 

magnitude of rebates or incentives offered to customers for installing EE/PDR measures 

and, thus, many different scenarios can be modeled.

To estimate achievable potential, a computer model was used to estimate conversion 

rates from inefficient products to more efficient products for retrofit and replacement 

measures, as well as installation rates in new buildings for new construction markets. 

These conversion, replacement, and new construction penetration rates are based on 

AEP Ohio’s and other utilities’ actual experiences with these types of programs. 

AEP Ohio developed two achievable potential estimates:

1. A base case or expected EE/PDR potential estimates. These estimates assume 

that adequate funding is available to achieve the EE/PDR potentials and that 

AEP Ohio is able to achieve “best practice” EE/PDR program performance over 

the short term, from 2015 to 2019.

2. A high case estimate based on the experience of the best of the best utilities’ 

EE/PDR program results, to meet the SB 221 requirements over the long term, 

through 2034.

The Plan’s Business Sector will achieve greater energy and demand savings than the 

base case scenario. As a result, the overall Plan is projected to achieve energy and 

demand savings above the Base Case.

EE/PDR Potential Results

The cumulative annual EE/PDR potential savings (Base Case Scenario Market Potential) 

in 2034 is estimated to be approximately 10.3 thousand GWh at meter, about 

24 percent of forecast baseline sales, and approximately 1,670 MW at meter, about 

19 percent of baseline peak summer demand, as shown in Table 15. Table 15 also 

presents the projected savings in 2034 for the technical, economic, and high market 

potential scenarios. 

These results assume a net-to-gross impact ratio of 1.0 whereby free ridership is 

assumed for this analysis to be offset by spillover impacts. The Base Case market 

potential meets the SB 221 savings targets over the short term, from 2015 to 2019. 

Note that in 2019, AEP Ohio is utilizing its banked savings to reach the 2 percent 

benchmark requirement, so the potential study assumes a 1 percent requirement. The 

high case market potential meets the SB 221 cumulative savings targets over the long 

term, through 2034. Unless already specified for a particular measure, the Base Case 

market potential includes incentives at 50 percent of incremental measure costs. The 

High Case market potential includes incentives at 75 percent of incremental measure 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 28

costs in most instances for each measure, unless the existing incentive was greater 

than 75 percent. Appendix A in Plan Volume 2 provides detailed EE/PDR potential study 

results.

Table 15. Projected Cumulative Annual Savings at Meter and Costs – 2034

Potential 

Scenario

Cumulative Annual 

Gross Energy Savings 

at Meter (2034) (1)

Cumulative Annual 

Gross Summer Peak 

Demand Savings 

at Meter (2034) (1)

Total Cost 

(Energy 

Efficiency Only) 

(2) 

Sector GWh

Percent of 

2034

Forecast 

Sales MW

Percent of 

2034

Forecast 

Sales

20 Year 

Cost 

(2015 to 2034) 

(million 2015$)

Residential

Technical 5,750 41.1% 1,409 38.5% -

Economic 3,626 25.9% 914 25.0% -

High Case 4,090 37.7% 723 22.4% $1,203

Base Case 2,549 18.2% 459 12.6% $694

Commercial and Industrial (does not include Agricultural or CHP/WER)

Technical 20,232 70.3% 2,982 60.1% -

Economic 18,656 64.8% 2,942 59.3% -

High Case 11,825 45.6% 1,822 40.5% $1,847

Base Case 7,727 26.8% 1,211 24.4% $994

Total

Technical (3) 28,107 65.7% 4,820 55.9% -

Economic 22,283 52.1% 3,856 44.7% -

High Case 15,915 37.2% 2,545 29.5% $3,094

Base Case 10,276 24.3% 1,670 19.4% $1,688

(1) Savings are not projected for Research and Development, Education and Training, Targeted Advertising, Demand

Response. For comparative purposes, savings are not included for Agricultural or Combined Heat and Power / Waste 

Energy Recovery. AEP Ohio also will conduct program evaluation and other essential program support functions, such 

as compliance and reporting, database management, contracting and payables, and Plan cost-benefit analysis. 

(2) Other Costs include support and other services, including Research and Development, General Education and 

Training, Targeted Advertising, and Demand Response, etc.

(3) Total technical potential includes codes and standards.

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the cumulative annual energy and summer peak demand 

savings in 2034 for each of the four potential analysis scenarios. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 29

Figure 4. Cumulative Annual GWh Energy Savings in 2034

Note: Savings are not projected for Research and Development, Education and Training, Targeted Advertising, 

Demand Response. For comparative purposes, savings are not included for Agricultural or Combined Heat and Power 

/ Waste Energy Recovery. AEP Ohio also will conduct program evaluation and other essential program support 

functions, such as compliance and reporting, database management, contracting and payables, and Plan cost-benefit 

analysis. Total technical potential includes codes and standards.

Figure 5. Cumulative Annual Summer Peak MW Demand Savings in 2034

Note: Savings are not projected for Research and Development, Education and Training, Targeted Advertising, 

Demand Response. For comparative purposes, savings are not included for Agricultural or Combined Heat and Power 

/ Waste Energy Recovery. AEP Ohio also will conduct program evaluation and other essential program support 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 30

functions, such as compliance and reporting, database management, contracting and payables, and Plan cost-benefit 

analysis. Total technical potential includes codes and standards.

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the cumulative Market Potential9as a percent of the 

Economic Potential for EE/PDR. 

Figure 6. Market Potential Annual Energy Savings at Meter as Percent of 

Economic Potential in 2034

Note: Savings are not projected for Research and Development, Education and Training, Targeted Advertising, 

Demand Response. For comparative purposes, savings are not included for Agricultural or Combined Heat and Power 

/ Waste Energy Recovery. AEP Ohio also will conduct program evaluation and other essential program support 

functions, such as compliance and reporting, database management, contracting and payables, and Plan cost-benefit 

analysis. Total technical potential includes codes and standards.

Figure 7. Peak Demand Savings at Meter as Percent of Economic Potential in 

2034

Note: Savings are not projected for Research and Development, Education and Training, Targeted Advertising, 

Demand Response. For comparative purposes, savings are not included for Agricultural or Combined Heat and Power 

/ Waste Energy Recovery. AEP Ohio also will conduct program evaluation and other essential program support 

 

9 Defined here as the potential achievable in real-world market risk situations.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 31

functions, such as compliance and reporting, database management, contracting and payables, and Plan cost-benefit 

analysis. Total technical potential includes codes and standards.

E.9 Overview of Program Plans

The overview of the Plan presented here is to provide a sense of scope and scale and to 

convey the general schedule and resources needed to increase participation in the 

various markets in which AEP Ohio will operate the programs. The plans for newlyproposed programs developed are based on best-practice programs and the experience 

gained by AEP Ohio through its 2012-2014 Plan, with the strategic concepts outlined. 

These program plans are proposed as guidelines for more detailed program planning. 

An update is presented for ongoing programs, along with proposed program 

modifications that were approved in the 2012-2014 EE/PDR Action Plan. 

Overall, the Plan covers a broad range of demographic, business, facility and end-use 

markets. AEP Ohio’s Plan can be divided into consumer, business and cross-sector, with 

utility administrative functions providing support across all program areas. AEP Ohio will 

maintain as part of its functions the education and training, advertising, and research 

and development budgets. 

Consumer Sector

AEP Ohio currently offers seven consumer (residential) sector programs:

 Efficient Products – This program produces long-term electric savings by 

increasing the market share of efficient lighting and appliances through price 

markdowns, coupons and rebates.

 Appliance Recycling – This program permanently removes operable second 

refrigerators and freezers and primary refrigerators and freezers that have been 

replaced by recycling them in an environmentally safe manner. 

 In-Home Audit – This program provides custom, prioritized recommendations 

on appropriate weatherization measures and the installation of high-efficiency 

lighting, appliances, HVAC and other equipment based on an in-home audit (all 

electric only), in-home assessment or online energy survey of a customer’s single 

family or multifamily home. Free energy saving items such as CFL light bulbs and

electric water heater measures (e.g., low-flow shower head, faucet aerators, 

pipe wrap), are installed or provided to participating customers. Joint program 

delivery with other local gas utilities is under consideration.

 Behavior Change – This program provides tips that are relevant to a 

customer’s home and provides an estimate on how much electricity and money 

they may save by implementing suggested energy efficiency measures and 

changing energy usage behaviors.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 32

 New Home – This program produces long-term electric energy savings by 

affecting the construction of single family homes, duplexes and multifamily 

housing to meet select ENERGY STAR® efficiency standards on insulation, HVAC, 

water heating, appliances, lighting, windows, doors and other quality 

construction measures.

 e

3

smartSM school program – This energy efficiency education program is for 

students of schools served by AEP Ohio and the curriculum is designed to meet 

national and state science standards for grades 5-12. Students take home energy 

efficiency measures and install them as part of the learning experience. 

 Community Assistance Program or CAP – This program generates energy 

savings for residential low-income customers through the installation of a wide 

range of weatherization upgrades and base load electric measures. Qualified 

customers must be at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Typically 

these customers are eligible for an energy assistance program such as Home 

Energy Assistance Program (HEAP), Percentage of Income Payment Plan (PIPP) 

or Home Weatherization Assistance Program (HWAP).

Business Sector

AEP Ohio currently offers ten business (nonresidential) sector programs:

 Efficient Products for Business (previously Prescriptive) – This program is 

based on a menu of standardized incentives for high efficiency lighting, heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), motors, drives and refrigeration.

 Process Efficiency (previously Custom) – This program provides incentives for 

qualifying efficiency improvements not included in the Efficient Products for 

Business Program or other AEP Ohio Programs.

 New Construction – This program provides incentives for new construction 

and major renovation to exceed current building energy code requirements. 

 Self-Direct – This program is available to capture retrospective energy savings 

from large mercantile customers with the capability to administer internal energy 

management efforts of their own. It allows submittal of energy saving projects 

from the last three years.

 Demand Response – This program is used to supplement the peak demand 

reductions achieved from energy efficiency programs in order to ensure the peak 

demand reduction benchmark requirements of SB 221 are met.

 Express – This program provides a streamlined, one-stop, turn-key service for 

small business customers and is delivered through a program implementer.

 Retro-commissioning – This program for medium and large customers 

provides assessments to identify and implement low-cost, operational 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 33

adjustments that improve the efficiency of existing buildings’ operating systems 

by optimizing the systems to meet the building’s requirements, with a focus on 

building controls and HVAC systems.

 Continuous Energy Improvement (previously Continuous Improvement) –

This program is for large customers that consume significant amounts of energy. 

It is designed to engage corporate management to create a sustainable culture 

and planned actions to reduce energy use long term.

 Bid to Win (previously Energy Efficiency Auction) – This program is for business 

customers in the capital planning process considering large potential energy 

efficiency projects, or for aggregators of customer energy efficiency projects. 

The program will also be an input into annual incentive level pricing for other 

business programs based on auction results.

 Data Center – This program provides for energy savings opportunities for new 

and existing data centers of all sizes from data closets to enterprise class 

centers.

Cross-Sector Activities and Other Programs

AEP Ohio currently offers five cross-sector activities/programs and proposes to continue 

these efforts during the Plan period:

 Education and Training – This program will coordinate AEP Ohio’s efforts to 

create customer, marketer, contractor and supplier awareness for the programs

and the proper installation of measures, enhance demand and educate 

customers on energy efficiency.

 Targeted Advertising – This program is designed to build customer awareness 

of energy efficiency in support of AEP Ohio EE/PDR programs and also to 

encourage market transformation in support of AEP Ohio’s commitment and key 

goals in this Plan.

 gridSMART Enabled EE/PDR Savings – This activity provides energy savings 

achieved from this project. 

 T&D Loss Reduction Projects (formerly T&D and Internal System Efficiency 

Improvements) – This activity provides energy savings from AEP Ohio T&D 

projects that reduce losses on its system, thereby saving energy and demand.

 Research and Development – The program objective is to identify and 

develop new energy efficient technologies, programs and marketing approaches 

to capture cost effective energy and demand savings. 

AEP Ohio proposes four new cross-sector programs:
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 34

 Multi-Family – This pilot program provides both consumer (tenant) and 

business (common areas) customers with energy savings opportunities and 

implementation of cost effective measures to existing and new construction 

buildings. 

 Combined Heat and Power and Waste Energy Recovery or CHP/WER –

This program is primarily for large high efficiency CHP/WER projects, now 

allowable through the passage of SB 315. The program provides performance 

based funding or supports EE/PDR rider exemptions for CHP/WER projects that 

meet all PUCO and AEP Ohio requirements.

 T&D Customer Efficiency Projects – These projects provide direct energy 

savings through the implementation of high efficiency technologies that reduce 

customer energy costs. Two projects included in this Plan are Volt Var and LED 

Street and Outdoor Lighting.

 Customer Power Factor – This program provides customers with specific 

technology measures that can be implemented to improve power quality and to 

produce energy measure and demand savings within the customers’ facilities.

E.10Plan Implementation

AEP Ohio plans to continue implementing the proposed Plan through a combination of 

in-house utility staff and competitively selected third-party implementation contractors. 

For newly-proposed programs, AEP Ohio may issue request for proposals (RFP) to 

qualified firms for the program delivery. Implementation contractors are eligible to 

respond to any or all of the RFPs. From start to finish, AEP Ohio anticipates the process 

of issuing RFPs, evaluating responses and negotiating contracts along with associated 

program start-up time will result in 2015 launch dates for most newly-proposed 

programs. Remaining programs needing longer preparation times will begin on an 

extended schedule. For existing programs, AEP Ohio may issue RFPs or re-negotiate 

contracts with existing implementation contractors. AEP Ohio plans to issue RFPs for all 

contractors that have been in place for two previous approved Plan periods.

E.11Evaluation, Measurement and Verification

Program evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) activities are central to the 

success of AEP Ohio’s Plan and will be used to verify program savings impacts and 

monitor program performance. These activities serve as a way to determine the actual 

program level savings being delivered and to maximize energy efficiency and peak 

demand reduction investments. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 35

Effective EM&V ensures that expected results are measurable, achieved results are 

robust and defensible, program delivery is effective in maximizing participation, and the 

overall Plan is cost-effective.

Framework for Evaluation

Appropriate EM&V requires that a framework be established that encompasses both 

planned EM&V efforts and data collected as part of program implementation. This 

section provides an overview of the monitoring, verification, and evaluation efforts 

recommended. The basic requirements and approaches for planning program-specific 

evaluations, including the allocation of funds across evaluation efforts, also are 

discussed in this section. Importantly, EM&V efforts evolve over time and change as 

programs move from initial roll-out with few participants to full-scale implementation.

All significant evaluation activities will be conducted by third-party evaluation 

consultants. Impact evaluations are most often performed by organizations independent 

of those responsible for designing and implementing programs to ensure objectivity. 

Process evaluations and market effects studies typically also are prepared by 

independent evaluators, but process evaluations in particular are used less to verify 

performance than to help improve performance and, as such, require active 

participation by the program administrator/implementer.

Approach to Evaluation

The overall evaluation approach is based on an integrated cross-disciplinary model that 

includes evaluators as members of “project teams” involved in the various stages of 

program planning, design, monitoring and evaluation. This is a very cost-effective 

method that has been very successful for AEP Ohio over the last six years. 

The timing of EM&V activities and reporting can have a significant effect on the 

accuracy and usefulness of findings. Data collection done months or years after a 

program intervention can be weakened by fading memories, lost data, and confounding 

events that have happened in the intervening time. EM&V reports that come well after 

program intervention can arrive too late to provide input at key program 

implementation stages. 

EM&V plans are designed to mitigate these problems. The process by which this is done 

is to integrate select data collection within the program implementation process and to 

provide near real-time feedback on key indicators of program progress. EM&V 

processes that take an “integrated data collection” (IDC) approach to planning seek out 

opportunities in the program implementation process where evaluation data can be 

collected efficiently, cost-effectively, accurately, and produce timely results. One 

example is program application forms, where programs can collect comparable data in 

standard formats across programs. Of course, this approach will be highly dependent of 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 36

the program design and the points where the program interacts with the customer or 

trade ally.

The IDC approach requires the EM&V and implementation staff to work closely together 

to develop a protocol for collecting data as part of the standard program

implementation practices and customer correspondence associated with the program. It 

also is important for the program implementation staff to see successful M&V as part of 

their responsibility; i.e., the program will get credit for the savings that can be verified 

and program implementers can have a dramatic influence on how accurately this infield verification can be accomplished. 

The IDC protocol garners participant feedback in near real-time to support process, 

market, and impact analyses. Examples include exit surveys with training participants 

designed by evaluation staff, but administered by program implementation staff: 

evaluation inputs on program application forms so key baseline data is collected before 

existing equipment is replaced, and regular transfer of program data to evaluators, so 

follow-up surveys can be implemented soon after program participation Figure 8 shows 

the program evaluation cycle.

Figure 8. Steps of the EM&V Process

Approximately three percent of overall Plan program costs will be allocated to the 

following activities, further described in the following sections:

 EM&V-related activities.

 Project savings verification and due diligence.

 Independent program evaluations.

 Independent assessment of annual program impacts.

 Internal quality assurance and control.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 37

 Coordination of evaluation activities with other players, such as the PUCO 

statewide evaluator.

Independent Program Evaluations

Descriptions of proposed evaluations for each program are included in the program 

plans. The key components of the process and impact evaluations include:

 Evaluations conducted by an independent, EE/PDR evaluation consultant.

 Verification, by an appropriate sample, that efficiency measures are installed as 

expected.

 In-field measure performance measurement and data collection.

 Energy and demand savings analysis to compute the results that are being 

achieved.

 Cost-effectiveness analysis by program and overall EE/PDR Plan.

 Process evaluation to indicate how well programs are working to achieve 

objectives.

 Identification of important opportunities for improvement.

Assessment of Annual Impacts

AEP Ohio’s EM&V contractor will prepare an annual report of EE/PDR program results, 

which will incorporate findings from evaluation activities completed that year, changes 

to programs, and new programs implemented, as well as energy savings, costs and 

cost-effectiveness results by program and Plan. It is anticipated that the EM&V 

contractor’s work, as well as participation in the process by the implementation 

contractor, will identify numerous areas where improvements and refinements to the 

AEP Ohio deemed measure database would be useful. As required, AEP Ohio will submit 

program evaluations to the PUCO statewide evaluator for its review.

In addition to the procedures outlined above for verifying savings from AEP Ohio’s 

proposed Plan, AEP Ohio will implement appropriate internal controls to assure the 

quality of program design and implementation and establish a consistent and integrated 

tracking and reporting system for all programs in the Plan. AEP Ohio tracks customer 

interactions, including customers recruited, incentive applications, incentives processed, 

and installations verified, and will establish procedures for ongoing verification. 

AEP Ohio will require implementation contractors or staff to routinely contact or visit a 

sample of participating customers to assess the quality of program delivery and the 

installation of measures for which incentives were claimed. AEP Ohio intends to also 

track on an on-going basis incentive fulfillment time, technical services delivery times 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 38

(how long between customer request and audit completion for example), incentive 

documentation, and customer complaints among other metrics of program 

performance.

PJM Evaluation Requirements

AEP Ohio’s EM&V plans will be developed to ensure that the evaluations to be 

conducted are done in a manner that enables AEP Ohio the ability to nominate achieved 

and verified energy efficiency and peak demand reduction values with a level of 

statistical confidence and precision that complies with PJM’s Manual 18B Energy 

Efficiency Measurement & Verification.

10

E.12Plan Risk

In the current economic environment, AEP Ohio’s ability to convince business customers 

to voluntarily take on additional debt for the installation of cost-effective measures, 

even with very short pay-back periods, may continue to be challenging. AEP Ohio 

recognizes this challenge and has striven to develop a balanced Plan that provides 

opportunities for participation at multiple levels. By proposing a multi-faceted and broad 

Plan of programs, AEP Ohio will be able to capitalize on those sectors of the market 

willing to invest in energy efficiency, regardless of the challenging economic landscape. 

This Plan is designed to allow AEP Ohio to meet overall legislative efficiency goals.

AEP Ohio plans to use the following strategies to minimize the risks associated with its 

portfolio of EE/PDR programs in this Plan:

 Utilize AEP Ohio’s growing experience in successful program implementation and 

maintain Plan flexibility to adjust programs to meet changing market conditions 

and other externalities.

 Implementing primarily “tried and true” programs that have been successfully 

implemented by many utilities in the Midwest and across the country.

 Hiring program implementation contractors with significant experience in 

implementing EE/PDR programs in the Midwest and other regions.

 Initiating program evaluation activities at the start of program implementation to 

get real-time feedback on program progress, and to allow any needed finetuning to occur as soon as possible.

 Setting up post installation inspection procedures and data to collect before 

inspections begin.

 

10 See http://pjm.com/~/media/documents/manuals/m18b.ashx. PJM Interconnection is a regional transmission 

organization (RTO) that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, 

Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, 

West Virginia and the District of Columbia.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 39

 Anticipating and preparing for stronger than expected market response.

 Conducting adequate market checks on standard practices and energy efficient 

product availability.

 Developing incentive structures that are simple to understand.

 Creating simple participation rules.

 Monitoring and responding to rapidly dropping equipment prices quickly.

 Setting appropriate qualifying efficiency levels.

 Setting appropriate incentive levels.

 Rolling out targeted marketing to contractors focusing on what is in it for them 

and how they participate.

 Training account managers on program rules.

 Establishing documentation, analysis methods and reporting requirements for 

technical studies.

 Managing the pipeline of projects and establishing decision deadlines so the 

response time to those waiting for decisions is reasonable.

 Expanding research and development to assist in mid-stream adjustments to 

current programs as needed and developing new programs for future 

implementation.

The performance targets of the program plans are based on normal economic 

conditions and the ability to overcome a variety of market barriers and perceived risks 

customers have regarding EE/PDR improvements and load management. Problems 

commonly encountered that affect delivery may occur and dampen program 

performance include a variety of real and perceived risks in undertaking efficiency 

improvements or participating in load management programs:

 Reliability of the efficiency improvement, whether real or perceived.

 Fit with existing facilities and processes.

 Return on investment and cash flow effects compared to other financial and 

operating priorities.

 Unfamiliarity with the technology leading to non-participation.

 Availability of funds or credit to purchase the improvement.

 Concern about occupant comfort and other aesthetics.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 40

E.13Conclusions and Recommendations

The EE/PDR potential (Base Case Scenario Market Potential) identified in this study 

represents energy reductions of approximately 28 percent for AEP Ohio residential 

customers and 31 percent for commercial and industrial customers below forecasted

levels and known enacted energy codes and standards by 2034, or approximately 

1.5 percent per year. This magnitude of savings has been achieved by best practice 

program portfolios in the Midwest, Northeast and Western U.S. Summer peak demand 

and annual energy reductions of the magnitudes found for the Base Market Potentials 

case are being achieved by a variety of utilities. Meeting the SB 221 targets over the 

long term, through 2034, will require energy reductions on the order projected in the 

High Case Scenario Market Potential, which have been achieved by few jurisdictions to 

date. Accordingly, the proposed 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan includes energy savings 

goals above the base case scenario for the business sector. 

Over time, AEP Ohio will need to increase EE/PDR activities beyond the Base Case 

Scenario Market Potential for 2015 to 2019 to achieve the projected long-term savings 

in the High Case Scenario Market Potential. Based on the results from the three-year 

2012-2014 period, and considering additional program and measure offerings, in 2019, 

AEP Ohio will propose EE/PDR efforts beyond the five-year 2015 to 2019 period, to 

meet the SB 221 savings goals for 2020 to 2024. 

The EE/PDR benchmarking analysis results presented in this report give AEP Ohio 

management confidence that a variety of utilities in the region and throughout the 

country are achieving large-scale results from their EE/PDR programs. 

Utilities that choose to invest significantly in EE/PDR programs often make significant 

periodic investments to develop and update secondary best-practice and primary 

market research data to aid their EE/PDR program planning. AEP Ohio conducted a 

market assessment baseline study of the residential customer sector in 2013 that 

included significant on-site customer data collection. Both AEP Ohio’s 2015 to 2019 

EE/PDR Action Plan and the 2015 to 2034 potential study included significant customer 

data from the residential baseline study. In addition, AEP Ohio’s significant direct 

experience with all customer classes in the implementation of its current Plan has aided 

the development of the 2015-2019 Plan. 

Recommendations to consider include the following:

 Move results into operational planning with a focus on integrating newly 

proposed programs seamlessly and making ongoing adjustments.

 Consider both insourcing and outsourcing strategies to selectively jump-start key 

additions to the ongoing Plan and more cost effectively manage existing 

programs.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 41

1 INTRODUCTION

AEP Ohio or Ohio Power Company, is based in Gahanna, and is Ohio’s second largest 

provider of electric service with a mix of 1.5 million residential, commercial and 

industrial customers. Pursuant to the requirements in 2008 Senate Bill (SB) 221 and 

Ohio Revised Code 4901:1-39, AEP Ohio submits this Plan for calendar years 2015 to 

2019 for approval by the Public Utility Commission of Ohio (PUCO).

The following Plan presents a detailed overview of the proposed electric efficiency 

programs targeted at the consumer and business sectors, and associated 

implementation costs, savings, and benefit-cost results. This plan presents detailed 

information on the approach, EE/PDR measures, and initial proposed incentive levels, 

though AEP Ohio anticipates that, upon implementation, portions of this plan will need 

to be adjusted to reflect better information or changing market conditions. AEP Ohio 

will update the PUCO and AEP Ohio Collaborative accordingly regarding any substantive 

revisions to the Plan. 

Together with stakeholders and the assistance of industry expert Navigant Consulting, 

Inc. (Navigant), AEP Ohio has designed a comprehensive EE/PDR Plan to deliver 

significant cost-effective electric efficiency savings. These programs include incentive 

and buy down approaches for energy efficient products and services, educational,

marketing, and outreach approaches to raise awareness and enhance demand, and 

partnerships with trade allies to apply as much leverage as possible to augment the 

ratepayer dollars invested. Proper coordination between the programs is essential to 

maximizing this leverage.

As detailed in Figure 9, AEP Ohio anticipates that over time investment in energy 

efficiency measures will follow a predictable path of market transformation that has 

been experienced in other jurisdictions. With sustained levels of investment, promotion 

of efficient measures will in the early years focus on immediate up-front incentives to 

stimulate the marketplace. Over time, funds will be transitioned to marketing, training, 

education, and awareness to sustain program participation. Furthermore, as certain 

markets become transformed, and the baseline conditions become the efficient options, 

program resources will be transferred to new program areas and new technologies, and 

the process will repeat. Each series of the market transformation process will result in 

greater and more efficient opportunities for residential and business customers.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 42

Figure 9. Phases of Energy Efficiency Promotion

PHASE

Goal

Methods

Incentives

Marketing

PILOT

Experiment

Give away, 

direct install

FRONTAL ASSAULT

Distribution & sales

Per-unit incentives, basic 

marketing

TRANSFORM

Build value message

Declining incentives, 

marketing blitz

POPULARIZE

Mass adoption

Innovative marketing, 

training & field support

MAINTAIN

Support market

Recommend, refer, 

inform

Market Transformation 

Program Budget

Time PHASE

Goal

Methods

Incentives

Marketing

PILOT

Experiment

Give away, 

direct install

FRONTAL ASSAULT

Distribution & sales

Per-unit incentives, basic 

marketing

TRANSFORM

Build value message

Declining incentives, 

marketing blitz

POPULARIZE

Mass adoption

Innovative marketing, 

training & field support

MAINTAIN

Support market

Recommend, refer, 

inform

Market Transformation 

Program Budget

Time

Incentives

Marketing

PILOT

Experiment

Give away, 

direct install

FRONTAL ASSAULT

Distribution & sales

Per-unit incentives, basic 

marketing

TRANSFORM

Build value message

Declining incentives, 

marketing blitz

POPULARIZE

Mass adoption

Innovative marketing, 

training & field support

MAINTAIN

Support market

Recommend, refer, 

inform

Market Transformation 

Program Budget

Time

Source: ENERGY STAR YEAR 3 AND BEYOND, Presentation by Anne Wilkins, NRCAN, 2005

Demand Side Management (DSM) is the planning and implementation of programs and 

services that help and encourage customers to use electricity as efficiently as possible. 

DSM represents an important resource for AEP Ohio, growing increasingly important as 

fuel and commodity prices become more volatile and greenhouse gas regulation 

becomes more likely. Estimates of DSM or (EE/PDR) potential are a key input to the 

integrated resource planning process, which considers the load forecast and both 

supply and demand-side resources. This study presents the results of an analysis of the 

EE/PDR potential in AEP Ohio’s service territory from 2015 to 2034.

1.1 AEP Ohio Overview

As described on AEP Ohio’s web site, the Company is a significant distribution utility in 

the Midwest. With approximately 1.5 million customers, AEP Ohio has a strong market 

presence. Figure 10 presents AEP Ohio’s service territory, which spans a large 

geographic area in Ohio. AEP Ohio provides power to more than 1,126 communities 

located in 61 of Ohio's 88 counties. 

Figure 10. AEP Ohio’s Service Territories
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 43

Table 16 outlines key statistics for AEP Ohio. 

Table 16. AEP Ohio Key Statistics11

AEP Ohio’s Business Profile 2012 Statistics

Operating Information

Total Customers 1,460,393

Residential 1,273,361

Commercial 173,948

Industrial 10,274

Other 2,810

2012 electrical sales in megawatt-hours 30,897,005

Size of service area (asset) 10,374 square miles

Communities served 1,126

Net plant in service $9.5 billion

Size of distribution system 45,583 miles

Size of transmission system 9,032 circuit miles

Total number of AEP Ohio employees 2,739

Financial Information

2012 Operating Revenue $4.9 billion

2012 Net Income $343.5 million

2012 Ohio Taxes Paid $155.0 million

2012 Local Taxes Paid $210.7 million

Top 5 Customers (by revenue)

Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation Republic Engineered Products Inc.

The Timken Company The Ohio State University

Globe Metalurgical Inc.

1.2 EE/PDR Study Goals and Approach

The overall goals of the EE/PDR potential study are to: 

 Assess the technical, economic, and achievable potential for the residential, 

commercial and industrial sectors.

 Develop high-level EE/PDR program plans.

 

11 https://aepohio.com/global/utilities/lib/docs/factsheets/aepohio_factsheet_1-14.pdf
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 44

AEP Ohio undertook the EE/PDR potential study with the following key tasks:

 Conduct a customer market baseline study using telephone and on-site customer 

surveys to profile AEP Ohio’s residential and non-residential customers.

 Develop baseline consumption profiles, and develop initial building simulation 

model specifications.

 Characterize the EE/PDR measures.

 Conduct an EE/PDR benchmarking and best practices analysis.

 Conduct benefit-cost analysis.

 Estimate EE/PDR potentials.

 Develop program plans.

These steps are discussed in more detail in Volumes 1 and 2 of the Plan.

1.3 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Action Plan Report 

Organization

The remainder of AEP Ohio’s EE/PDR Action Plan is divided into the following sections:

Section 2: Plan Development provides an overview of the process used and 

considerations in developing this Plan.

Section 3: EE/PDR Plan Summary Results details the summary results of Plan

electric savings, investment allocations and benefit-cost results.

Section 4: EE/PDR Program Plans presents detailed program plans for AEP Ohio’s 

proposed programs, with full descriptions for new programs.

Section 5: Glossary defines key terms used in the report. 

Volume 2 Appendices include: EE/PDR Potential Study results (Appendix A); overall 

EE/PDR Benchmarking results (Appendix B); EE/PDR Measure Descriptions and 

Characterizations Results (Appendix C); and EE/PDR Methodology (Appendix D).
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 45

2 PLAN DEVELOPMENT

Based on a national review of leading EE/PDR programs, AEP Ohio is proposing a 

balanced Plan including EE/PDR programs that will achieve significant energy savings, 

while establishing trade ally and retailer partnerships resulting in lasting market 

transformation. AEP Ohio’s programs will target all major sectors and customer classes, 

including low-income and small business customers. 

AEP Ohio plans to continue offering a diverse Plan of “tried and true” major programs 

(some of which include sub-program components) across the residential, commercial 

and industrial sectors. Additionally, in this plan, AEP Ohio also proposes new programs, 

research and development activities targeting experimental opportunities, as well as 

broad-based education and training and targeted advertising.

2.1 Plan Tactical Objectives

In addition to AEP Ohio’s strategic goals provided in the Plan Executive Summary, 

AEP Ohio has the following tactical objectives for the 2015-2019 Plan:

 Meet or exceed SB 221 resource acquisition goals for 2015-2019, while laying the 

groundwork for long-term market transformation.

 Design and implement a diverse group of programs that provide opportunities for 

participation by all customers.

 When feasible, maximize opportunities for program coordination with other 

efficiency programs to yield maximum benefits.

 Maximize program savings at a minimum cost by striving to achieve 

comprehensive cost-effective savings opportunities.

 Provide AEP Ohio customers with a single web site to access information on all 

efficiency programs (residential and business) for electricity savings 

opportunities.

 Expand the energy efficiency infrastructure in the state - for example, increasing 

the number of available qualified contractors.

 Transform the market for efficient technologies and highly qualified efficiencyoriented trade allies (such as electricians, air sealing and insulation contractors,

HVAC contractors, home energy raters, builders, architects and engineers).

 Inform and educate customers and students to enable them to use energy more 

efficiently.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 46

2.2 Planning Process

AEP Ohio’s Plan of programs continues its successful programs while incorporating

additional elements of the most successful EE/PDR programs across North America into 

program plans designed for the Ohio market and AEP Ohio customers in particular. A 

substantial amount of information including current program performance and 

evaluation studies were used to develop specific programs for AEP Ohio. AEP Ohio also 

used a benchmarking process to review the most successful EE/PDR programs from 

across the country, with a focus on successful Midwest programs to help shape the 

Plan. 

As detailed in Figure 11, there are four major types of energy efficiency potential: 

(1) technical potential for all technologies, (2) economic potential, the amount of 

energy efficiency available that is cost effective, (3) achievable potential, the amount of 

energy efficiency available under current market conditions and available investments, 

and (4) program potential, the amount of energy efficiency available given limited 

resources, available time and duration of the efficiency program planning period. 

AEP Ohio’s EE/PDR Action Plan is focused on capturing cost-effective program potential

in its service territory while achieving SB 221 requirements for 2015 to 2019.

Figure 11. Four Stages of Energy Efficiency Potential

Not Technically 

Feasible

Not Technically 

Feasible

Not Cost 

Effective

Not Technically 

Feasible

Not Cost 

Effective

Market and 

Adoption 

Barriers

Not Technically 

Feasible

Not Cost 

Effective

Market and 

Adoption 

Barriers

Program Design, 

Budget, Staffing, and 

Time Constraints

Program 

Potential

Achievable Potential

Technical Potential

Economic Potential

Reproduced from “Guide to Resource Planning with Energy Efficiency November 2007”, U.S. EPA, Figure 2-1.

2.3 Market Segmentation

Segmentation of the market in AEP Ohio is needed to have ongoing and effective 

outreach and participation across segments and classes of customers. In addition, 

AEP Ohio plans to continue measuring geographical participation for geo-targeting 

opportunities going forward. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 47

Consumer Segmentation

Table 17 presents 2013 data for single-family and multifamily residential customers, 

including low income. Overall, 69.2 percent of the total residential sector customers are 

in the base residential segment that excludes all single-family and multifamily low 

income customer segments. Most, 89.2 percent base residential customers live in 

single-family homes while the remainder lives in multifamily housing.

Overall, 30.8 percent of total residential sector customers are in the low income 

segment. Most of these customers (90.8%) live in single-family homes, while the 

remainder lives in multifamily housing. 

Table 17. Residential Customer Data – 2013

Customer Segment - 2013

Number of 

Accounts

Percent of 

Accounts

Percent of 

Consumption

Single Family 737,145 90.7% 94%

Multifamily 75,701 9.3% 5.9%

Residential (Excluding Low Income) 812,846 68.2% 69.2%

Single Family 326,500 86.1% 90.8%

Multifamily 52,570 13.9% 9.2%

Residential (Low Income Only) 379,070 31.8% 30.8%

Single Family 1,063,645 89.2% 93.1%

Multifamily 128,271 10.8% 6.9%

Total - All Residential 1,191,916 100% 100%

(1) Excludes 69,282 accounts (5.5% of total) that do not have income or dwelling type data 

available.

(2) Low income residential customers are defined as those having incomes less than 200% of 

the federal income poverty guidelines.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 48

Table 18 presents 2013 participant data for single-family and multifamily residential

customers. Results from the Efficient Products Program are not included since 

customer-specific data is not available for that program. 

There is not a significant difference in the EE/PDR program 2013 participant savings as 

a percent of customer segment consumption (8.9% for low income segment vs. 8.6%

for the base residential segment). Average 2013 participant savings vs. participant 

consumption was higher for multifamily than single-family homes, with low income 

customers savings more on average than for single-family homes. 

Table 18. Consumer Programs Participation - 2013

Participant

Program Savings vs. Participant 2009-2013

Participant Participants Customer Savings vs. Participant Savings

Customer Segment - 2013 Average vs Segment Segment Participant vs All 2013

Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption Consumption

(kWh) (percent) (percent) (percent)

Single Family 15,069 24.8% 2.1% 8.6% 14.5%

Multifamily 12,034 17.8% 1.7% 9.7% 8.5%

Residential (Excluding Low Income) 14,907 24.8% 2.1% 8.6% 14.1%

Single Family 15,917 25.3% 2.2% 8.8% 13.5%

Multifamily 12,208 16.3% 1.7% 10.3% 9.0%

Residential (Low Income Only) 15,627 24.5% 0.2% 8.9% 13.0%

Single Family 13,011 24.9% 2.2% 8.7% 14.2%

Multifamily 8,136 17.2% 1.7% 9.9% 8.4%

Total - All Residential 12,639 24.4% 2.1% 8.7% 13.8%

(1)Efficient Lighting calculated at a fully saturated 46 lamps per household. 50% of these household's assumed to be new 

participants

(2) 46 lamps per household source: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan2012.pdf Page 26

(3) Excludes 69,282 accounts (5.5% of total) that do not have income or dwelling type data available.

(4) Low income residential customers are defined as those having incomes less than 200% of the federal income poverty 

guidelines.

(5) Penetration Consumption adjusted for Past Energy Savings

Figure 12 shows 2013 single-family and multifamily residential energy consumption by 

segment. Single-family homes comprised the large majority of residential sector energy 

usage. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 49

Figure 12. Residential Sector Energy Consumption – 2013

Multi Family, 

4.1%

Single Family, 

65.1%

Multi Family 

(Low Income), 

2.8%

Single Family 

(Low Income), 

27.9%

(1) Excludes accounts that do not have income or dwelling type data available.

(2) Low income residential customers are defined as those having incomes less than 200% of the federal 

income poverty level.

Figure 13 presents 2013 participant savings by segment. Single-family homes 

comprised the large majority of participants. 

Figure 13. Consumer Programs Participant Savings – 2013

Multi Family, 

3%

Single Family, 

65% Multi 

Family 

(Low 

Income), 

2%

Single Family 

(Low Income), 

29%

(1) Includes Efficient Products program participation or savings.

(2) Excludes accounts that do not have income or dwelling type data available.

(3) Low income residential customers are defined as those having incomes less than 

200 percent of the federal income poverty level.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 50

Business Segmentation

Current programs as well as proposed programs are designed to target all segments of 

the business sector. There are specific target segments that recognize key activities 

with significant available EE/PDR opportunities.

Table 19 presents 2013 nonresidential customer data by customer type, including the 

number of EE/PDR participants. Small Office, Manufacturing, Small Retail, and Schools 

comprised over half the participants. 

Table 19. Nonresidential Customer Data – 2013

Type of Customer - 2013

Number of 

Accounts

Percent of 

Accounts

Number of 

Participants

Penetration 

2009-2013

Ag,Mine,Const. 14,345 6.69 131 2%

Assembly 17,559 8.19 233 4%

Flat Load Comm 11,820 5.51 43 1%

Grocery 2,599 1.21 200 19%

Health Srv 5,858 2.73 84 5%

Hospitals 432 0.2 21 13%

Light Industrial 196 0.09 10 15%

Manufacturing 6,436 3 377 17%

OfficeLarge 1,912 0.89 181 28%

OfficeSmall 74,824 34.91 825 3%

Other 550 0.26 7 3%

RestaurantLarge 464 0.22 24 14%

RestaurantSmall 7,546 3.52 168 5%

RetailLarge 1,388 0.65 148 31%

RetailSmall 56,893 26.54 788 3%

Schools 5,578 2.6 266 17%

Warehouse 5,931 2.77 170 7%

Total 214,331 100 3,676 5%

Table 20 presents 2013 nonresidential participant data. The average Small Office and 

Other building type participant saved over 28 percent of annual electricity usage. All 

other participants saved less than 23 percent. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 51

Table 20. Business Programs Participant Savings – 2013

Type of Customer - 2013

Total 

Participants 

Consumption 

(kWh)

Participants 

vs. Segment 

Consumption 

(percent)

Participants 

Savings vs. 

Segment 

Consumption 

(percent)

Participant 

Savings as 

Percent of 

Participant 

Consumption

2009-2013 

Savings vs All 

2013 

Consumption

Ag,Mine,Const. 64,150,900 10.5% 0.6% 5% 2%

Assembly 81,341,544 8.4% 8.9% 9% 3%

Flat Load Comm 60,832,743 15.2% 3.5% 4% 1%

Grocery 231,340,000 35.8% 2.7% 3% 5%

Health Srv 20,427,762 3.6% 9.3% 9% 3%

Hospitals 247,360,000 32.9% 1.2% 1% 3%

Light Industrial 7,061,059 14.0% 10.9% 11% 9%

Manufacturing 6,336,000,000 41.3% 1.9% 2% 3%

OfficeLarge 636,860,000 21.3% 4.7% 5% 5%

OfficeSmall 52,640,484 3.6% 47.0% 47% 5%

Other 1,658,820 7.5% 2.2% 29% 7%

RestaurantLarge 22,100,160 8.3% 3.0% 3% 1%

RestaurantSmall 18,518,748 2.9% 11.9% 12% 1%

RetailLarge 228,090,000 14.2% 8.4% 8% 7%

RetailSmall 69,824,477 5.4% 22.3% 22% 4%

Schools 854,450,000 42.5% 4.2% 4% 7%

Warehouse 157,550,000 24.3% 7.0% 7% 11%

Total 9,090,206,697 - - -
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 52

Figure 14 shows 2013 nonresidential energy consumption by segment. Manufacturing 

facilities consume two-thirds of nonresidential customer usage.

Figure 14. Nonresidential Energy Consumption – 2013
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 53

Figure 15 shows 2013 participant savings by segment. Large offices, large retail stores, 

and schools participated in greater numbers than their share of the AEP Ohio customer 

base.

Figure 15. Business Programs Participant Savings – 2013

2.4 Stakeholder Participation in the Planning Process

AEP Ohio established the AEP Ohio Collaborative in October 2008, and has met 

regularly since that time to gain input from its twenty-five members representing all 

classes of customers on program planning and to provide feedback on the current plan 

and its performance.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 54

For this Plan’s development, the AEP Ohio Collaborative met twelve times in 2013 and 

2014 to review AEP Ohio’s proposed approaches and Collaborative members had the 

opportunity as a group and individually to provide feedback throughout the entire 

process. Included in the count were individual meetings held with interested 

Collaborative members to provide additional time for input. In some cases, 

Collaborative members brought in third party EE/PDR consultants to assist AEP Ohio. 

The Collaborative members include: PUCO Staff, Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, Sierra Club, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Ohio Environmental Council, Industrial Energy 

Users, Ohio Manufacturing Association, Ohio Energy Group, Ohio Hospital Association, 

Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, Ohio 

Development Services Agency (includes the Office of Energy and Office of Community 

Assistance), Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Board of Regents, Ohio Farm Bureau, 

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission, Ohio Poverty Law Center, Corporation for Ohio 

Appalachian Development, Building Industry Association of Central Ohio, , Association 

of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio, , IMPACT Community Action, Ohio 

Energy Project, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Environmental Defense Fund, 

Ohio Legal Services and Ormet. 

2.5 Attempts to Align and Coordinate with Other Public 

Utility Programs

AEP Ohio has regular communication with other utilities in the state regarding EE/PDR 

activities and is open to opportunities to work together and share information. AEP Ohio 

has met periodically with all the other utilities, electric and gas, over the last three years 

to share knowledge on program design and implementation. For example, AEP Ohio 

and Columbia Gas are currently working together to deliver New Homes, In-Home 

Audit, e3smart and Energy Code Support Pilot. 

2.6 AEP Ohio Plan Management

AEP Ohio serves as the overall program administrator for delivery of the Plan. AEP Ohio 

plans to engage third-party implementation contractors when it is more cost effective 

than running the programs in house. Utilization of third party contractors will continue 

to be subject to cost effectiveness throughout the Plan period. Competitive bidding for 

third party work is planned for most programs that require third party contractors since 

many contractors have been working for AEP Ohio through two previous Plan cycles. 

The competitive bidding process can be lengthy and is one of the key reasons behind 

completing this Plan early in 2014 for filing and Commission approval.

AEP Ohio is responsible for high-level administrative, contract and program 

management, program design and marketing oversight of the selected implementation 

contractors. A Plan of this proposed size and scope requires careful management 

oversight. The experience gained from implementation of the 2009-2011 and 2012-
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 55

2014 Plans provides the best guidance as to the structure and size required to 

administer these programs. AEP Ohio will continue to have a small and dedicated group 

of EE/PDR program staff overseeing both AEP Ohio and third-party implemented 

programs including compliance and financial management activities, as well as 

research, development, education, training, planning and promotion of programs to 

increase customer awareness and participation.

AEP Ohio’s Manager EE/PDR is responsible for the overall Plan and reports to the 

Director of Customer Services and Marketing, who reports to the President of AEP Ohio.

Six functional areas report to the Manager EE/PDR and include Research & 

Development, Education & Training, Compliance, Finance, Consumer Programs and 

Business Programs. A staff of twenty two currently manages these activities, and it is 

projected that an additional four full-time employees (FTEs) will be needed to manage 

this Plan due to new programs and expansions, as well as significantly more outreach, 

and compliance activities. While this staffing level contemplates a continuing reliance on 

external third-party contractors, it is possible that in house staff may be more cost 

effective after third-party bidding is analyzed for the various programs. In any case, any 

increase in the level of in house staffing beyond the FTEs indicated above would be 

constrained within the overall budget proposed in this Plan, and only if it were 

determined that in house staffing additions were more cost effective than third party 

implementation.

AEP Ohio has developed a comprehensive tracking database to ensure accurate and 

comprehensive reporting of all program participation that will be fully launched by the 

end of 2014. Additionally, the database will allow AEP Ohio to research and track 

participation by customer class, segment and geographic area, to identify trends and 

untapped opportunities to advance program goals and increase first time program 

participation. Also, AEP Ohio staff has primary responsibility for general energy 

efficiency education and awareness strategies and activities, including the content of 

the EE/PDR web site12, online energy audit software, mass-market media, general 

education, and efficiency awareness promotions. Research and Development will 

support in Plan adjustments and future planning intelligence for the achievement of 

goals.

 

12 See http://www.aepohio.com/save
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 56

In summary, AEP Ohio will provide comprehensive program contract oversight, 

including management, financial planning and budgeting, regulatory and legal support, 

as well as:

 High-level guidance and direction to any implementation contractors, including 

review and revision of proposed annual implementation plans and proposed 

milestones, and additionally, daily engagement with the contractor team when 

working through strategy and policy issues.

 Review and approval of implementation contractor invoices and ensuring

program activities are within budget and on schedule.

 Assurance that implementation contractor operational databases are accurate, 

and data is incorporated into AEP Ohio’s comprehensive Plan tracking database 

to be used for overall tracking, management and regulatory reporting.

 Review of measure saving estimates maintained by AEP Ohio and the 

implementation contractors.

 Oversight and coordination of evaluation, measurement, and verification 

contractors.

 Public education and outreach to customers, community groups, trade allies and 

trade associations.

 Guidance and direction on new initiatives or strategies.

 Communication and direction to implementation contractors regarding other 

AEP Ohio initiatives that may provide opportunities for cross-program promotion.

 Development, review and approval of printed materials and advertising plans.

 Evaluation of Plan and program cost effectiveness and recommendations for

modifications to programs and approach as needed.

 Periodic review of program metrics, conduct investment analyses, and review 

evolving program designs.

 Research and development, both internal and oversight of third party providers.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 57

3 EE/PDR PLAN SUMMARY RESULTS

3.1 Plan Framework and Summary

For this Plan, AEP Ohio is proposing to cap annual Plan spending at less than the 2013 

approved level of $91.5 million in the current 2012-2014 EE/PDR Action Plan, which was 

supported by a broad coalition of stakeholders and approved by the PUCO. Over the 

five years of the Plan, total spending is proposed at $436.1 million (2015$) on EE/PDR

programs during calendar years 2015 to 2019. The division of EE/PDR program 

investment between residential and business customers is commensurate with each 

sector’s relative contribution to the Plan overall and to the Plan’s cost effectiveness.

The plan maximizes the amount of program funds that go directly to customers through 

rebates and incentives, training and technical assistance, and customer and trade ally 

education. This Plan also takes into account the realities of program start-up costs for 

newly proposed programs, and the funds needed to adequately plan, develop, deliver, 

and evaluate quality programs. The balance of the expenditures will be applied to 

program administration, including staffing. 

Incentive levels and other program elements will be reviewed and modified to reflect 

changes in market conditions or implementation processes in order to maximize costeffective savings. Modifications will be reported in the annual reports submitted to the 

PUCO.

As previously detailed in Table 2, AEP Ohio has developed this plan with the intent to

meet or exceed statutory energy savings goals as percent of sales and demand savings 

as a percent of peak load. 

3.2 Benefit-Cost Analysis Background

AEP Ohio has estimated the energy savings, costs and benefits associated with each of the 

programs included in the proposed Plan. The following section presents the benefit-cost 

results. 

Types of Benefit-Cost Tests

As detailed in Table 21 there are four major benefit-cost tests commonly utilized in the 

energy efficiency industry, each of which addresses different perspectives. The PUCO 

established that the Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test be the key test to determine if EE/PDR 

programs should be offered to customers. Regardless of which perspective is used, benefitcost ratios greater than or equal to 1.0 are considered beneficial. While various 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 58

perspectives are often referred to as tests, the following list of criteria demonstrates that 

decisions on program development go beyond a pass/fail test.

Table 21. Comparative Benefit-Cost Tests

PARTICIPANT 

TEST 

(PCT)

RATE 

IMPACT 

MEASURE 

TEST 

(RIM)

TOTAL 

RESOURCE 

COST TEST

(TRC)

UTILITY

COST 

TEST 

(UCT)

Reduction in Customer's 

Utility Bill X

Incentive Paid by 

Utility/Program 

Administrator

X

Any Tax Credit Received X X

Avoided Supply Costs X X X

Avoided Participant Costs X

Participant Payment to 

Utility (if any) X X

Utility Admin Costs X X X

Participant Costs X X

Incentive Costs X X

Lost Revenues X

AEP Ohio evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the measures, programs and overall Plan

based on the following standard tests:

The Participant Cost Test (PCT) illustrates the relative magnitude of net benefits 

that go to participants compared to net benefits achieved from other perspectives. 

While called a “participant” perspective, it is not necessarily a perspective indicating

whether customers participate. The implied discount rate can vary substantially 

between customers. More importantly, many customers neither understand nor make 

decisions based on present-value benefit-cost analysis. Consequently, a simple payback 

(years) net of incentive has been shown to provide further guidance on customer 

participation. The benefits derived from this test reflect reductions in a customer’s bill 

and energy costs plus any incentives received from the utility or third parties, and any 

tax credit. Savings are based on gross revenues. Costs are based on out-of-pocket 

expenses from participating in a program, plus any increases in the customer’s utility 

bill(s).
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 59

The Rate Impact Measure (RIM) Test measures the change in utility energy rates 

resulting from changes in revenues and operating costs. The higher the RIM test, the 

less impact is on increasing energy rates. While the RIM results provide a guide as to 

which technology has more impact on rates, generally it is not considered a pass/fail 

test. Instead, the amount of rate impact usually is considered at a policy level. The 

policy level decision is whether the entire Plan’s impact on rates is so detrimental that 

some net benefits have to be forgone. 

The Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) is a test that measures the total net resource 

expenditures of an EE/PDR program from the point of view of the utility and its 

ratepayers. Resource costs include changes in supply and participant costs. An EE/PDR 

program, which passes the TRC test (i.e., a ratio greater than 1.0) is viewed as 

beneficial to the utility and its customers because the savings in electric costs outweigh 

the EE/PDR costs incurred by the utility and its customers.

The Utility Cost Test (UCT, also referred to as the Program Administrator Test)

measures the net benefits of a EE/PDR program as a resource option based on the costs 

and benefits incurred by the utility (including incentive costs) and excluding any net costs 

incurred by the customer participating in the efficiency program. The benefits are the 

avoided supply costs of energy and demand, the reduction in transmission, distribution, 

generation and capacity valued at marginal costs for the periods when there is a load 

reduction. The costs are the program costs incurred by the utility, the incentives paid to 

the customers, and the increased supply costs for the periods in which load is increased.

3.3 Benefit-Cost Methodology

The DSM Resource Assessment Model (DSM-RAM) is a model based on the integration 

of EE/PDR measure impacts and costs, utility customer characteristics, utility load 

forecasts, and utility avoided costs and rate schedules. The model utilizes a “bottomup” approach in that the starting points are the study area building stocks and 

equipment saturation estimates, forecasts of building stock decay and new 

construction, EE/PDR technology data, past EE/PDR program accomplishments, and 

decision maker variables that help drive the market potential scenarios. 

The baseline estimates of building stocks and equipment saturations came from the 

results of the on-site assessments conducted by AEP Ohio for the 2013 residential and 

nonresidential baseline studies. DSM-RAM also used the electricity forecast, avoided

cost forecast, and electricity prices as described below. 

DSM-RAM estimates technical, economic, and achievable EE/PDR resource potential as 

defined below:
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 60

 Technical EE/PDR potential describes the amount of EE/PDR savings that 

could be achieved, not considering economic and market barriers, by customers 

installing EE/PDR measures. Technical potential is calculated as the product of 

the EE/PDR measures’ savings per unit, the quantity of applicable equipment in 

each facility, the number of facilities in a utility’s service area, and 100 percent 

current market saturation of the measure. Technical potential estimates include 

EE/PDR measures that may not be cost effective, and technical potential does 

not consider market barriers, such as customer’s lack of awareness of EE/PDR 

measures. Therefore, technical EE/PDR potential estimates do not provide a 

realistic basis for setting EE/PDR program goals.

 Economic EE/PDR potential describes the amount of technical EE/PDR 

potential that is “cost-effective,” as defined by the results of the TRC test (or 

other preferred cost effectiveness test). The program benefits for the TRC test 

include the avoided costs of generation, transmission, and distribution 

investments and avoided fuel costs due to the energy conserved by the EE/PDR 

programs. The costs for the TRC test are the EE/PDR measure costs, plus the 

EE/PDR program administration costs. The TRC test does not consider economic 

or market barriers to customers installing EE/PDR measures. 

 Achievable EE/PDR market potential estimates the amount of EE/PDR 

potential that could be captured by realistic EE/PDR programs that include cost 

effective EE/PDR measures over the forecast period covered by this EE/PDR 

potential analysis. Achievable EE/PDR potential can vary with EE/PDR program 

parameters, such as the magnitude of rebates or incentives offered to customers 

for installing EE/PDR measures and, thus, many different scenarios can be 

modeled. 

Within the achievable EE/PDR potential assessment, the individual measures are 

modeled by expected type of EE/PDR program design. Three different program design 

options are included in DSM-RAM. 

 Replace on Burnout (ROB) means that an EE/PDR measure is not 

implemented until the existing technology it is replacing fails. An example would 

be an energy efficient clothes washer being purchased after the failure of the 

existing clothes washer.

 Retrofit (RET) means that the EE/PDR measure could be implemented 

immediately. For instance, installing a low flow shower head is usually 

implemented before an existing shower head fails. Replacing incandescent lamps 

may be a ROB, but can be treated as a RET, because of the relatively short 

lifetime for incandescent bulbs.

 New Construction (New) means measures that are installed at the time of 

new construction. Baseline technologies may be different in the new construction 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 61

market, and implementation costs are often different due to the different 

technologies, either the energy efficient or base technology.

Cost Effectiveness Tests

DSM-RAM employs several financial tests, including the cost effectiveness tests 

described above: the TRC, UCT, PCT, and RIM tests.

Simple Customer Payback

The decision model of DSM-RAM includes simple customer payback as part of its 

analysis. The calculation takes measure cost less the incentive received and divides it by 

first year energy bill savings.

EE/PDR Measure Levelized Cost/kWh

EE/PDR supply curves are based on the EE/PDR measure cost per kWh, levelized over 

the lifetime of the measure. It is calculated by multiplying EE/PDR measure costs by the 

Capital Recovery Factor (CRF), then dividing by the first year kWh savings. 

Discount Rate 

There is a time value of money because money spent in the future does not have the same 

value as money spent today. This time value is represented by a discount rate (analogous 

to an interest rate). Economic equations use the discount rate to convert all costs and 

benefits to a “present value” for comparing alternative costs and benefits. AEP Ohio used a 

uniform discount rate of 8.6 percent for planning purposes only.

Avoided Costs and Energy Costs

EE/PDR avoided cost benefits fall into two categories, avoided capacity benefits, and 

avoided energy costs. Avoided capacity benefits are the benefits derived from deferring 

the need to build new generating plants in the future. Avoided capacity values were 

based on AEP Ohio projections of future power plant costs considering expected level of 

capacity available over future years, and the costs of that capacity. 

Administration, Implementation and Direct Costs

Each program’s administration, implementation, and direct costs were allocated to the 

technologies delivered by the program based on the annual kWh savings per measure. The

result is that individual technology benefit/cost ratios can appear low simply because 

administration or implementation costs have been allocated to the technology beyond the 

specific technology costs. On the one hand, this allocation helps ensure the overall costeffectiveness of a program by guiding selection of technologies with sufficient benefits to 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 62

support program delivery costs. This still allows technologies with a benefit-cost ratio less 

than 1.0 to be included as needed to meet other goals in addition to Plan costeffectiveness requirements. AEP Ohio support services that are not specific to individual 

programs are added as costs at the Plan level for all programs.

3.4 Program Development

Program development involves the selection of technologies to include in a program, 

estimates of participation levels and estimates of program costs. It is obviously necessary 

for a Plan to be cost-effective. However, there are multiple and often contradictory 

perspectives on cost effectiveness. Alternative perspectives are described below. The 

primary cost-effectiveness perspective in AEP Ohio is the total resource cost test. 

Fortunately, it is possible to achieve required cost-effectiveness at a Plan level while also 

considering other important criteria. The following list of criteria was considered in 

developing programs: 

 Achieving more benefits net of cost is a higher priority than a high benefit-cost 

ratio.

 The Plan must provide opportunities for all customer sectors to participate.

 Long-term contribution of a technology is important to program success and to 

future cost reductions.

 Consideration of different benefit-cost perspectives is necessary.

While almost all customer sectors will pay a contribution in their utility bill towards the 

cost of efficiency programs, some customer sectors will not be able to participate unless 

a program is specifically targeted to overcome their barriers. The Residential 

Community Assistance Program is an example of a program where improving the ability 

of a specific sector to participate was a primary program design goal. Similarly the 

Business Express program is targeted to small businesses and without a focused effort 

those customers would not participate at a reasonable level.

The next section provides details on the adjustments and enhancements, projected 

participation, savings, budgets and benefit-cost test results for ongoing programs. 

Further details are provided for new programs, including: 

 Objectives

 Target Markets

 Duration

 Description

 Incentive Strategy

 Eligible Measures
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 63

 Implementation Strategy

 Marketing Strategy

 Milestones

 EM&V Strategy

 AEP Ohio Administrative Requirements

 Budget 

 Savings Targets

 Benefit-Cost Test Results
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 64

4 EE/PDR PROGRAM PLANS

The programs developed to achieve EE/PDR goals in this Plan are based on lessons 

learned from the implementation of the 2009-2011 and the 2012-2014 EE/PDR Action 

Plans as well as other best-practice programs from around the country, with the 

concepts outlined in a strategic manner. Existing program plans are not repeated from 

the 2012-2014 EE/PDR Action Plan; however, modifications are included. The plans are 

proposed as guidelines for more detailed program planning; they are not intended to be 

operational per se. The intent of the Plan presented here is to provide a sense of scope 

and scale, and convey the general schedule and resources needed to increase customer 

participation from previous program efforts in the various markets in which the 

programs will operate.

Overall, a Plan is presented that covers a broad range of demographic, business, 

facility, and end-use markets. AEP Ohio’s Plan can be divided into consumer, business 

and cross-sectors with utility administrative functions providing support across all 

program areas. AEP Ohio will maintain as part of its functionality the advertising, 

education, training and research and development budgets. The following section 

presents a summary of the services offered in each program. 

4.1 Consumer Programs

For the complete program plan for each ongoing consumer EE/PDR program, please 

reference the Consumer Program Plans section (pages 57-80) of Volume 1: AEP Ohio 

2012 to 2014 Energy Efficiency/Peak Demand Reduction (EE/PDR) Action Plan, dated 

November 29, 2011 (PUCO Docket 11-5568-EL-POR and 11-5569-EL-POR.) Included in 

each program description below are material program changes shown as adjustments 

and enhancements, participation levels, budget, savings targets and benefit-cost test 

results. For the new programs, complete program descriptions are included.

4.1.1 Efficient Products (On-Going Program)

This program provides incentives and marketing support through retailers to build 

market share and usage of efficient lighting and efficient appliances primarily through 

mark down and rebate approaches. Customer incentives at the point of sale encourage 

increased purchases of high-efficiency products while in-store signage, sales associate 

training, and support make provider participation easier. 

For appliances, the program uses a retail channel-based strategy to influence the 

purchase of high-efficiency appliances and electronics. Since appliance standards, as 

well as the market share of high-efficiency appliances, are gradually increasing, the 

program will be specific in its list of qualifying models, as well as marketing emphasis. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 65

Lighting: AEP Ohio relies on CFL and LED sales through the over 600 retailers in place 

throughout its service territory. 

Appliances: Funding allows incentives for a variety of cost effective appliances, 

including refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, dishwashers, 

televisions and pool pumps. AEP Ohio plans for retailer based appliance programs with 

mid and downstream incentive strategies, depending on the overall cost effectiveness

and savings potential for each appliance. 

HVAC and Domestic Hot Water: The program affects the purchase and installation 

of air source heat pumps and electric hot water heaters when replacing less efficient

electric space heating or water heating through a combination of market push and pull 

strategies that stimulate demand while simultaneously increasing market provider 

investment in stocking and promoting high efficiency products. 

The program will work through two distinct market channels – plumbing contractors 

and the retail Do-It-Yourself stores. 

Adjustments and Enhancements

The Efficient Products program will be enhanced to allow agricultural customers on 

residential tariff(s) to participate in agriculture measures identified in the Efficient 

Products for Business Program and the savings from those measures to be counted.

Other AEP Ohio modifications to the Efficient Products Program as shown below will:

 Aggressively promote and discount LED’s

 Add ENERGY STAR® dryers, smart strips, programmable thermostats to the 

appliance rebate program offering

 Discontinue mid-stream TV incentives and switch to customer rebate

 Offer revised electric water heater rebate through trained plumbing contractors 

and distributors rather than through typical DIY retailer

 Incentives not included in the measure mix from previous plan(s) have been 

deemed either not cost effective or had low participation. 

 Customer incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or 

program participation.

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added 

and measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on 

both cost effectiveness and customer participation.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 66

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, 

AEP Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 67

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 2019

5W Chandelier LED bulb Lamp 2,328 2,812 2,989 3,110 3,378 14,617

Air Source Heat Pump SEER 14.5, COP 2.49 Ton 1,390 1,096 1,143 1,442 2,635 7,706

Air Source Heat Pump SEER 14.5, COP 2.49 Ton 60 48 51 67 124 350

CFL >25W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 17,669 19,514 19,817 19,681 20,381 97,063

CFL >25W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 254 278 282 279 288 1,381

CFL 13W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 632,200 666,475 633,066 611,279 615,685 3,158,706

CFL 13W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 58,170 62,022 59,514 57,992 58,919 296,616

CFL 18W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 37,794 37,200 36,607 35,198 35,258 182,058

CFL 18W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 4,126 3,990 3,894 3,711 3,684 19,404

CFL 23W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 36,857 38,601 38,708 37,936 38,729 190,831

CFL 23W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 6,978 7,317 7,341 7,196 7,347 36,179

CFL 7W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 289,581 315,359 305,415 300,019 307,110 1,517,483

CFL 7W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 12,324 13,522 13,157 12,981 13,342 65,327

Clothes Washer Retirement (Early Replacement) Unit 9,125 10,125 10,272 10,190 10,524 50,235

Ductless Mini Split HP SEER 13 Ton 156 173 173 173 186 861

Ductless Mini Split HP SEER 15 Ton 156 173 173 173 186 861

ECM Fan Motor - Central A/C - EL Heat Home 203 236 247 254 274 1,214

ECM Fan Motor - Central A/C - Non-EL Heat Home 8,891 10,065 10,384 10,534 11,203 51,077

ECM Fan Motor - Heat Pump Home 1,337 1,485 1,518 1,527 1,611 7,479

Efficient Refrigerator (ENERGY STAR® or Better) Refrigerator 4,212 0 0 0 0 4,212

ENERGY STAR® 50 CFM Bathroom Ventilating 

Fan Fan 6,267 7,541 7,966 8,235 8,870 38,878

ENERGY STAR® 50 CFM Bathroom Ventilating 

Fan Fan 419 507 538 559 606 2,629

ENERGY STAR® Dehumidifier Dehumidifier 3,476 4,078 4,252 4,335 4,604 20,745

ENERGY STAR® Most Efficient Television TV 31,500 29,745 29,011 27,928 28,138 146,322

ENERGY STAR® Torchiere Lamp 2,736 2,913 2,954 2,934 3,039 14,576

ENERGY STAR® v. 5.3 Television TV 31,500 29,745 29,011 27,928 28,138 146,322

Hardwired Dimmer Switch Dimmer 89,091 0 0 0 0 89,091

Heat Pump Water Heater - 2.0 EF Unit 1,517 1,811 1,718 1,126 1,242 7,414

Heavy Duty Outdoor Timer for Pool Pump Pump 901 1,085 1,155 1,209 1,330 5,680

Indoor Wall-mounted Motion Sensor Sensor 73,797 0 0 0 0 73,797

LED Lighting 12W - Indoor Lamp 24,003 24,222 24,339 23,915 24,526 121,005

LED Lighting 12W - Outdoor Lamp 3,608 3,715 3,767 3,734 3,863 18,687

LED Lighting 8W - Outdoor Lamp 17,066 16,582 15,229 14,223 13,847 76,947

LED Lighting 8W - Indoor Lamp 191,558 182,887 164,575 150,649 143,593 833,262

Outdoor Motion Sensor Sensor 0 97,643 201,051 303,816 303,227 905,737

Premium Efficiency Pool Pumps Pump 563 681 727 762 839 3,572

Programmable Electronic Baseboard Thermostat Thermostat 295 352 385 419 474 1,924

SEER 15 CAC - EL Heat Ton 0 0 0 0 250 250

SEER 15 CAC - Non-EL Heat Ton 0 0 0 0 5 5

Tier 3 GSHP, Open Loop, water to air Ton 292 301 304 303 313 1,512

VSD Pool Pump Pump 447 535 568 593 649 2,791

Waterbed Insulating Pad Pad 539 623 657 685 748 3,253

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 68

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. 

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $3,504,219 $3,488,077 $3,656,896 $3,832,695 $3,942,879 $18,424,765

Incentive $9,699,717 $9,544,695 $11,764,377 $13,794,339 $14,105,431 $58,908,559

Total $13,203,935 $13,032,772 $15,421,274 $17,627,033 $18,048,309 $77,333,324

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $18,508,119 $15,483,318 $17,897,517 $20,325,161 $20,303,941 $92,518,056

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 74,272 74,092 77,673 81,245 83,840 353,460

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 11,094 10,007 9,678 9,307 9,809 44,743

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.7

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 3.8

Participant Cost (PCT) 4.0

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.5

4.1.2 Appliance Recycling (On-Going Program)

Many of the refrigerators and freezers being replaced by AEP Ohio customers are still 

functioning, and, often end up as energy guzzling secondary appliances in basements 

and garages. The secondary used refrigerator/freezer market may be an additional 

source of energy and demand savings. This opportunity continues to be explored. The

Appliance Recycling Program targets these “second” refrigerators and freezers, cutting 

energy consumption. It also intervenes to keep the older, less efficient appliances out of 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 69

the used appliance market. The program provides incentives to remove working units 

from service and fully recycle their materials. The program offers an environmentally 

responsible turnkey pick-up and recycling service. 

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the Appliance Recycling Program as shown below:

 Open business customer pick-up and recycling of refrigerators/freezers to 

broaden participation.

 Pilot secondary market intervention with potential to add to program.

 Customer incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or 

program participation.

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added 

and measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on 

both cost effectiveness and customer participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, 

AEP Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience.

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

Refrigerator Retirement Refrigerator 13,110 11,659 11,479 11,429 11,395 59,073

Freezer Retirement Freezer 3,414 3,074 3,059 3,086 3,129 15,762

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. Electricity and measure cost 

savings resulting from removing secondary appliances result in negative participant 

costs (savings.)

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $827,999 $743,956 $739,791 $744,216 $750,315 $3,806,276

Incentive $2,065,475 $1,841,580 $1,817,289 $1,814,368 $1,815,612 $9,354,325

Total $2,893,474 $2,585,536 $2,557,080 $2,558,585 $2,565,927 $13,160,601
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 70

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 16,560 14,879 14,796 14,884 15,006 76,126

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 2,342 2,106 2,095 2,110 2,129 10,782

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 2.3

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 2.3

Participant Cost (PCT) 7.7

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.4

4.1.3 In-Home Audit (On-Going Program)

This program produces long-term electric energy savings in the consumer sector by 

helping customers analyze and reduce their energy use from a whole house perspective 

through the installation of whole house cost effective measures. The customer will have 

three options to choose from: 

Option 1: On-Line Energy Analysis – This program is free to all AEP Ohio 

customers. Customers who complete the online analysis will receive a kit of energy 

efficiency measures by mail. Savings could include customer changes in behavior 

informed from the completion of the energy analysis.

Option 2: In-Home Energy Assessment – This program provides a walk-through 

audit by pre-certified contractors and a list of recommendations. Customers will also 

receive direct installed energy efficiency measures and a prioritized list of 

recommendations. This option is available to customers that are not eligible for 

Option 3.

Option 3: In-Home Energy Audit (all electric only) – This program provides the 

customer a comprehensive energy efficiency audit. The audit is performed by a prequalified and certified energy auditor, either directly contracted or sub-contracted to 

AEP Ohio to deliver the services required. The auditors perform blower-door, infrared 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 71

camera, and combustion air tests, and utilize approved software to provide customers a 

detailed report of energy usage and potential savings associated with improvements. 

Customers will also receive the direct installed energy efficiency measures and a 

prioritized list of recommendations. 

For any option selected, customers will be eligible for incentives and can choose from a 

list of pre-qualified contractors to have energy-saving improvements installed. 

Adjustments and Enhancements

Retrofit Manufactured Housing: 

AEP Ohio will expand the In-Home Audit Program to obtain energy savings through the 

identification and implementation of cost-effective measures that improve the efficiency 

and comfort of existing occupied manufactured housing and to serve hard-to-reach 

customer segments. The Retrofit Manufactured Housing measures are targeted to 

residential customers with all-electric mobile homes on permanent foundations in urban 

and rural communities. 

 AEP Ohio will offer assessment services to identify retrofit opportunities and will 

offer financial incentives to residents and/or to contractors to assist with 

installation of measures: 

o A/C inspection and tune-up

o High efficiency heat pump replacements of resistance heating

o Ductless mini-splits

o Duct sealing and repair

o Mobile home belly patch

o Mobile home roof coat

o Mobile home roof patch

o Attic radiant barrier

o Mobile home insulation

o Mobile home underneath vapor retarder

o Mobile home rigid window

 The implementation strategy is designed to lower the cost of delivery and 

increase participation by:

o Combining multiple measures in one treatment package per home.

o Identifying and engaging other program administrators and collaborators 

to share costs. 

o Encouraging third party financing for energy efficiency loans.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 72

o The marketing strategies will vary from community outreach and direct 

mail to reach the majority of manufactured housing that is sited in rural 

settings of low population density to door-to-door canvassing of more 

densely clustered mobile home parks and communities. 

 The Manufactured Housing Retrofit implementation contractor will:

o Market the retrofit program to customers. 

o Implement a screening process to qualify cost-effective candidates for 

retrofit. 

o Administer, provide quality control, and verify retrofit installations.

o Identify and collaborate with other manufactured housing efficiency 

program administrators.

Other AEP Ohio modifications to the In-Home Audit Program as shown below:

 Continue to look for opportunities to partner with other utilities to lower program 

administration costs and increase participation.

 Targeting only all-electric customers in the 2015-2019 plan for audits.

 Revised measure mix and rebate schedules to improve cost effectiveness.

 Incentives not included in the measure mix from previous plan(s) have been 

deemed either not cost effective or had low participation. 

 Customer incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or 

program participation.

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added 

and measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on 

both cost effectiveness and customer participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, 

AEP Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 73

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

1W LED Night Light Lamp 371 381 436 476 515 2,180

1W LED Night Light Lamp 59 61 70 78 85 353

5-plug Smart Strip Power Bar Power Strip 7,383 7,736 9,023 10,110 11,271 45,523

7-plug Smart Strip Power Bar Power Strip 7,383 7,736 9,023 10,110 11,271 45,523

CFL >25W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 2,681 2,524 2,759 2,877 2,961 13,803

CFL >25W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 38 36 39 41 42 196

CFL 13W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 95,337 85,615 87,240 88,201 87,984 444,377

CFL 13W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 8,791 7,985 8,232 8,413 8,481 41,901

CFL 18W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 5,608 4,769 5,038 5,072 5,032 25,519

CFL 18W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 610 510 533 531 521 2,705

CFL 23W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 5,543 4,993 5,391 5,552 5,637 27,116

CFL 23W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 1,050 947 1,023 1,053 1,070 5,142

CFL 7W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 43,993 40,777 42,493 43,843 44,612 215,718

CFL Pin-Based (<25W) Indoor Fixture 2,806 2,823 3,235 3,550 3,862 16,275

CFL Pin-Based (<25W) Outdoor Fixture 259 266 307 340 373 1,546

CFL Pin-Based (>=25W) Indoor Fixture 72 73 84 92 101 422

CFL Pin-Based (>=25W) Outdoor Fixture 1 1 1 1 2 6

DHW Pipe Insulation R-4 10 feet 10 Linear Feet 1,610 1,665 1,914 2,103 2,284 9,576

DHW Pipe Insulation R-4 10 feet 10 Linear Feet 142 147 169 186 202 847

Duct Sealing and Insulation - CAC - EL Heat Home 2 2 3 3 3 14

Duct Sealing and Insulation - Heat Pump Home 10 10 12 13 14 58

Efficient Refrigerator (ENERGY STAR® or 

Better) (DUB) Refrigerator 1,767 1,792 2,063 2,272 2,474 10,369

ENERGY STAR® Central A/C (Early 

Replacement) Ton 4,327 4,512 5,232 5,813 6,403 26,288

ENERGY STAR® Door - EL Heat Door 88 91 105 115 126 524

Freezer Retirement Freezer 74 78 91 103 115 460

Heat Pump Water Heater - 2.0 EF Unit 16 0 0 0 0 16

LED Holiday Lights (300 bulb string) 300 bulb string 9,583 9,916 11,414 12,562 13,675 57,149

Low Flow (1.25 GPM) showerhead Shower 2,956 3,012 3,409 3,688 3,946 17,012

Low Flow (1.25 GPM) showerhead Shower 264 273 315 346 377 1,575

Low Flow Faucet Aerator, 1.5 GPM - EDHW Faucet 3,441 3,501 3,959 4,276 4,566 19,743

Low Flow Faucet Aerator, 1.5 GPM - EDHW Faucet 307 318 365 402 436 1,828

Reduced ACHnat 0.3 - Central A/C - EL Heat Home 3 3 4 4 5 20

Reduced ACHnat 0.3 - Heat Pump Home 19 19 22 24 26 111

Shower Start/Stop Unit 1,194 1,261 1,478 1,665 1,865 7,464

Wall Insul. R-11 - Central A/C - EL Heat 1000 sqft wall area 7 7 9 10 10 43

Wall Insul. R-11 - Heat Pump 1000 sqft wall area 41 43 50 55 60 249

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 74

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. Electricity and measure cost 

savings resulting from installing CFLs in lieu of incandescent bulbs result in negative 

participant costs (savings.)

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 

2015 – 2019

Administrative $1,497,765 $1,449,694 $1,599,370 $1,710,118 $1,800,199 $8,057,146

Incentive $2,381,652 $2,396,752 $2,738,093 $3,010,486 $3,278,724 $13,805,708

Total $3,879,416 $3,846,446 $4,337,464 $4,720,605 $5,078,923 $21,862,854

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total 

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $1,088,455 $1,042,131 $1,140,942 $1,215,860 $1,200,503 $5,687,892

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 9,815 9,506 10,463 11,162 11,821 50,563

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 1,902 1,899 2,138 2,322 2,503 9,963

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.2

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 1.5

Participant Cost (PCT) 3.4

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.4
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 75

4.1.4 NEW HOME (On-Going Program) 

The New Home Program increases energy efficiency in residential new construction. 

The program is designed to recruit and educate builders and their trades on the 

benefits associated with energy efficient homes. Homes become certified at different 

efficiency levels through a home energy rating system (HERS) rating process and 

incentivized base on HERS scores. Going forward, the program will provide builder 

incentives but also focus on helping customers select more efficient new home 

construction by offering more education on building at higher energy efficiency levels 

and creating a market demand for energy efficient crafted homes.

Adjustments and Enhancements

New Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing 

AEP Ohio will expand the program to obtain energy savings by increasing the share that 

energy efficient manufactured housing represents of total new manufactured housing 

sales to AEP Ohio customers. 

 AEP Ohio will offer incentives to manufacturers to outfit new manufactured 

homes at the plant with high efficiency equipment, appliances, lighting and 

electronics for homes to be sited in AEP Ohio service territory. Measures include: 

o Heat pump water heaters 

o Ductless mini-splits

o Whole-house sealing

o Duct sealing

 Manufacturers of housing for sale and shipment to Ohio will be recruited for New 

Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing participation. 

 The Energy Efficient Manufactured Housing implementation contractor will:

o Market the value of energy efficient manufactured housing to 

homebuyers.

o Engage manufacturers to install high-efficiency equipment and lighting to 

be sited for customers served by AEP Ohio.

o Identify and collaborate with other manufactured housing efficiency 

program administrators.

Additional AEP Ohio modifications to the New Homes Program as shown below:

 Include code and standards education and awareness.

 Explore energy savings opportunities that may exist from energy code support 

activities designed to transform the market. AEP Ohio will attribute any 

quantifiable energy savings based on the difference between building to the 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 76

energy code and actual market practices to the New Homes program.

 Incentives not included in the measure mix from previous plan(s) have been 

deemed either not cost effective or had low participation. 

 Customer/builder incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness 

and/or program participation.

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added 

and measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on 

both cost effectiveness and customer participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, AEP 

Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience. 

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

 ENERGY STAR® Double Pane Windows - 

Central A/C - EL Heat 100 sqft window area 69 69 84 83 77 383

 ENERGY STAR® Double Pane Windows - 

Central A/C - Non-EL Heat 100 sqft window area 2,240 2,223 2,703 2,682 2,490 12,338

 ENERGY STAR® Double Pane Windows - Heat 

Pump 100 sqft window area 290 288 350 347 322 1,596

ENERGY STAR® 2.0/2.5 Qualified Home - 

Central A/C - Non-EL Heat Home 465 462 565 566 531 2,588

ENERGY STAR® 2.0/2.5 Qualified Home - Heat 

Pump Home 61 61 75 75 70 342

ENERGY STAR® 3.0 Qualified Home - Central 

A/C - Non-EL Heat Home 324 323 397 401 381 1,827

ENERGY STAR® 3.0 Qualified Home - Heat 

Pump Home 41 41 50 51 48 231

ENERGY STAR® 50 CFM Bathroom Ventilating 

Fan Fan 3,072 3,047 3,699 3,662 3,387 16,868

ENERGY STAR® Manufactured Homes - EL 

Heat Home 21 21 25 25 23 115

ENERGY STAR® Manufactured Homes - NonEL Heat Home 0 62 128 193 179 563

Heat Pump Water Heater - 2.0 EF Unit 612 608 673 475 409 2,777

Reduced ACHnat 0.3 - Central A/C - EL Heat Home 4 4 6 6 7 27

Reduced ACHnat 0.3 - Heat Pump Home 23 23 29 30 29 134

Triple Pane Windows - Central A/C - EL Heat 100 sqft window area 50 50 61 61 57 280

Triple Pane Windows - Central A/C - Non-EL 

Heat 100 sqft window area 1,627 1,616 1,973 1,969 1,841 9,027

Triple Pane Windows - Heat Pump 100 sqft window area 211 209 255 255 238 1,168

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 77

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. 

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total 

2015 – 2019

Administrative $741,154 $781,121 $874,224 $816,455 $881,345 $4,094,299

Incentive $1,118,046 $1,266,055 $1,672,688 $1,811,542 $1,693,317 $7,561,648

Total $1,859,200 $2,047,176 $2,546,912 $2,627,997 $2,574,662 $11,655,947

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $2,977,579 $3,114,070 $3,922,115 $4,024,826 $3,770,031 $17,808,622

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 6,176 6,509 7,285 6,804 7,325 34,119

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 2,772 2,788 3,353 3,316 3,212 15,442

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.4

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 3.6

Participant Cost (PCT) 3.0

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.5

4.1.5 BEHAVIOR CHANGE (On-Going Program)

The Behavior Change Program focuses on measuring energy savings persistence as 

AEP Ohio switches to a digital based home energy savings and education report on an 

ongoing basis. This program helps pre-selected and new customers on an opt-in basis 

to reduce energy use by encouraging them to alter their habits of electricity usage by 

providing positive reinforcement. The report is shared with the customer via email or 

other electronic media to provide participants with their home’s respective usage and 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 78

other relevant information in a manner to motivate the customer to take action to save 

energy and maintain those savings through positive reinforcement. For example, the 

participant is provided a list of simple actions to follow to reduce electricity usage and 

promote other energy efficiency programs in which they can participate. 

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio will model savings from current participants to determine the persistence of 

savings over time and will count associated savings as long as persistence can be 

validated.

AEP Ohio modifications to the Home Energy Report Program as shown below:

 AEP Ohio will make reports available via email, online or other digital media.

 AEP Ohio customers may opt in to participate in the digital based communications 

whether they have received printed reports in the past or are new to the Behavior 

Change program.

 AEP Ohio may consider providing reports with internal resources if it is more cost 

effective.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, 

AEP Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience. Participation levels are not assumed to have a one 

year measure life; however, to be conservative the program design continued that assumption 

for plan purposes. Therefore, the total participation over the five year period from 2015 to 2019 

are based on the number of participants in the fifth year, 2019. 

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

Home Energy Report Home 24,852 24,852 24,852 24,852 24,852 124,259

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience.

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total 

2015 – 2019

Administrative $437,070 $437,070 $437,070 $437,070 $437,070 $2,185,351

Incentive $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 79

Total $437,070 $437,070 $437,070 $437,070 $437,070 $2,185,351

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Participant Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Savings Targets

Savings for this program are not cumulative due to a one year measure life.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 1,218 1,218 1,218 1,218 1,218 1,218

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.2

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 1.2

Participant Cost (PCT) NA

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.3

4.1.6 e

3

smartSM (On-Going Program)

This energy efficiency education program provides curriculum, teacher training, and 

supplies for in-class instruction about energy sources, transformation, and uses. 

Students learn how to use energy efficiently at home. With the permission of their 

parents or caregiver(s), students take home energy efficiency measures and install 

them as part of the learning experience. The curriculum is designed to meet national 

and state science standards for grades 5-12.

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the e3SMART Program as shown below:

 Adjust the number of student participants to approximately 24,000 per year.

 Remove the outlet gasket measure as a preventative student safety action.

 Expand curriculum from grades 5-9 to grades 5-12.

 Increase the proportion of LED measures in the student and teacher kits.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 80

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, AEP 

Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience. 

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

1W LED Night Light Lamp 532 585 611 673 720 3,122

CFL 13W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 117,126 116,789 108,706 110,704 109,400 562,726

CFL 23W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 685 395 179 48 0 1,308

Hot Water Temp Gauge (Tank Temperature 

Turn Down) Unit 3,462 3,806 3,971 4,372 4,686 20,296

Low Flow (1.25 GPM) showerhead Shower 6,780 7,396 7,647 8,333 8,832 38,988

Low Flow Faucet Aerator, 1.5 GPM - EDHW Faucet 7,888 8,597 8,879 9,661 10,217 45,243

Reduced ACHnat 0.3 - Central A/C - EL Heat Home 8 9 9 10 12 47

Reduced ACHnat 0.3 - Heat Pump Home 44 48 50 55 59 255

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. 

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total 

2015 – 2019

Administrative $296,180 $300,728 $288,620 $298,574 $299,843 $1,483,945

Incentive $257,969 $268,718 $261,999 $277,269 $285,719 $1,351,674

Total $554,149 $569,445 $550,619 $575,843 $585,562 $2,835,619

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total 

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $606,056 $613,886 $586,475 $607,068 $601,578 $3,015,062

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 4,949 5,018 4,809 4,969 5,004 24,169

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 549 553 526 541 541 2,643
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 81

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 3.0

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 6.1

Participant Cost (PCT) 8.0

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.5

4.1.7 Community Assistance (On-Going Program)

The program provides energy efficiency services to AEP Ohio customers with limited 

income to assist them in reducing their electric energy use and managing their utility 

costs. AEP Ohio low income residential customers eligible to participate are any 

customers that have an income of 200 percent of the federal poverty income level or 

less. These customers are also typically approved for an energy assistance program 

such as PIPP (percentage of income payment plan) HEAP (home energy assistance 

program) or HWAP (home weatherization assistance program.) The program generates 

energy savings for residential low-income customers through an in-home energy audit 

and the installation of a wide range of base load measures such as efficient lighting, 

more efficient refrigerators and weatherization upgrades. The program can be delivered 

through community based action agencies or private contractors. While the program is 

not cost-effective based on standard tests, it has significant non-energy benefits, 

including assisting customers with limited incomes to reduce their energy costs, 

improving their standard of living and maintaining their service. 

Adjustments and Enhancements

Retrofit Manufactured Housing: 

AEP Ohio will expand the Community Assistance Program to obtain energy savings

through the identification and implementation of cost-effective measures that improve 

the efficiency and comfort of existing occupied manufactured housing and to serve a 

hard-to-reach customer segment. The Retrofit Manufactured Housing measures are 

targeted to income-eligible residential customers with all-electric mobile homes on 

permanent foundations in urban and rural communities. 

Other changes to the Community Assistance Program as shown below:

 Incentives not included in the measure mix from previous plan(s) have been 

deemed either not cost effective or had low participation. 

 Customer incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or 

program participation.

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 82

and measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on 

both cost effectiveness and customer participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, 

AEP Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience.

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

1W LED Night Light Lamp 273 298 305 371 291 1,537

Air Source Heat Pump SEER 14.5, COP 2.49 Ton 95 102 104 125 98 525

Ceiling Ins. R-30 - Central A/C - EL Heat 1000 sqft footprint 33 36 37 45 35 187

Ceiling Ins. R-30 - Central A/C - Non-EL Heat 1000 sqft footprint 147 158 160 194 151 810

Ceiling Ins. R-30 - Heat Pump 1000 sqft footprint 190 205 208 251 195 1,048

Ceiling Insul R-45 - Central A/C - EL Heat 1000 sqft footprint 33 36 37 45 35 187

Ceiling Insul R-45 - Central A/C - Non-EL Heat 1000 sqft footprint 147 158 160 194 151 810

Ceiling Insul R-45 - Heat Pump 1000 sqft footprint 190 205 208 251 195 1,048

CFL >25W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 1,376 1,523 1,561 1,905 1,499 7,863

CFL >25W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 20 22 23 28 22 114

CFL 18W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 3,131 3,440 3,526 4,303 3,385 17,786

CFL 18W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 345 379 388 474 373 1,958

CFL 23W Screw-In Indoor Lamp 2,970 3,286 3,368 4,109 3,233 16,966

CFL 23W Screw-In Outdoor Lamp 562 622 637 778 612 3,210

DHW Pipe Insulation R-4 10 feet 10 Linear Feet 1,397 1,503 1,525 1,841 1,433 7,700

DHW Tank Wrap (R-10 Water Heater Blanket) Unit 966 1,044 1,064 1,294 1,015 5,383

Efficient Refrigerator (ENERGY STAR® or 

Better) (DUB) Refrigerator 1,883 2,026 2,055 2,481 1,931 10,375

ENERGY STAR® Window / Room AC (Early 

Replacement) Unit 234 255 261 318 249 1,317

Freezer Retirement Freezer 701 791 826 1,027 823 4,168

Heat Pump Water Heater - 2.0 EF Unit 585 644 663 813 642 3,347

High Eff. Elec. Water Heat - Tank - .95 EF Unit 867 966 1,002 1,241 988 5,064

Instantaneous Electric Water Heater - .99 EF Unit 332 368 380 469 371 1,919

Low Flow (1.25 GPM) showerhead Shower 2,897 3,117 3,163 3,823 2,980 15,980

Low Flow Faucet Aerator, 1.5 GPM - EDHW Faucet 3,025 3,255 3,302 3,987 3,102 16,671

Reduced ACHnat 0.3 - Central A/C - EL Heat Home 5 6 6 7 5 29

Reduced ACHnat 0.3 - Central A/C - Non-EL 

Heat Home 46 49 50 60 47 251

Reduced ACHnat 0.3 - Heat Pump Home 29 32 32 39 30 162

Refrigerator Retirement Refrigerator 1,475 1,663 1,737 2,160 1,732 8,769

Underbelly Insulation R-19 - Central A/C - EL 

Heat 100 sqft floor area 533 569 574 689 534 2,899

Underbelly Insulation R-19 - Heat Pump 100 sqft floor area 1,901 2,046 2,075 2,505 1,950 10,477

Wall Insul. R-11 - Central A/C - EL Heat 1000 sqft wall area 9 10 10 12 10 51

Wall Insul. R-11 - Central A/C - Non-EL Heat 1000 sqft wall area 40 43 44 53 41 223

Wall Insul. R-11 - Heat Pump 1000 sqft wall area 52 56 57 69 54 288

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 83

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. Participant electricity cost 

savings result in negative participant costs.

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $899,572 $976,970 $914,815 $1,009,631 $956,232 $4,757,221

Incentive $6,510,515 $7,065,550 $7,218,647 $6,912,691 $6,895,147 $34,602,550

Total $7,410,086 $8,042,520 $8,133,462 $7,922,322 $7,851,379 $39,359,770

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs -$1,579,983 -$1,687,211 -$1,719,238 -$1,850,152 -$1,915,230 -$8,751,815

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Cumulative Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 8,377 9,103 8,579 9,543 9,006 42,800

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 1,087 1,191 1,154 1,325 1,181 5,559

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 0.8

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 0.6

Participant Cost (PCT) 3.0

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.3
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 84

4.2 Business Programs

For the complete program plan for each ongoing business program, please reference 

the Business Program Plans section (pages 81-126) of Volume 1: AEP Ohio 2012 to 

2014 Energy Efficiency/Peak Demand Reduction (EE/PDR) Action Plan, dated November 

29, 2011 (PUCO Docket 11-5568-EL-POR and 11-5569-EL-POR.) Included in each 

program description below are material program changes as well as participation levels, 

budget, savings targets and benefit-cost test results. For the new programs, complete 

program descriptions are included.

4.2.1 Efficient Products for Business (Previously 

Prescriptive) (On-Going Program)

All business (non-residential) customers in AEP Ohio’s service territory are eligible to 

participate in this program. The program provides a simple and easy way to help fund 

common energy efficiency projects in existing facilities and new construction projects. A 

standard menu of incentives, updated annually based on customer participation levels, 

competitive incentive pricing and market conditions, includes lighting, heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), motor drives, refrigeration, and food 

preparation and storage equipment. Three primary objectives will focus on increasing: 

market share, installation rates, and operating efficiency. Incentives typically ranging

from 20 percent to 50 percent of the incremental cost to purchase energy efficient 

products will be offered to customers.

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the Efficient Products for Business Program as shown below:

 Add a midstream component for specific lighting and equipment measures to 

make efficiency available for small projects where an application is a barrier to 

participation and also to encourage energy efficiency choices at the point of sale 

with lighting and equipment distributors.

 Deliver a motor rewind component through an Implementation Contractor that 

enlists motor rewind shops to be trained and certified in efficient motor rewind 

and enrolled in the AEP Ohio EMotor Rewind approach. 

 Incentives not included in the measure mix from previous plan(s) have been 

deemed either not cost effective or had low participation. 

 Customer incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or 

program participation.

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added 

and measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 85

both cost effectiveness and customer participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, AEP 

Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience.

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

1L4'T5 NLO Lamp 9,201 6,848 3,615 0 0 19,664

1L4'T8 HP Lamp 9,201 9,928 6,998 3,713 0 29,842

1L4'T8 HP Lamp 23,817 20,720 17,220 14,790 13,299 89,846

6L4'T5 HLO Fixture 17,018 16,772 16,984 17,227 17,382 85,382

6L4'T8HP Fixture 2,925 2,564 2,220 1,867 1,504 11,080

Advanced Pre-Rinse Spray Nozzle, <=1.6 GPM Per Sprayer 3 3 4 4 4 18

Agriculture Heat Pads Unit/swine and hatchery farm 2 3 3 3 3 14

Anti-Sweat Heat (ASH) Controls - freezer and cooler 

glass reach in or freezer door only are eligible Linear foot door width 75 79 86 96 107 442

CFL: Pin-Based (13W) Indoor Fixture 587 499 419 349 279 2,133

CFL: Pin-Based (26W) Indoor Fixture 14 11 9 6 3 44

CFL: Pin-Based (42W) Outdoor Wall Pack Fixture 74 78 84 91 98 424

CFL: Pin-Based (84W) Outdoor Wall Pack Fixture 335 350 377 408 440 1,909

CFL: Screw-In (>26W) Indoor Lamp 514 510 526 545 563 2,657

CFL: Screw-In (10-15W) Indoor Lamp 3,126 3,065 3,080 3,138 3,204 15,612

CFL: Screw-In (16-21W) Indoor Lamp 1,132 1,141 1,186 1,238 1,289 5,985

CFL: Screw-In (22-26W) Indoor Lamp 138 136 141 145 150 710

Cogged (V) belts on fans 5 HP to 100 HP Fan 7,920 8,185 8,768 9,404 10,039 44,317

Cogged (V) belts on fans 5 HP to 100 HP Fan 1,934 1,995 2,134 2,288 2,443 10,794

Cogged (V) belts on fans 5 HP to 100 HP Fan 968 965 1,013 1,078 1,137 5,160

Cogged (V) belts on fans 5 HP to 100 HP Fan 1,299 1,293 1,332 1,375 1,411 6,710

Compressed Air - Air Entraining Air Nozzle, 100 psi, 

0.25 kW/scfm Nozzle 2,753 2,601 2,533 2,461 2,375 12,723

Compressed Air - Air Entraining Air Nozzle, 100 psi, 

0.25 kW/scfm Nozzle 522 506 510 519 525 2,582

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 86

Compressed Air - Air Receiver for Load/No-Load 

Compressors (>=5 gal/CFM storage), <=300 HP Gallon Increased Storage 12,546 12,956 13,846 14,837 15,854 70,040

Compressed Air - Air Receiver for Load/No-Load 

Compressors (>=5 gal/CFM storage), <=300 HP Gallon Increased Storage 5,570 5,883 6,532 7,364 8,259 33,608

Compressed Air - Cycling Air Dryer, <=600scfm, 

thermal mass sCFM 2,214 2,286 2,443 2,618 2,797 12,359

Compressed Air - Cycling Air Dryer, <=600scfm, 

thermal mass sCFM 725 732 762 796 830 3,846

Compressed Air - Cycling Air Dryer, <=600scfm, 

thermal mass sCFM 368 386 427 481 538 2,200

Compressed Air - Cycling Air Dryer, <=600scfm, 

thermal mass sCFM 121 123 130 138 145 658

Compressed Air - Low Pressure Drop Filter for 

Compressed Air Systems, 25HP to 300HP, <500CFM, 

mist eliminator, <1 psi new sCFM 2,150 2,153 2,247 2,351 2,453 11,354

Compressed Air - Low Pressure Drop Filter for 

Compressed Air Systems, 25HP to 300HP, <500CFM, 

mist eliminator, <1 psi new sCFM 2,147 2,147 2,236 2,338 2,439 11,307

Compressed Air - Low Pressure Drop Filter for 

Compressed Air Systems, 25HP to 300HP, <500CFM, 

mist eliminator, <1 psi new sCFM 356 357 373 390 407 1,883

Compressed Air - Low Pressure Drop Filter for 

Compressed Air Systems, 25HP to 300HP, <500CFM, 

mist eliminator, <1 psi new sCFM 356 356 371 388 404 1,875

Compressed air - no-loss condensate drains per drain 2,960 3,072 3,305 3,562 3,826 16,725

Compressed air - no-loss condensate drains per drain 552 573 616 665 714 3,120

Compressed Air - Variable Speed Drive Air 

Compressor, new, less than 150 HP Compressor HP 1,314 1,341 1,419 1,505 1,592 7,171

Compressed Air - Variable Speed Drive Air 

Compressor, new, less than 150 HP Compressor HP 438 447 473 502 531 2,390

Compressed Air - Variable Speed Drive Air 

Compressor, new, less than 150 HP Compressor HP 258 247 244 242 239 1,229

Compressed Air - Variable Speed Drive Air 

Compressor, new, less than 150 HP Compressor HP 86 82 81 81 80 410
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 87

Dairy Scroll Compressors (Agriculture) Unit/1000 dairy cows 1 1 1 1 1 3

Daylighting Controls Watts Controlled, 1 DC 2,433 1,431 632 159 0 4,656

EC Motor for HVAC - Cooling Only Motor 127 135 148 163 180 752

EC Motor for HVAC - Heating and Cooling Motor 506 539 591 652 719 3,007

EC Motor for HVAC - Heating Only Motor 25 27 30 33 36 150

EC Motor: Reach-In Enclosure; blended average of 

coolers and freezers; no controls Motor 329 338 360 384 411 1,822

EC Motor: Walk-In Enclosure; blended average of 

coolers and freezers; no controls Motor 207 213 226 241 258 1,145

ENERGY STAR Combination Oven Unit 63 67 74 81 89 374

ENERGY STAR Hot Food Holding Cabinet, Half Size, 

8 cuft average Unit 9 10 11 12 13 54

Energy Star Ice Making Head (501-1000lbs/day) 100lbs ice 189 200 218 240 263 1,110

ENERGY STAR Refrigerated Beverage Vending 

Machine with Control Software, average Average Standard Vending 14 15 17 18 20 84

ENERGY STAR Refrigerated Beverage Vending 

Machine without Control Software, average Average Standard Vending 14 15 17 18 20 84

Energy Star Remote Condensing Unit, Without 

Remote Compressor (1001-1500lbs/day) 100lbs ice 38 40 44 48 53 222

ENERGY STAR Solid Door Commercial Freezer

Conventional Non-Energy Star 

Freezer 0 0 0 24 51 75

ENERGY STAR Steam Cooker - 4 Pan - 100lbs/day Unit 3 3 4 4 4 19

ENERGY STAR, CEE Tier 2 or CEE Tier 3 Commercial 

Clothes Washer Unit 4,285 4,459 4,790 5,143 5,482 24,159

Evap Fan Controller for Cooler and Freezer Walk-ins 

with glass reach in - ECM Fan 34 35 37 40 42 188

Evap Fan Controller for Cooler and Freezer Walk-ins 

with glass reach in - Shaded Pole Fan 34 35 37 40 42 188

Evap Fan Controller for Cooler and Freezer Walk-ins, 

no glass - ECM Fan 90 93 99 105 113 500

Evap Fan Controller for Cooler and Freezer Walk-ins, 

no glass - Shaded Pole Fan 90 93 99 105 131 519

Floating Head Pressure Controls; 70F or lower, 1 HP 

or greater Refrigeration HP 128 134 144 156 169 731

Heat Reclaimer Units (Agriculture) Unit/1000 dairy cows 1 1 1 1 1 5

High Volume Low Speed Fans (Agriculture) Unit/livestock farm 82 87 94 103 113 478

Hotel Guest Room Energy Management System 

(GREM), Electric Cooling, Electric Heating Hotel Room Controller 1,392 1,448 1,559 1,687 1,825 7,912

Hotel Guest Room Energy Management System 

(GREM), Electric Cooling, NON-Electric Heating Hotel Room Controller 535 557 600 649 702 3,043

LED Exit Sign Sign 228 229 237 245 252 1,191

LED Lighting <10W - Indoor Lamp 260 400 352 344 336 1,691

LED Lighting <10W - Indoor Lamp 239 239 242 255 267 1,243

LED Lighting >=10W - Indoor Lamp 31 35 0 0 0 67

LED Lighting >=10W - Indoor Lamp 1,473 1,354 1,251 1,213 1,182 6,472
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 88

Livestock Waterers (Agriculture) Unit/livestock farm 79 85 94 104 115 477

Milk Pre-cooler (Agriculture) Unit/1000 dairy cows 1 1 1 1 1 5

Occupancy Sensor Watts Controlled, 1 OC 8,882 8,415 8,313 8,462 8,805 42,878

Outdoor LED Lighting (130W), TC Control, Pole/Area 

Mount Fixture 0 233 500 806 842 2,381

Outdoor LED Lighting (130W), TC Control, Pole/Area 

Mount Fixture 41 90 146 156 165 597

Outdoor LED Lighting (80W), TC Control, Pole/Area 

Mount Fixture 940 945 972 1,002 1,032 4,891

Outside Air Economizer for Coolers Cooler 214 223 240 260 281 1,217

Packaged terminal air-conditioner (< 7kbtuh, 

minimum 12.7 EER) Rated Tons Cooling 44 46 50 54 58 251

Photocell (Outdoor Lighting) Watts Controlled, 1 PC 1,259 1,276 1,328 1,394 1,466 6,724

Photocell + Timeclock (Outdoor Lighting) Watts Controlled, 1 TC, 1 PC 3,945 3,982 4,127 4,310 4,511 20,874

Refrigerated Display LED Lighting Strips Linear foot case door 1,286 1,318 1,397 1,487 1,576 7,064

Screw-in 5W CCFL Lamp 86 84 85 88 92 435

Specialty CFL - 16W PAR30 Lamp 4 4 4 4 4 20

Specialty CFL - 23W Dimmable R40 Lamp 4 4 4 4 4 20

Split/Package system A/C (< 5.4 tons, 14 SEER) - 

Direct Exp /All Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 949 991 1,065 1,146 1,225 5,376

Split/Packaged Air Conditioner (120 - 240 kBtu/h) 12 

EER, 13 IEER - Direct Exp /All Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 118 123 133 143 153 670

Split/Packaged Air Conditioner (240 - 760 kBtu/h) 

10.6 EER; 12.1 IEER - Direct Exp /All Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 304 317 341 367 392 1,721

Split/Packaged Air Conditioner (65 - 120 kBtu/h) 12 

EER, 13 IEER - Direct Exp /All Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 671 701 754 811 867 3,804

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (<65 kBtu/h) SEER 14 - 

Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 127 132 142 153 164 717

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (135 - 240 kBtu/h) EER 

11.5 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 273 285 306 329 352 1,545

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (240 - 760 kBtu/h) EER 

10.8 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 273 285 306 329 352 1,546

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (65 - 135 kBtu/h) EER 12 

- Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 698 728 783 842 900 3,952

T8 Delamping Lamp 36,950 31,367 25,061 20,025 15,921 129,324

Time clock (Outdoor Lighting) Watts Controlled, 1 TC 0 0 0 0 592 592

Tractor Engine Block Heater Timer (Agriculture) Unit/farm 504 532 579 633 692 2,941

Variable Speed Drive for Milk Vacuum Pump HP/1000 dairy cows 1 1 1 1 1 3

Vending Machine PIR Occupancy Sensor - Cold Drink Per Machine 357 369 395 425 457 2,004

Vending Machine PIR Occupancy Sensor - Snacks Per Machine 357 369 394 424 455 1,999

VFD on centrif load - Process or HVAC fans or pumps 

up to 200 HP HP 24,059 25,040 26,966 29,190 31,583 136,838

VFD on centrif load - Process or HVAC fans or pumps 

up to 200 HP HP 3,287 3,421 3,684 3,987 4,314 18,693

Water Source Heat Pump (<17 kBtu/h) EER 17 - 

Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 139 147 161 176 193 817

Water Source Heat Pump (>17 kBtu/h and < 135 

kBtu/h) EER 17 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 139 147 161 176 193 817

Window Films on Double Pane - Non-North Facing 

Windows 100 sqft glazed 0 0 0 2,058 4,035 6,093

Zero Energy Door Case Door 0 151 307 471 442 1,372
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 89

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. 

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $4,563,376 $4,616,148 $4,820,158 $5,105,582 $5,291,578 $24,396,842

Incentive $9,946,207 $9,940,784 $10,372,676 $11,001,108 $11,603,318 $52,864,094

Total $14,509,583 $14,556,932 $15,192,834 $16,106,690 $16,894,896 $77,260,935

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $30,333,361 $30,806,907 $32,040,640 $34,628,611 $35,064,900 $162,874,419

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Cumulative Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 99,158 100,349 104,975 111,265 117,691 515,534

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 18,422 18,263 18,740 19,755 20,833 92,945

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.7

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 5.4

Participant Cost (PCT) 2.6

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.7

4.2.2 Process Efficiency (Previously Custom) (On-Going 

Program)

All business (non-residential) customers in AEP Ohio’s service territory are eligible to 

participate. The Process Efficiency program is for cost-effective energy efficiency

improvements that reduce energy consumption and peak demand not already covered 

by other AEP Ohio programs. All technologies are subject to eligibility and verification of 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 90

savings. Customers receive an incentive customized to the specific results of the energy 

savings technologies implemented. The program assists larger commercial and 

industrial customers with the analysis and selection of high-efficiency equipment or 

processes not covered under the Efficient Products program or other program offerings. 

This program approach identifies more complex energy savings projects, provides

economic analysis and aids in the completion of the incentive application. Incentives are

based on energy savings on a per kWh basis for installed measures.

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the Process Efficiency Program as shown below:

 Eliminate the $100/kW demand savings incentive as ancillary to the energy 

incentive and not seen as a market driver for participation.

 Adjust incentive levels annually as appropriate with consideration of Bid to Win 

auction results.

 Incentives not included in the measure mix from previous plan(s) have been 

deemed either not cost effective or had low participation. 

 Customer incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or 

program participation.

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added 

and measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on 

both cost effectiveness and customer participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, AEP 

Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 91

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

Air Cooled Chiller <150 Tons, 90% of code 

kW/Ton (IPLV) Rated Tons Cooling 3,054 3,304 3,903 4,259 4,701 19,222

Code minimum R-20ci or R-38 batt - Chiller / 

Elec Resist 1000 sqft roof 1,147 1,106 1,148 1,095 1,051 5,547

Compressed Air - Air Entraining Air Nozzle, 100 

psi, 0.25 kW/scfm Nozzle 8,128 8,492 9,682 10,185 10,827 47,314

Compressed Air - Air Entraining Air Nozzle, 100 

psi, 0.25 kW/scfm Nozzle 1,295 1,348 1,530 1,602 1,695 7,469

Compressed Air - Controls Compressor HP 7,814 7,605 7,992 7,755 7,622 38,788

Compressed Air - Controls Compressor HP 1,215 1,182 1,242 1,206 1,185 6,030

Compressed Air - Cycling Air Dryer, >600scfm, 

all types sCFM 9,768 9,506 9,990 9,694 9,527 48,485

Compressed Air - Cycling Air Dryer, >600scfm, 

all types sCFM 3,512 3,695 4,237 4,478 4,777 20,700

Compressed Air - Cycling Air Dryer, >600scfm, 

all types sCFM 1,620 1,576 1,657 1,607 1,580 8,040

Compressed Air - Cycling Air Dryer, >600scfm, 

all types sCFM 589 627 726 776 836 3,553

Compressed Air - Variable Speed Drive Air 

Compressor, new, greater than 150 HP Compressor HP 12,692 12,051 12,370 11,793 11,466 60,372

Compressed Air - Variable Speed Drive Air 

Compressor, new, greater than 150 HP Compressor HP 2,252 1,823 1,463 960 485 6,983

Compressed Air - Variable Speed Drive Air 

Compressor, new, greater than 150 HP Compressor HP 2,429 2,364 2,485 2,411 2,370 12,059

Compressed Air - Variable Speed Drive Air 

Compressor, new, greater than 150 HP Compressor HP 569 586 659 684 718 3,215

Daylighting Controls Watts Controlled, 1 DC 14,981 11,283 7,771 3,806 1,228 39,068

Energy Management System sf Conditioned Space 12,681 12,335 12,955 12,566 12,347 62,884

Energy Management System 1000sf Conditioned Space 32,381 31,498 33,080 32,088 31,528 160,575

Intra-company behavioral change re plugloads Building 1,831 1,785 1,886 1,842 1,823 9,166

Multiplex system with oversized condenser Tons of Refrigeration 91 78 66 52 43 330

Network PC Management Software

Per Networked 

Workstation 890 883 953 957 986 4,669

Screw Chillers, Water-Cooled, 150 tons to 

below 300 tons, 90% of code kW/Ton (IPLV) Rated Tons Cooling 720 1,113 1,274 1,348 1,445 5,900

Screw Chillers, Water-Cooled, 75 tons to below 

150 tons, 90% of code kW/Ton (IPLV) Rated Tons Cooling 538 582 687 750 828 3,384

Screw Chillers, Water-Cooled, below 75 tons, 

90% of code kW/Ton (IPLV) Rated Tons Cooling 538 582 687 750 828 3,384

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 92

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. 

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $3,560,626 $3,463,556 $3,649,464 $3,566,800 $3,545,691 $17,786,136

Incentive $4,384,980 $4,012,505 $3,891,486 $3,506,678 $3,259,249 $19,054,898

Total $7,945,606 $7,476,061 $7,540,950 $7,073,478 $6,804,940 $36,841,034

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $13,512,091 $12,604,641 $12,614,240 $11,660,318 $10,925,630 $61,316,921

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Cumulative Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 65,016 63,308 66,787 65,351 65,218 324,711

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 14,280 13,554 13,859 13,144 12,809 66,784

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 2.8

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 7.6

Participant Cost (PCT) 3.6

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.9

4.2.3 New Construction (On-Going Program)

All business (non-residential) customers in AEP Ohio’s service territory are eligible to

participate in this program. This program is for new construction and major renovation 

projects to encourage building owners, designers, and architects to exceed standard 

building practices to achieve efficiency above current building energy code 

requirements. The program provides interactive design assistance to the architects and 

engineers that are designing new buildings. The key design assistance tool is building 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 93

simulation modeling of more efficient building designs. The program provides incentives 

to new facility owners for the installation of high-efficiency lighting, HVAC, building 

envelope, refrigeration and other equipment and controls. The program provides a 

marketing mechanism for architects and engineers to promote energy efficient new 

buildings and equipment to end users. This whole building approach requires fullyexecutable energy models for evaluation and therefore has incentives for the design 

team as well as the owner. Efficient Business Products and Process Efficiency incentives 

are available for individual energy efficiency measures that exceed then current code

requirements. 

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the New Construction Program as shown:

 Master metered apartment buildings are metered for non-residential tariffs. As 

such, these facilities are eligible for this program. 

 Incentives not included in the measure mix from previous plan(s) have been 

deemed either not cost effective or had low participation. 

 Incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or program 

participation.

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added 

and measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on 

both cost effectiveness and customer participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, 

AEP Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 94

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

Air Cooled Chiller <150 Tons, 90% of code 

kW/Ton (IPLV) Rated Tons Cooling 2,588 2,933 2,963 3,007 3,071 14,563

Airside Economizer - below 33,000 Btu/h Rated Tons Cooling 115 130 132 134 136 647

Cogged (V) belts on fans 5 HP to 100 HP Fan 5,600 6,315 6,309 6,318 6,345 30,887

Cogged (V) belts on fans 5 HP to 100 HP Fan 556 627 627 628 630 3,068

Compressed Air - Controls Compressor HP 944 1,066 1,070 1,076 1,087 5,243

Compressed Air - Controls Compressor HP 283 320 321 323 326 1,573

Daylighting Controls Watts Controlled, 1 DC 1,207 1,361 1,357 1,357 1,360 6,643

DCV - Office 1000sf 9,956 11,227 11,217 11,232 11,280 54,911

Evap Fan Controller for Cooler and Freezer 

Walk-ins with glass reach in - ECM Fan 71 80 81 82 84 397

Evap Fan Controller for Cooler and Freezer 

Walk-ins, no glass - ECM Fan 112 127 128 130 132 628

Hotel Guest Room Energy Management System 

(GREM), Electric Cooling, Electric Heating Hotel Room Controller 1,437 1,628 1,644 1,668 1,703 8,080

Hotel Guest Room Energy Management System 

(GREM), Electric Cooling, NON-Electric Heating Hotel Room Controller 553 626 632 642 655 3,108

Improved Ceiling Insulation R45 batt - Direct 

Exp / Elec Resist 1000 sqft roof 1,846 2,077 2,066 2,057 2,052 10,097

Network PC Management Software Per Networked Workstation 205 233 235 239 244 1,157

Package system A/C (>=63.3 tons, minimum 

10.2 EER, 11.4 IEER) - Direct Exp / All Heating 

Types Rated Tons Cooling 164 185 184 184 183 900

Packaged terminal air-conditioner (< 7kbtuh, 

minimum 12.7 EER) Rated Tons Cooling 132 148 147 147 146 720

Screw Chillers, Water-Cooled, 150 tons to 

below 300 tons, 90% of code kW/Ton (IPLV) Rated Tons Cooling 456 516 522 529 541 2,564

Screw Chillers, Water-Cooled, 75 tons to below 

150 tons, 90% of code kW/Ton (IPLV) Rated Tons Cooling 456 516 522 529 541 2,564

Screw Chillers, Water-Cooled, below 75 tons, 

90% of code kW/Ton (IPLV) Rated Tons Cooling 456 516 522 529 541 2,564

Split/Package system A/C (< 5.4 tons, 14 

SEER) - Direct Exp /All Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 2,858 3,217 3,201 3,189 3,181 15,646

Split/Packaged Air Conditioner (120 - 240 

kBtu/h) 12 EER, 13 IEER - Direct Exp /All 

Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 356 401 399 398 397 1,950

Split/Packaged Air Conditioner (240 - 760 

kBtu/h) 10.6 EER; 12.1 IEER - Direct Exp /All 

Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 915 1,030 1,025 1,021 1,018 5,008

Split/Packaged Air Conditioner (65 - 120 

kBtu/h) 12 EER, 13 IEER - Direct Exp /All 

Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 2,022 2,276 2,265 2,256 2,251 11,070

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (<65 kBtu/h) SEER 

14 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 381 429 427 426 425 2,088

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (135 - 240 kBtu/h) 

EER 11.5 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 822 925 920 916 914 4,498

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (240 - 760 kBtu/h) 

EER 10.8 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 822 925 920 917 914 4,498

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (65 - 135 kBtu/h) 

EER 12 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 2,102 2,365 2,353 2,343 2,337 11,500

Water Source Heat Pump (<17 kBtu/h) EER 

17 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 421 478 483 490 500 2,372

Water Source Heat Pump (>17 kBtu/h and < 

135 kBtu/h) EER 17 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 421 478 483 490 500 2,372

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 95

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $1,137,156 $1,283,678 $1,284,144 $1,287,567 $1,294,944 $6,287,488

Incentive $2,665,879 $3,006,654 $3,005,011 $3,010,206 $3,024,577 $14,712,326

Total $3,803,035 $4,290,332 $4,289,155 $4,297,772 $4,319,520 $20,999,814

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $4,570,611 $5,157,106 $5,159,204 $5,174,363 $5,206,929 $25,268,213

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 31,588 35,658 35,671 35,766 35,971 173,106

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 2,854 3,224 3,231 3,246 3,273 15,704

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 2.6

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 5.8

Participant Cost (PCT) 4.4

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.7

4.2.4 Express (On-Going Program)

Program Express Program

Objective

The Express Program provides a streamlined, one-stop, turn-key energy efficiency 

service delivered through a program implementer. The program generates energy 

savings through program services and incentives to help qualifying customers reduce 

energy usage and lower energy costs. Incentives for energy efficiency retrofit projects 

are generally higher than the Efficient Products and Process Efficiency Programs, with an 

initial cap of 70 percent of the project costs.

The Express Program targets small business customers, generally indicated as customers 

with demands of less than 100 kW or with annual energy consumption of 200,000 kWh 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 96

or less, based on the last 12 months of billing history. Either the demand or energy 

consumption limits could be lowered during implementation to focus more on smaller 

customers during the Plan period. Corporate-owned national accounts are excluded from 

participation. Funding for large franchisee-owned national accounts customers are 

eligible but may be limited to ensure local small business participation. As with 

residential low income customers, small non-profit customers may need additional 

incentives to afford energy efficiency improvements, and these opportunities will be 

considered to remove barriers to this group’s participation.

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the Express Program as shown below:

 The Express Program is designed to operate with marketing and installations 

provided by a single Implementation Contractor, but may operate with multiple 

trade allies providing marketing and installation services or, a hybrid of the two 

models as AEP Ohio deems best to increase participation and improve customer 

satisfaction. 

 Implementation contractors or other partners may offer financing to reduce 

barriers to small business installation of measures. 

 In the 2015-2019 Plan customers with an initial demand limit of 100 kW will also 

be eligible to participate. A study of customers with demands of 100 kW or less, 

even when energy usage is greater than 200,000 kWh showed that most shared 

characteristics of other small business Express participants and would benefit by 

participation in the program. 

 Incentives not included in the measure mix from previous plan(s) have been 

deemed either not cost effective or had low participation. 

 Incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or program 

participation.

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added 

and measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on 

both cost effectiveness and customer participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, AEP 

Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 97

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

1L4'T5 NLO Lamp 3,347 2,476 1,019 0 0 6,842

1L4'T8 HP Lamp 3,868 3,924 2,345 990 0 11,128

1L4'T8 HP Lamp 10,168 9,825 7,554 6,040 5,154 38,741

6L4'T5 HLO Fixture 10,969 11,999 11,496 11,127 10,962 56,553

6L4'T8HP Fixture 1,249 1,224 983 773 597 4,826

Advanced Pre-Rinse Spray Nozzle, <=1.6 GPM Per Sprayer 1 2 2 2 2 8

Anti-Sweat Heat (ASH) Controls - freezer and 

cooler glass reach in or freezer door only are 

eligible Linear foot door width 33 36 36 35 36 176

CFL: Pin-Based (13W) Indoor Fixture 244 230 172 132 99 876

CFL: Pin-Based (26W) Indoor Fixture 6 5 4 2 1 19

CFL: Pin-Based (42W) Outdoor Wall Pack Fixture 33 37 37 37 38 182

CFL: Pin-Based (84W) Outdoor Wall Pack Fixture 147 166 165 167 172 818

CFL: Screw-In (>26W) Indoor Lamp 223 242 230 222 219 1,136

CFL: Screw-In (10-15W) Indoor Lamp 1,337 1,419 1,305 1,230 1,188 6,480

CFL: Screw-In (16-21W) Indoor Lamp 487 529 506 490 484 2,496

CFL: Screw-In (22-26W) Indoor Lamp 60 65 62 60 59 305

EC Motor: Reach-In Enclosure; blended 

average of coolers and freezers; no controls Motor 144 160 158 157 160 780

EC Motor: Walk-In Enclosure; blended average 

of coolers and freezers; no controls Motor 91 101 99 99 101 490

Evap Fan Controller for Cooler and Freezer 

Walk-ins with glass reach in - ECM Fan 15 17 16 16 17 81

Evap Fan Controller for Cooler and Freezer 

Walk-ins with glass reach in - Shaded Pole Fan 15 17 16 16 17 80

Evap Fan Controller for Cooler and Freezer 

Walk-ins, no glass - ECM Fan 40 44 43 43 44 214

Evap Fan Controller for Cooler and Freezer 

Walk-ins, no glass - Shaded Pole Fan 40 44 43 43 44 214

LED Exit Sign Sign 100 109 104 101 99 512

LED Lighting <10W - Indoor Lamp 105 113 106 104 104 533

LED Lighting >=10W - Indoor Lamp 631 642 549 496 459 2,777

Occupancy Sensor Watts Controlled, 1 OC 5,116 5,488 5,183 5,045 5,094 25,927

Outdoor LED Flood Light (30W), TC Control Fixture 2,182 2,492 2,528 2,593 2,713 12,507

Outdoor LED Lighting (130W), TC Control, 

Pole/Area Mount Fixture 2,109 2,408 2,442 2,505 2,620 12,084

Outdoor LED Lighting (80W), TC Control, 

Pole/Area Mount Fixture 2,097 2,385 2,407 2,458 2,561 11,907

Photocell (Outdoor Lighting) Watts Controlled, 1 PC 551 605 582 568 567 2,874

Photocell + Timeclock (Outdoor Lighting) Watts Controlled, 1 TC, 1 PC 2,291 2,540 2,477 2,448 2,475 12,230

Screw-in 5W CCFL Lamp 37 40 37 36 35 185

Specialty CFL - 16W PAR30 Lamp 2 2 2 2 2 8

Specialty CFL - 23W Dimmable R40 Lamp 2 2 2 2 2 8

T8 Delamping Lamp 17,995 17,414 13,439 10,579 8,583 68,011

Vending Machine PIR Occupancy Sensor - Cold 

Drink Per Machine 156 174 171 171 174 846

Vending Machine PIR Occupancy Sensor - 

Snacks Per Machine 161 179 176 176 180 872

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 98

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may adjust 

program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience. 

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $1,466,072 $1,602,879 $1,535,021 $1,500,296 $1,493,335 $7,597,604

Incentive $3,082,840 $3,344,094 $3,143,774 $3,069,750 $3,078,098 $15,718,556

Total $4,548,913 $4,946,973 $4,678,795 $4,570,046 $4,571,434 $23,316,160

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $5,889,876 $6,444,986 $6,191,587 $6,019,720 $5,801,178 $30,347,347

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 20,315 22,248 21,371 20,923 21,008 103,680

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 3,982 4,244 3,944 3,747 3,647 18,917

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.5

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 3.5

Participant Cost (PCT) 3.3

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.5

4.2.5 Self-Direct (On-Going Program)

AEP Ohio commercial and industrial “mercantile” customers that consume more than 

700,000 kWh/year or customers that are part of a national account can participate. 

Projects must be cost effective. The program is designed to capture energy savings and 

demand reduction from large customers with the capability to administer internal 

energy management efforts of their own. To participate, customers submit an 

application, calculation spreadsheets and supporting documentation. The application is
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 99

reviewed and if approved by AEP Ohio and by the PUCO, a one-time payment is made 

or an EE/PDR rider exemption is applied. Customers accepting an exemption from the 

rider for a specified number of months are not allowed to participate in any other 

AEP Ohio EE/PDR programs during the period of exemption. The program allows 

customers to submit energy efficiency projects that are up to three years old. The 

standard percentage of 75 percent of the calculated incentive under the Efficient 

Products for Business, Process Efficiency Program, or Data Center Program for 

customers applies. 

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the Self- Direct Program as shown below:

 Incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or program 

participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, 

AEP Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, and 

program implementation experience. These measures are a proxy for the broad variety 

of measures that will generate the savings expected.

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

LED Lighting <10W - Indoor Lamp 154 257 229 217 192 1,049

LED Lighting >=10W - Indoor Lamp 19 23 0 0 0 41

Outdoor LED Lighting (130W), TC Control, Pole/Area Mount Fixture 0 290 629 981 930 2,831

Self Direct Program Project 46 42 47 49 49 233

Self Direct Program Project 28 26 28 30 30 141

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. 

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $466,288 $447,773 $505,691 $548,386 $525,148 $2,493,286

Incentive $638,934 $670,320 $809,253 $932,305 $918,944 $3,969,755

Total $1,105,222 $1,118,093 $1,314,944 $1,480,691 $1,444,092 $6,463,041

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 

2015 – 2019

Participant $1,051,785 $1,107,375 $1,352,736 $1,566,643 $1,349,411 $6,427,950
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 100

Costs

Savings Targets

Program impact assessment is performed beginning with the first year of EE/PDR program 

implementation, in 2009. The reason to do so is to ensure that the effects of consumer actions 

at the end of measure life are accounted for. The analysis assumes that a certain percentage of 

program first life participants do not maintain the higher efficiency level but rather return to the 

baseline condition. This return to the baseline condition causes a loss to cumulative potential, 

but does not affect incremental potential. Normally these effects are not large. However, in 

some cases, when a measure has high participation in an early year, relative to later years, the 

effect can be noticeable. This is the case with the Self Direct Program. In its first year, 2009, 

savings were 142,101 MWh. This compares to the average annual incremental impacts between 

2015 and 2019 of about 12,500 MWh. The original savings in 2009 is over a factor of 10 larger. 

The average measure life for the program is about 10 years. This means that in about 2019, a 

certain percentage of this large 142,101 MWh savings will be reverting back to the base 

technology and thus this savings is effectively lost on a cumulative basis. This loss of savings is 

not taken from incremental new savings but rather from cumulative potential.

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 11,006 10,559 11,915 12,911 12,868 26,081

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 1,264 1,180 1,297 1,371 1,372 2,678

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 20152-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 3.3

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 6.7

Participant Cost (PCT) 5.1

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.8

4.2.6 Retro-Commissioning (On-Going Program)

The Retro-Commissioning program obtains energy savings through the identification 

and implementation of low-cost, operational adjustments that improve the efficiency of 

existing buildings’ operating systems by optimizing the systems to meet the building’s 

requirements, with a focus on building controls and HVAC systems. 

The Retro-commissioning (RCx) Program targets 125 KW or greater, medium to large 

business customers.

Eligible measures will vary depending on the business sector served, but should include 

at least:

 HVAC systems and controls: Economizers, demand control ventilation, 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 101

heat/energy recovery ventilators, fan and pump controls, head-pressure 

controls, setback controls, night venting controls.

 Lighting controls: Occupancy/vacancy controls, photo-sensors, timer controls.

 Motor controls: Variable frequency/speed drives, timer controls.

 Process controls: Where applicable. 

 Distribution transformers: Harmonic filtering and harmonic mitigating.

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the Retro-commissioning Program as shown below:

 The program changes from a requirement for customers with a peak demand of 

500 kW to a peak demand of 125 kW to avoid eliminating schools which are 

excellent candidates.

 Incentives not included in the measure mix from previous plan(s) have been 

deemed either not cost effective or had low participation. 

 Customer incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or 

program participation.

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added 

and measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on 

both cost effectiveness and customer participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, AEP 

Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results and 

program implementation experience.

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

RCx Program - IND Program 1 1 1 1 1 5

RCx Program - COM Program 1 1 1 1 1 5

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. 

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 102

Administrative $69,433 $76,864 $84,314 $93,698 $99,957 $424,266

Incentive $472,819 $511,200 $560,296 $622,164 $687,169 $2,853,649

Total $542,252 $588,065 $644,610 $715,862 $787,126 $3,277,916

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $1,457,600 $1,624,129 $1,780,111 $1,976,671 $1,983,389 $8,821,901

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 3,298 3,651 4,005 4,451 4,920 19,736

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 550 609 667 742 820 3,289

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.2

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 4.5

Participant Cost (PCT) 1.7

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.7

4.2.7 Continuous Energy Improvement (On-Going 

Program)

This program facilitates a comprehensive and ongoing strategic approach to energy 

reduction at key customer facilities. The Continuous Energy Improvement Program 

(CEI) realizes widespread, substantial energy savings for participants willing to 

participate in and partner with the program. The CEI program utilizes low cost/no cost 

measures to deliver productivity improvements that reduce the energy intensity of 

those customers. The program targets low cost and no cost operational savings 

opportunities. 

The target participants are: 

 Transmission, sub-transmission and self-assessor customers.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 103

 Large, account managed business customers with site electric energy 

expenditures exceeding $500,000 per annum or with annual consumption 

greater than 10 GWh. 

 Mid-range industrial accounts with energy expenditures ranging from $100,000 

to $500,000 per annum.

 Institutional facilities.

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the Continuous Energy Improvement Program as shown:

 A streamlined option to baseline and model productivity improvements and energy 

density reductions through the program for transmission, sub-transmission and selfassessor customers.

 Measurement of facility productivity, energy density per product/service reductions 

and streamlined processes focused efforts are enhanced for this program to increase 

economic development, retain and enhance manufacturing and increase customer 

competitiveness.

 Incentives not included in the measure mix from previous plan(s) have been deemed 

either not cost effective or had low participation. 

 Customer incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or program 

participation. 

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added and 

measures currently included may be changed or removed depending on both cost 

effectiveness and customer participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio 

may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation levels as 

necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results and program 

implementation experience. These measures are a proxy for the types of low cost, no cost 

activities that will generate the savings expected.

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

Multiplex system with oversized condenser Tons of Refrigeration 87 104 102 94 87 475

T8 Delamping Lamp 172,685 208,162 211,073 193,798 171,810 957,528

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may adjust 

program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results, 

and program implementation experience. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 104

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $304,636 $367,367 $372,645 $342,284 $292,992 $1,679,924

Incentive $2,635,535 $3,105,281 $3,148,662 $2,890,969 $2,563,007 $14,343,454

Total $2,940,171 $3,472,648 $3,521,307 $3,233,252 $2,855,999 $16,023,379

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $5,974,516 $7,273,597 $7,375,141 $6,771,545 $5,407,466 $32,802,265

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative Total

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 13,568 16,362 16,597 15,245 13,521 73,638

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 2,885 3,479 3,529 3,242 2,875 15,660

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.2

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 3.7

Participant Cost (PCT) 2.3

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.5

4.2.8 Bid to Win (On-Going Program)

The program produces long-term electric energy savings in the business sector by 

introducing a competitive bidding approach to EE/PDR. In addition, typical EE/PDR 

programs don’t match up effectively with customers’ capital planning schedules. This 

program provides an opportunity to competitively bid for EE/PDR projects and reserve 

funds won in a timeframe that fits the individual customer’s capital planning needs. The 

target market consists primarily of larger customers and customer groups that may 

include industrial and manufacturing facilities, healthcare, government and education. 

Auction timeframes are planned for fall of each year for future year(s) projects. The 

auction will also inform AEP Ohio in the process of setting incentives for most of its 

other major Business programs in the following year.

The Bid to Win Program concept involves the following steps:
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 105

1) Customers or project sponsors develop projects with significant savings potential 

and prepare their projects for pre-qualification.

2) Bidders submit their projects for pre-qualification and qualified bidders are 

approved to bid their projected energy savings in cost per annual energy saved

($/kWh). 

3) Once bidding process is complete, AEP Ohio selects winning applicants based on 

specified criteria set prior to the scheduled Bid-to-Win auction event. 

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the Bid-to-Win Program as shown below:

 Requires a useful life of 10 years or greater.

 Expansion of the program to provide input to business incentives across multiple 

programs. Anticipate an annual auction event, ideally in the fall, to gain large 

projects for the following year at cost competitive incentive rates and where 

results will provide information to AEP Ohio for setting incentive levels on all 

major programs in the following year, where appropriate.

 Projects to receive payment based on verified energy savings following project 

completion and final project application approval.

 Projects and measures eligible for incentive bidding may be added or removed to 

increase cost effectiveness and/or program participation.

 The number of available auctions may be increased, decreased or eliminated 

based on customer participation levels. 

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, 

AEP Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results and 

program implementation experience.

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

Bid to Win Program - IND Project 8 8 8 8 8 39

Bid to Win Program - COM Project 5 5 5 5 5 27

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)

Budget

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio 

may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation levels as 

necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results and program 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 106

implementation experience.

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $750,117 $779,498 $775,029 $774,576 $746,461 $3,825,680

Incentive $2,477,647 $2,571,614 $2,553,816 $2,549,278 $2,561,908 $12,714,263

Total $3,227,765 $3,351,112 $3,328,845 $3,323,854 $3,308,368 $16,539,944

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $25,340,419 $26,301,470 $26,119,446 $26,073,033 $23,144,764 $126,979,133

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 43,083 44,771 44,514 44,488 44,762 221,619

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 7,181 7,462 7,419 7,415 7,460 36,936

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.2

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 10.6

Participant Cost (PCT) 1.5

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.8

4.2.9 Data Center (On-Going Program)

The program provides energy efficiency opportunities for both new and existing data 

centers that lead to energy savings. Incentives are provided to qualifying measures, as 

well as to offset the cost of a preliminary study. The study will be utilized in identifying 

current and new energy efficiency opportunities. 

The Data Center Program is designed for data centers seeking to improve the efficiency

of new and existing facilities. Special attention is given to meet the specific needs of 

each of the three sizes of data centers as defined by the Environmental Protection 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 107

Agency, which include: Localized Data Centers (500-1,000 sq. ft.), Mid-tier Data Centers 

(1,000-5,000 sq. ft.), and Enterprise-class Data Centers (5,000+ sq. ft.).

The following energy efficient opportunities are eligible for the Data Center Program:

 Server Virtualization 

 ENERGY STAR® Servers 

 High Efficiency UPS –Power Distribution Optimization

 Distribution Power Transformer Optimization

 Storage Optimization –Row-Oriented Cooling Systems 

 Efficient Floor Layout Properly Located Vented Floor Tiles 

 Optimize Temperature and Humidity Set Points –Economizers PC Power 

Management –Desktop Virtualization VoIP

 Airflow Optimization

 Variable Flow Devices

 Integrated Controls

 Energy Recovery Devices and Strategies

 Emerging Technologies (Power Management)

 Optimize Data Center Cooling Technology

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the Data Center program as shown below:

 Incentives not included in the measure mix from previous plan(s) have been 

deemed either not cost effective or had low participation. 

 Customer incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or 

program participation.

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added 

and measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on 

both cost effectiveness and customer participation.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, AEP 

Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results and 

program implementation experience.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 108

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

2013 OH Data Center Sqft (DC Floor Area) 1,316 1,442 1,594 1,784 1,985 8,122

2013 OH Data Center Post Retrofit Sqft (DC Floor Area) 215,908 192,122 175,917 167,532 163,111 914,590

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 109

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. 

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Administra

tive $349,910 $311,761 $285,848 $272,592 $256,517 $1,476,627

Incentive $1,552,725 $1,351,578 $1,238,602 $1,180,565 $1,150,340 $6,473,810

Total $1,902,635 $1,663,340 $1,524,450 $1,453,156 $1,406,856 $7,950,437

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $2,485,933 $2,244,289 $2,056,143 $1,959,265 $1,696,771 $10,442,402

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) 8,318 7,412 6,798 6,484 6,322 33,868

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 750 668 613 585 570 3,054

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.2

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 2.8

Participant Cost (PCT) 2.8

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.5

4.2.10 Demand Response (On-Going Program)

The Demand Response Program is available to non-residential customers only and may 

be used to supplement the peak demand reductions achieved from EE/PDR programs in 

order to ensure the peak demand reduction benchmark requirements of SB 221 are 

met. The program includes monitoring, participation and compliance with any then in 

effect Commercial and Industrial Interruptible Rates offered in the AEP Ohio service 

territory. In addition, PJM Demand Response Program participation may be utilized, 

provided mercantile customers commit that resource to AEP Ohio. Program funding is 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 110

primarily limited to gaining customer commitments for the supplemental peak demand 

reduction needed by AEP Ohio that could include interruptible tariffs, special 

arrangements, a standard offer or a bid process. No savings for the program are 

estimated since the program may not be needed during the five-year period.

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to the Demand Response program as shown below:

 Incentives may be adjusted to increase cost effectiveness and/or program 

participation.

Budget

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Incentive $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000

Total $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000

4.3 Cross-Sector Programs and Other Activities

AEP Ohio new cross-sector programs and activities that provide measurable savings:

 Multifamily

 Combined Heat and Power (CHP)/Waste Energy Resources (WER)

 Customer Power Factor 

 T&D Customer Efficiency 

Cross-sector programs for which energy savings are counted from other AEP Ohio 

activities:

 gridSMART Enabled EE/PDR Savings

 T&D Loss Reduction (formerly T&D and Internal System Efficiency 

Improvements)

AEP Ohio continuing cross-sector activities for 2015 to 2019:

 Education and Training

 Targeted Advertising

 Research and Development
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 111

4.3.1 Multifamily Program (New Program)

Program Multifamily Program

Objective

To produce long-term electric energy savings in both Consumer and Business sectors for 

multifamily buildings. The Consumer and Business components are difficult to service 

separately and maximize savings from a multifamily location. The program may include 

new construction, retrofit complexes, walk-through audits, direct install measures and 

recommendations for next level energy efficiency measures. 

Target Market

The target market consists of multifamily structures, typically up to three floors, 

containing three or more dwelling units. Investigation of Multifamily structures such as 

mid (4-6 floors) rise units may also be considered during the Plan.

Program Duration

The Multifamily Program will be an ongoing component of the AEP Ohio EE/PDR Plan.

Program Description

Working with property owners and managers may allow for an all-in-one program to 

conduct audits of both individual units and common areas. Consumers may receive direct 

install measures, recommendations for additional measures and opportunity to apply for 

additional incentives through other programs such as the Efficient Products and Efficient 

Products for Business Programs. The savings and cost associated with the Consumer 

measures will be allocated to the Consumer program and budget. Business sector 

measures will explore common areas such as hallway lighting, exterior lighting and exit 

sign lighting. Common area measures will be funded and energy savings attributed to the 

C&I sector.

Incentive Strategy

Customers may be eligible for direct install measures, incentives for next level 

implementation measures and may choose from a list of pre-qualified contractors to have 

energy-saving improvements installed. Incentives may be adjusted to increase cost 

effectiveness and/or program participation. 

Eligible Measures

Eligible measures will vary depending on whether retrofit or new housing and the 

opportunities presented:

 Cost effective measures developed during Plan implementation may be added and 

measures currently on the list may be changed or removed depending on both 

cost effectiveness and customer participation.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 112

Implementation Strategy

An implementation contractor will oversee the development and delivery of the 

Multifamily program. The main focus of the implementation strategy is designed to 

lower the cost of delivery with combining both consumer and business portions of the 

multi-family facility into one visit. Property Managers and Owners will be engaged prior 

to the on-site visit and possibly incentivized to participate for common areas and 

engage the majority of tenants if not all. Additionally, recommendations for home and 

common areas will promote the use of the Efficient Products program rebates for

consumer and business sectors.

Marketing Strategy

Engage property managers and owners at the onset and encourage and secure full 

capacity participation from tenants. 

Milestones

Tasks Timeframe

Program Implementation Contractor selected 3 months

Program materials developed 5 months

Program launch – marketing begins 6 months

EM&V Strategy

All evaluation activities will be conducted by AEP Ohio’s evaluation contractor. An 

integrated evaluation approach will be taken that includes the following components:

 Addressing evaluation needs at the onset of program design and collecting 

evaluation data as part of program administration.

 Assessing and documenting baseline conditions.

 Establishing tracking metrics.

 Conducting primary and secondary research as part of the impact and process 

evaluations.

The overall goal of the impact evaluation will be to validate/calibrate savings values and 

determine program cost-effectiveness. The participant and nonparticipant surveys will also 

address program awareness, barriers to participation, participant satisfaction, and process 

efficiency. These surveys will be enhanced by collecting market data and assessing trends 

as well as interviews with program staff, the implementation contractor, collaborating 

program administrators, and participating manufacturers.

The process evaluation will be conducted during the first program year and then 

coordinated with follow-up impact evaluation work to be performed once programapproved measures have been installed and operating for a sufficient time to enable a 

robust impact evaluation. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 113

AEP Ohio Administrative Requirements

Initial program administration will be conducted by AEP Ohio EE/PDR personnel. To 

develop and manage the third-party implementation, it is estimated that 0.25 FTE 

equivalent will be required for program oversight. Key oversight functions include:

 Recruitment, selection, and management of the implementation contractor(s)

 Customer, Property Owner/Managers recruitment

 Coordination of marketing strategy/public relations among programs and market 

sectors

 Coordination of all education and training

 Data warehousing 

 Management of the evaluation contractor

 Goal achievement within budget

AEP Ohio and its implementation contractor will follow industry best practices during final 

program design and start-up to ensure success, including:

 Following an integrated evaluation approach as described above

 Account manager and customer service training

 Establishing requirements for supporting documentation, analysis methods, and 

reporting requirements on technical studies

 Completing all program procedures from marketing through verification and 

payment and conducting a dry-run prior to launch

 Preparing for stronger or weaker than expected participant response

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, AEP 

Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation levels 

as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results and program 

implementation experience.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 114

Total

Measure Name Units 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015 - 

2019

1L4'T8 HP Lamp 3,449 4,170 3,156 2,464 2,024 15,263

6L4'T5 HLO Fixture 2,554 3,357 3,076 2,820 2,589 14,396

6L4'T8HP Fixture 418 516 407 312 231 1,884

CFL: Pin-Based (13W) Indoor Fixture 81 97 72 54 39 343

CFL: Pin-Based (26W) Indoor Fixture 2 2 2 1 1 7

CFL: Pin-Based (42W) Outdoor Wall Pack Fixture 12 16 15 15 15 73

CFL: Pin-Based (84W) Outdoor Wall Pack Fixture 52 71 69 68 67 327

CFL: Screw-In (>26W) Indoor Lamp 77 102 96 90 85 451

CFL: Screw-In (10-15W) Indoor Lamp 461 601 543 499 464 2,569

CFL: Screw-In (16-21W) Indoor Lamp 169 224 211 199 189 992

CFL: Screw-In (22-26W) Indoor Lamp 21 28 26 24 23 121

Daylighting Controls Watts Controlled, 1 DC 286 288 116 27 0 716

LED Exit Sign Sign 35 46 43 41 39 204

LED Lighting <10W - Indoor Lamp 0 0 7 14 20 40

Occupancy Sensor Watts Controlled, 1 OC 1,304 1,694 1,523 1,407 1,335 7,262

Outdoor LED Lighting (80W), TC Control, Pole/Area Mount Fixture 119 157 144 133 123 676

Photocell (Outdoor Lighting) Watts Controlled, 1 PC 192 257 243 232 223 1,147

Photocell + Timeclock (Outdoor Lighting) Watts Controlled, 1 TC, 1 PC 602 801 756 717 685 3,561

Specialty CFL - 16W PAR30 Lamp 1 1 1 1 1 3

Specialty CFL - 23W Dimmable R40 Lamp 1 1 1 1 1 3

Split/Package system A/C (< 5.4 tons, 14 SEER) - Direct Exp /All Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 147 199 195 191 188 921

Split/Packaged Air Conditioner (120 - 240 kBtu/h) 12 EER, 13 IEER - Direct Exp 

/All Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 18 25 24 24 23 115

Split/Packaged Air Conditioner (240 - 760 kBtu/h) 10.6 EER; 12.1 IEER - Direct 

Exp /All Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 47 64 62 61 60 295

Split/Packaged Air Conditioner (65 - 120 kBtu/h) 12 EER, 13 IEER - Direct Exp /All 

Heating Types Rated Tons Cooling 104 141 138 135 133 651

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (<65 kBtu/h) SEER 14 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 20 27 26 26 25 123

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (135 - 240 kBtu/h) EER 11.5 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 42 57 56 55 54 265

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (240 - 760 kBtu/h) EER 10.8 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 42 57 56 55 54 265

Split/Packaged Heat Pump (65 - 135 kBtu/h) EER 12 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 108 147 143 141 138 677

Water Source Heat Pump (<17 kBtu/h) EER 17 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 22 30 29 29 30 140

Water Source Heat Pump (>17 kBtu/h and < 135 kBtu/h) EER 17 - Heat Pump Rated Tons Cooling 22 30 29 29 30 140

Incremental Annual Participants (units installed)

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V 

results, and program implementation experience. 

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative $1,437,239 $1,893,286 $1,744,086 $1,623,662 $1,518,455 $8,216,729

Incentive $463,445 $598,212 $531,100 $486,765 $453,448 $2,532,970

Total $1,900,684 $2,491,499 $2,275,186 $2,110,427 $1,971,903 $10,749,699

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs $882,059 $1,154,793 $1,048,345 $961,168 $855,187 $4,901,552

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total

2015 – 2019
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 115

Energy (MWh) 3,920 5,165 4,769 4,444 4,184 22,338

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) 958 1,240 1,104 995 910 5,077

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.2

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 1.7

Participant Cost (PCT) 4.4

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 0.5

4.3.2 Combined Heat and Power and Waste Energy 

Recovery – CHP/WER (New Program)

Program 

Objective

Combined Heat and Power and Waste Energy Recovery

(CHP/WER)

The objective of this program is to support the installation of high efficiency, 

sustainable and cost effective CHP/WER projects in AEP Ohio’s service territory as 

allowed by SB 315 and supported by the PUCO and state of Ohio. 

Target Market

The primary targets for CHP/WER will be large users of steam for ongoing processes 

and could include industrial, institutional and healthcare facilities. Other types of 

CHP/WER projects can be considered if they meet minimum efficiency requirements.

Program Duration

The program will operate while funds are available through the Plan period. Filed and 

approved reasonable arrangements will have their own individual terms.

Program Description

CHP/WER projects can be treated similarly to other energy efficiency projects, but this 

requires looking at efficiency for this type of application in a different way than the 

typical upfront incentive. CHP/WER projects, as distributed generation, should be 

subject to the same cost effectiveness analyses and performance based incentives as 

any other supply-side generation resource must face. A distributed generation project is 

not comparable to any other energy efficiency (EE) project due to the surety and 

permanence of the EE measures installed. It is highly likely that the normal EE 

measures installed will remain permanent and be a true offset to supply-side options. It 

is highly unlikely that a customer will install less efficient lighting, air conditioning or 

production equipment after the end of their ten or twenty year life. On the other hand, 

it is a complete unknown whether the CHP/WER system will operate two, three, five, 

ten or twenty years of its expected life. CHP/WER operational longevity will all depend 

on the price of electricity, price of natural gas and/or availability of waste heat recovery 

source. Natural gas pricing has always been highly volatile. CHP/WER longevity will 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 116

further depend on the operation, maintenance and ongoing efficiency of the system. 

For those reasons, CHP/WER should be directly comparable to supply-side generation in 

its viability, where the ongoing efficiency and fuel price of the generation unit is critical 

to whether the generator can run profitably or not and the generator receives payment 

for energy only when it is delivered. A reasonable proxy for cost effectiveness based on 

TRC is a seven year simple payback without incentives. It is important that CHP/WER 

projects have some reasonable expectation of longevity in order to be cost effective. 

The efficiency with CHP/WER projects is commonly referred to as total system 

efficiency, conversion efficiency or Lower Heating Value (LHV). AEP Ohio will utilize LHV 

until such time as the Commission determines a uniform calculation methodology for 

measuring total system efficiency for CHP/WER systems. Simply, LHV is the sum of the 

electrical efficiency plus the thermal efficiency of the system. A higher LHV means 

greater value and cost effectiveness of the system for the customer and the utility. The 

minimum total system efficiency required is 60% with a minimum 20% useful thermal 

energy. AEP Ohio will pay incentives on utility grade metering for the production kWhs 

generated and will tier the payments based on CHP/WER total system efficiency to 

encourage the highest efficiency systems that have the greatest chance of long term 

viability. This method reduces financial risk for all customers by requiring both certainty 

in production kWhs generated and total system efficiency obtained. 

CHP/WER projects can be very large and funding requests can be significant. 

Exemption from the EE/PDR rider isn’t an effective option in some cases. Approved 

utility program portfolio plan budgets provide programs for all customers, so a balance 

is provided in this program design to encourage customer participation in CHP/WER 

while also preserving funds for all other customers to participate in programs. Further, 

AEP Ohio supports flexibility due to the wide variety and complexity of projects. AEP 

Ohio recommends joint filing of reasonable arrangements for CHP/WER of significant 

size. The PUCO standard mercantile commitment form should provide opportunities for 

smaller customer projects that need funding, either filed jointly and individually. AEP 

Ohio encourages joint filing to ensure that funding is available from the Plan. The PUCO 

standard mercantile commitment form should cover every customer that prefers an 

exemption from the EE/PDR rider. 

Incentive Strategy

All incentive payments are subject to AEP Ohio approval and are based on measured 

production kWhs generated by the CHP/WER project, subject to the following 

conditions:

For projects up to 2.5 MW:

 Incentive payments on production kWhs cannot exceed $0.01/kWh for five 

years.

 Total incentive payments are limited to the lower of 25% of the cost of the 

project or $250,000.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 117

 Incentive payments will be made annually, beginning twelve months following 

full commissioning date of the project. 

For projects greater than 1 MW:

 Project requests will be reviewed by AEP Ohio

 If agreement on project terms can be reached, a joint arrangement between AEP 

Ohio and the customer will be filed for approval with the PUCO. 

 Subject to budget limitations for CHP/WER. 

 Incentive payments will be made annually, beginning twelve months following 

full commissioning date of the project. 

For all CHP/WER projects:

 LHV = 80% or more: 100% of the calculated payment.

 LHV = 70% up to 80%: 75% of the calculated payment.

 LHV = 60% up to 70%: 50% of the calculated payment.

Any projects that have payments that extend past December 31, 2019 are required to 

be jointly filed with the PUCO for approval. In addition to AEP Ohio incentives, ensure 

that customers are aware of Ohio and Federal incentives and educational opportunities.

Eligible Measures

The minimum total CHP/WER system efficiency required is 60% with a minimum 20% 

useful thermal energy.

Implementation Strategy

AEP Ohio has received significant requests and is working with a number of customers 

to develop joint applications for projects. Upon filing and approval of this Plan, it is 

expected that project activity will increase significantly with a likely backlog of projects 

available for limited funding. AEP Ohio intends to reach out to large customer groups 

for potential opportunities as well as work with CHP/WER developers who may be 

interested, if customer interest is insufficient.

Marketing Strategy

Develop promotional material, utilizing readily available information from the state of 

Ohio, Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Midwest 

CHP Application Center, among others.

Milestones

Tasks Timeframe

Develop promotional material 1st qtr. 2015

Conduct outreach to large customers and segments Ongoing

Hold periodic education/training on CHP/WER in 

conjunction with state, regional and federal efforts

Min. 1 per year

EM&V Strategy

 Measure and validate production kWh and total system efficiency measurements 

for LHV prior to payments on an annual basis.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 118

 Develop effective measurement strategy for average total system efficiencies 

over the annual period to determine payment eligibility.

 Reach out to CHP/WER experts to develop appropriate LHV, or other 

methodology to calculate ongoing total system efficiencies.

Participation

The following participation levels have been used for planning purposes. However, AEP 

Ohio may adjust qualifying energy efficiency measures and anticipated participation 

levels as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, EM&V results and 

program implementation experience.

Incremental Annual Participants

Measure 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total 

2015 – 2019

Project not presented 65

Budget

The following budget has been used for planning purposes. However, AEP Ohio may 

adjust program budgets as necessary in accordance with current market conditions, 

EM&V results, and program implementation experience. 

Incremental Annual Budget

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

2015 – 2019

Administrative not presented

Incentive not presented

Total not presented $13,034,128

Incremental Annual

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total 

2015 – 2019

Participant 

Costs not presented $189,985,148

Savings Targets

Incremental Annual Savings – at Meter 

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Cumulative 

Total 

2015 – 2019

Energy (MWh) not presented 600,000

Summer Peak 

Demand (kW) not presented 81,930
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 119

Benefit-Cost Test Results

Benefit-Cost Test 2015-2019

Benefit-Cost Test Ratio

Total Resource Cost (TRC) 1.2

Utility System Resource Cost (UCT) 18.1

Participant Cost (PCT) 1.2

Rate Impact Measure (RIM) 1.0

4.3.3 Customer Power Factor Correction 

Program Customer Power Factor Correction 

Objective

Power Factor Correction provides customers with specific technology measures that can 

be implemented to improve power quality and to produce energy and demand savings 

within the customers’ facilities or the AEP Ohio Distribution System.

Target Market

Power Factor Correction – large industrial customers (>700,000 kWh/12 month 

average) with process equipment.

Program Duration

5 years

Program Description

Power Factor Correction. Certain production intensive Manufacturing Industries have 

production equipment and facilities that contribute to low power factors that affect their 

equipment and reflect losses back to the Distribution system limiting the ability to use 

this energy for useful purposes. The power factor correction at the customer delivery 

point reduces losses to provide small levels of energy savings to the customer. It also 

reduces KVA, which is equivalent to KW at unity power factor. This is a program under 

development and any required funding will come from the Process Efficiency program.

Incentive Strategy

Power Factor Correction – Power factor correction at the customer delivery point does 

not provide energy savings to the customer, but does reduce losses on the distribution 

and transmission system, which can be converted to energy savings. It does provide 

KVA savings. Incentives will be paid for energy and KVA reduced.

Eligible Measures

Power Factor Correction Capacitors

Implementation Strategy

AEP Ohio Program Management 

Marketing Strategy

Power Factor Correction Capacitors. The marketing of this measure is by direct 

communication by the account managers to the customer and through their industry 

associations.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 120

EM&V Strategy

Power Factor Correction Capacitors. Pre and post metering to determine power factor 

values for evaluation with deemed values. The Commission has indicated that a 

simplified methodology (deemed value) for capacitors has some merit and that setting a 

standard ratio of energy savings per kVAR of capacitance does not appear feasible, 

since energy savings depends on the line loading in kVA (which depends on kW and 

kVAR loads). It also is required that the methodology be consistent with the Protocol 

formulas in the Ohio TRM.

For Power factor capacitors added at distribution voltages: kW = kV x I x pf, so the 

initial current (Ii) before power factor correction is Ii = kW/ (kV x pfi), after capacitors 

are added kW does not change and the final current (If) is If = kW/ (kV x pff). The 

reduced current (Ir) is Ir = Ii – If. The base kW saved is I2 R.

Following the Commission’s recommendation, the deemed value for R is the resistance 

of typical conductor used to connect large industrial facilities with the high kW usage 

multiplied by the typical distance from the substation to customer connection point.

The final system loss reduction = base kW loss x average loss factor (used in T&D loss 

studies) x 8760 (for fixed power factor correction capacitors), or base kW loss x 

average loss factor (used in T&D studies) x hours of operation (for switched power 

factor correction capacitors).

4.3.4 Transmission and Distribution (T&D) Customer 

Efficiency Projects (New Program)

Program T&D Customer Efficiency Projects

Objective

AEP Ohio has opportunities to improve efficiency for customers on its distribution 

facilities through the installation of EE/PDR measures that can provide long term 

savings. Utility distribution side energy efficiency programs are elective programs not 

loss reductions as covered in the T&D Loss Reduction Projects. Capital and O&M cost 

recovery for T&D Customer Efficiency Projects can be managed in the EE/PDR rider just 

as other EE/PDR programs. The objective of this program is to describe those 

opportunities for implementation in a similar manner as other customer efficiency 

programs and/or complete further investigation. One difference from other programs 

due to the capital investment required could be to treat any earnings from T&D 

Customer Efficiency Projects using an enhanced return on investment instead of shared 

savings. Two of these programs are Volt Var Optimization (VVO) and LED 

Street/Outdoor Lighting. 

Program Description

Volt Var Optimization (VVO). End-of-line monitoring allows the utility to determine 

where AEP can maintain the voltage on the circuit through automating regulators and 

capacitors to reduce energy consumption and peak demand. In addition, it helps 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 121

maintain unity power factor. 

The VVO system that AEP Ohio piloted in its gridSMART phase 1 allows a reduction in 

voltage while remaining within acceptable ranges. This reduction in voltage yields a 

reduction in energy and demand that is measurable and consistent as long as the 

system is operational. In the initial pilot, the average savings in demand and energy 

was 3%. While this level of savings will vary by circuit, a key advantage of this program 

is that every customer on the circuits implemented will receive the savings. The nonparticipants in AEP Ohio’s other EE/PDR programs that reside or have businesses on 

these circuits will become participants in AEP Ohio’s EE/PDR programs. 

An 80 circuit VVO proposal was filed in the gridSMART Phase 2 expansion that will be 

removed from that rate mechanism and added to the EE/PDR rider. The build out will 

be spread over the five year Plan period. Capital and O&M costs for this program will be 

requested in the EE/PDR rider for this customer efficiency program. 

LED Street/Outdoor Lighting. AEP Ohio has been considering LED Street/Outdoor 

lighting for a period of time; however, pricing and utility grade LED technology concerns 

have not been conducive to moving forward. Even with the light and O&M savings, the 

capital costs offset those savings requiring a significant increase in the SL and OL rates. 

As pricing comes down and quality improves, it is expected that during this Plan period, 

LED Street/Outdoor lighting conversions may be justified. This program would 

investigate the opportunity further, and if successful, would develop an implementation 

plan to move forward. Ideally, the energy and O&M savings would offset the capital 

costs. At that point, AEP Ohio would file for Commission approval, start the conversion 

process and complete it over several years.

Capital and O&M costs for this program may be requested in the EE/PDR rider for this 

customer program, or through another rate mechanism.

4.3.5 gridSMART®Enabled EE/PDR Savings 

Program gridSMART Enabled EE/PDR Savings

Objective

The gridSMART project is funded under a separate rider and no cost recovery is proposed under 

the EE/PDR rider. The project is listed here to note that any peak demand reduction and energy 

efficiency savings results from this effort will be reported toward AEP Ohio’s EE/PDR 

achievements during the respective year in which those results occur. 

Program Description

The current programs that could produce reportable savings include programs designed 

to reduce the growing demand for electricity, especially at times when demand is high:

 Energy Portal. Programs designed to produce energy and demand savings 

through greater access to energy information 

 Home Energy Report. An option was filed for Phase 2 AMI-Smart Meter 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 122

Deployment.

Enhancements/Adjustments

AEP Ohio has filed a plan to broaden the company’s gridSMART program with Advanced 

Metering Infrastructure (AMI) and Distribution Automation Circuit Reconfiguration 

(DACR) expansion. Upon approval of the plan by the Public Utilities Commission of 

Ohio, gridSMART Phase 2 installations are planned to begin in 2015. 

 AMI deployment in more than 31 communities.

 DACR on approximately 250 distribution circuits serving more than 300,000 

customers.

 Home Energy Reports

o Savings from gridSMART Phase 1 web portal and reports 

o Savings from gridSMART Phase 2 web portal

4.3.6 Transmission and Distribution (T&D) Loss 

Reduction Projects (formerly T&D and Internal 

Efficiency Improvements)

Program T&D Loss Reduction Projects

Objective

AEP Ohio T&D are funded through FERC and PUCO approved rates and no cost 

recovery is proposed under the EE/PDR rider in this Plan. This program captures loss 

reductions from projects AEP Ohio undertakes to improve the efficiency of its 

transmission and distribution facilities. These loss reductions will be reported in the 

annual Plan Status Report. 

Program Description

The operation of a T&D power system includes a loss of the portion of the power being 

transmitted due to the electrical resistance of the power system elements (conductors, 

transformers and regulators). The transmission of power at different voltage levels 

throughout the power system yields different losses during the delivery of Power. The 

farther the delivery through the system from the generation point, the greater the loss 

component associated with the transfer through the voltage transformations. 

There are various system improvements that, if made, will reduce the T&D losses, 

including: 

 Re-conductoring of lines, substation improvements and the replacement of 

regulators.

 Re-conductoring projects involve the replacement of existing wires with larger 

wires and wires designed for lower losses at transmission and distribution 

voltages. Re-conductoring projects reduce line losses by lowering the resistance 

of the system through which energy is provided, such that the power lost during 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 123

transmission is lowered.

 Substation projects typically include connecting previously unconnected T&D 

lines, and/or the addition or upgrade of transformers and circuits in new or 

existing locations. These projects can improve efficiency and reduce line losses 

by providing additional transformation points closer to customers’ loads. As a 

result, a greater portion of the energy is transmitted in the lower resistance 

transmission lines instead of the higher resistance distribution lines. 

4.3.7 Education and Training

Program Education and Training

Objective

To raise awareness about the benefits of energy efficiency, to promote adoption of 

energy efficient behaviors and technologies, and to continue to build demand for AEP 

Ohio EE/PDR programs.

Target Market

The Education and Training Program is targeted to customers, customer groups, 

contractors, trade associations, civic associations and employees.

Program Description

This program will continue to coordinate AEP Ohio’s efforts to provide education, 

training and direct outreach for customers, customer groups, contractors, trade 

associations, civic associations and employees. Activities and materials will be tailored 

to specific audiences: facilities managers, building operators, financial decision makers, 

builders, contractors, trade associations, civic organizations, workforce development 

practitioners and students, and AEP Ohio employees whose work brings them in contact 

with customers. 

Education and training participants will be surveyed for feedback on relevance, quality 

and satisfaction with activities. Pre- and post-learning will be evaluated. Customer 

Services employees will be surveyed annually in order to help direct training and 

development focus. Third-party implementers may be selected via competitive bids to 

assist with education and training activities. Audiences for training and education 

activities include:

 Commercial & Industrial (C&I) Customers: Customer education events will 

continue to be offered via webinar and face-to-face seminars at multiple sites 

throughout the service area as needed to permit customers to participate while 

minimizing travel. Seminars will continue to feature subject-matter experts, trade 

allies, and hands-on demonstrations of high efficiency technologies eligible for 

C&I programs. 

Content and outreach will be designed to increase participation by key decision 

makers, plant managers, finance managers, treasurers, energy managers and 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 124

sustainability coordinators. Technical, in-depth training will be offered for 

building operators, facilities managers, designers, engineers and others whose 

day-to-day practices influence energy use. Ongoing customer education 

programs will be marketed to appropriate customer segments across the 61 

counties served by AEP Ohio. Marketing may include contact by customer service 

account representatives, direct mail, E-mail, and/or telephone. Overall objectives 

will be to develop knowledgeable and informed customers and EE/PDR providers 

to identify energy saving opportunities and take action to achieve long-term 

efficiency gains.

 Customer Service Employees: AEP Ohio C&I customers have account 

representatives who assist them with new service, changes, power quality, billing 

inquiries and more. Whether power engineers or representatives with more 

business than engineering training, all customer service employees are expected

to assist customers with EE/PDR. Accordingly, they have participated in training 

on every one of AEP Ohio's programs as they have launched. Customer service 

employee training will continue through webinars, face-to-face meetings, and Email to continue to build staff knowledge about EE/PDR programs, to help them 

identify customers' energy efficiency opportunities, and to assist customers in 

applying for, monitoring and re-investing incentives in ongoing energy efficiency 

practices and equipment. Training will cover programs, technologies, decisionmaking support, financing and the benefits of energy efficiency to customers, 

their communities and AEP Ohio. The 2015-2019 Plan will focus on more efficient 

delivery through the development of more on-line, on-demand education and 

training resources. Objectives for training will be to raise awareness of the 

benefits of energy efficiency and to increase customer participation in AEP Ohio 

programs.

 Customer-Facing Employees: Meter readers, line crews, field technicians, and 

community affairs representatives are among the many AEP Ohio employees 

who interact with customers daily - though they are not identified strictly as 

"customer service" employees. To date, many of these customer-facing 

employees, or their supervisors, have participated in briefings about AEP Ohio's 

EE/PDR programs. All have received printed materials for them to share with 

customers when opportunity and safety permit. Education activities will continue 

to help customer-facing employees understand the benefits energy efficiency can 

bring to communities, customers and AEP Ohio, to increase their awareness and 

understanding of programs to help business and residential customers save 

energy and money, and to encourage them to share information about these 

programs with the customers they encounter and with others in their 

communities. 

 Trade Associations, Civic and Other External organizations: AEP Ohio will

expand outreach activities tailored for trade associations, civic and other external 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 125

organizations whose members may be customers, and/or may provide services 

to customers. These activities will be coordinated with, and marketed through 

customer service employees, third-party implementers, direct mail, E-mail, 

and/or telephone. This outreach effort will develop targeted presentations, 

recruit and train presenters, and deliver presentations to help trade associations' 

members understand the benefits energy efficiency brings to customers and to 

their members, to raise awareness of AEP Ohio programs, to help them 

participate in these programs as contractors and/or as customers, and to help 

them provide feedback to AEP Ohio.

Implementation Strategy

Education and training participants will be surveyed for feedback on relevance, quality 

and satisfaction with activities. Pre and post-learning will be evaluated. Customer 

Services employees will be surveyed annually with results compared to survey baseline. 

Third-party implementers may be selected via competitive bids to assist with education 

and training activities.

4.3.8 Targeted Advertising

4.3.2 Program Targeted Advertising

Objective

The Targeted Advertising program builds customer awareness and program 

participation of energy efficiency in support of AEP Ohio EE/PDR programs and also 

encourages market transformation in support of AEP Ohio’s commitment and key goals 

of this Plan. 

Target Market

This program will target the mass market, as well as business customers.

Program Duration

This program is expected to be ongoing.

Program Description

Media outreach and advertising primarily is for the mass market, but outreach also will 

target small commercial and industrial customer participation. The program is designed 

to increase customer adoption of EE/PDR programs as well as bringing AEP Ohio’s 

commitment to energy efficiency to its customers. 

There are several barriers to the adoption of energy efficiency. In some cases, it is 

simple lack of customer awareness or customers’ misperception. In other cases, it is a 

lack of contractor awareness or support to make efficiency a realistic decision choice for 

customers. For other cases, many technology choices are made spur of the moment or 

in a fail and replace scenario, where the person or contractor contacted are aware of 

the Plan programs and make the efficient decision. In all cases, these programs should 

further AEP Ohio’s commitment to efficiency and bridge the Plan program goals and the 

consumer lack of adoption.

The Targeted Advertising program will focus on improving customer awareness and 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 126

adoption of EE/PDR programs specifically, as well as encourage market transformation 

and adoption of energy efficiency in general through the following activities:

 Market research and market segmentation for target marketing

 Emphasis on customer satisfaction

 Advertising development

 Advertising campaigns

 Program promotional materials and displays

 Event marketing and outreach campaigns

 Increased social and mobile device media efforts

 Customer testimonials

 More emphasis on customer touch points and cross selling and promotion

 Customer surveys to identify market transformation opportunities and impacts
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 127

Adjustments and Enhancements

AEP Ohio modifications to Targeted Advertising will increase customer awareness and 

participation in AEP Ohio programs and gain cost effective energy savings. Outreach will 

be customized to strengthen relevance and increase program participation in some hard 

to reach customer groups. Other customer groups may be identified and added to the 

following: 

Customized Customer Outreach:

Agriculture. AEP Ohio will bring energy savings and demand reduction to the 

specialized needs of the agricultural sector by continuing to offer facility audits, 

assistance identifying additional funding sources, and installation support 

services of energy efficient measures incentivized through AEP Ohio’s energy 

efficiency programs. Agriculture farms that produce poultry, livestock, dairy 

and/or edible crops in AEP Ohio’s service territory will be eligible, whether their 

electric service tariff is classified as residential or non-residential. All measures 

demonstrating energy savings and capable of measurement and verification are 

eligible for the Agriculture initiative. Typically, measures are those in existing

programs such as Efficient Residential Products, Efficient Business Products, and 

Process Efficiency. AEP Ohio will cover some or all of the cost of agriculture 

audits for those customers that install a significant portion of the recommended 

measures identified in the audit. AEP Ohio will continue to work closely with the 

extended agricultural community including the Ohio Farm Bureau, Extension 

Service, United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources 

Conservation Services, (NRCS), and other market actors. Outreach will help 

demonstrate how energy efficiency contributes to increased competitiveness 

and/or profitability while promoting compliance with environmental requirements 

through successful implementation of the program measures. 

 Chain Stores (National Accounts). AEP Ohio will develop a comprehensive 

and ongoing outreach strategy to achieve energy reduction at National Accounts 

and Chain Stores. These accounts typically act on a regional or national basis 

with decision makers that are outside the AEP Ohio footprint and hard to 

engage. The differing designs, incentives, and terms and conditions of efficiency 

programs offered by individual utilities across regions or the nation present a 

barrier to participation by National Accounts. The outreach program will 

overcome this barrier with a successfully demonstrated outreach and 

engagement strategy to enlist participation and facilitate program adoption. 

Incentives will generally be offered to customers by way of existing programs 

such as Efficient Business Products, Process Efficiency, Retro-commissioning, 

Data Centers, and New Construction (and major renovation). However, unique 

incentive mechanisms which match National Accounts business strategies will be 

considered. All measures demonstrating energy savings and capable of 

measurement and verification are eligible for the National Accounts initiative. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 128

 Commercial Real Estate. AEP Ohio will develop a comprehensive and ongoing 

outreach strategy to achieve energy reduction at key managed real estate 

facilities. The commercial real estate market is hard to reach since real estate 

management seldom is responsible for energy cost and it does not always fully 

comprehend the importance of building asset improvement as a business driver. 

The outreach program will address these obstacles with a successfully 

demonstrated program design to enlist participation of commercial real estate 

customers. Incentives will generally be offered to customers by way of existing 

programs such as Efficient Business Products, Process Efficiency, Retrocommissioning, Data Centers, and New Construction (and major renovation). 

However, unique program designs with incentives designed to attract both 

owners and tenants could be offered through this effort without going through 

existing programs. All measures demonstrating energy savings and capable of 

measurement and verification are eligible.

 Community Energy Savers. AEP Ohio will establish partnerships with 

communities to engage their communication channels and relationships towards 

mutually shared goals of increasing the percentage of their residents and 

businesses that participate in and benefit from energy efficiency programs. AEP 

Ohio will provide supporting resources and communities will earn awards for 

projects they choose to encourage local support for meeting those goals. AEP 

Ohio believes that these partnerships will lower the costs of acquiring 

participation in energy efficiency programs, will link energy efficiency programs 

to community-based sustainability efforts, will recruit hard-to-reach populations 

and will deepen the understanding of the value of energy efficiency within Ohio’s 

communities.

4.3.9 Research and Development

Objective Research and Development

Key objectives of Research and Development include:

 Provide support to the implementation team for testing and making mid-stream 

adjustments to the current Plan as needed.

 Prepare for the new and modified cost effective programs needed to achieve 

EE/PDR targets in future plans.

 Support market transformation.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 129

Description

AEP Ohio believes that a systematic research and development (R&D) process to test 

new and innovative technologies, program concepts, implementation methods and 

marketing techniques is critical to finding opportunities to drive down EE/PDR Plan 

costs, increase customer opportunities for participation and satisfaction with the 

programs. AEP Ohio will manage that R&D capacity and function with the flexibility and 

analytical rigor to assess changes in the market and alternative approaches to energy 

efficiency delivery for inclusion in the Plan.

AEP Ohio proposes that any kWh savings realized from R&D pilot activities count 

towards the annual kWh goal. AEP Ohio also intends to work with the AEP Ohio 

Collaborative on the new concepts for consideration.

Given the ongoing rapid pace of change, AEP Ohio does not attempt to identify every 

project that could potentially be funded over the course of the Plan. Instead, AEP Ohio 

intends to continually monitor the energy efficiency space and identify opportunities 

when they arrive in partnership with the AEP Ohio Collaborative.

Implementation Strategy

For this Plan, AEP Ohio intends to continue the screening process that identifies 

opportunities, ranks them, pilots the most promising, evaluates them for kWh savings 

and cost-effectiveness, and recommends appropriateness for Plan inclusion and 

application to the annual kWh goal. 

 Scan & Screen Options: This initial screen involves reviewing other utility 

programs, contacting various associations and communicating with key 

stakeholders to determine suitability, and expected savings. Next, the remaining 

technologies/programs are assessed for market opportunity, estimated costs, 

risks and barriers, proposed pilot strategies, targeted customers, and non-energy 

benefits (e.g., improved performance, water efficiency) to identify the most 

promising options for further development.

 Define Pilots: In this step, AEP Ohio completes a work plan including target 

market, measurement and verification, budget and timeline and then launches a 

pilot implementation strategy.

 Evaluate Results: AEP Ohio evaluates the pilot results to determine the kWh 

savings, the cost-effectiveness and whether the emerging technology or program 

strategy tested is suitable for inclusion in AEP Ohio’s Plan. 

 Transfer to Programs: AEP Ohio determines whether or not the technology 

or strategy should be incorporated into the Plan, whether as a new measure 

within an existing program or as an entirely new program, the determination of 

incentive levels and articulation of the value proposition.

Planned R&D Programs
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 130

AEP Ohio is considering R&D and pilot programs for the following technologies and/or 

programs:

Energy ABCs-Auditing, Benchmarking, and Capturing Savings. AEP Ohio’s 

Energy ABCs Pilot expands beyond the offers of financial assistance for energy 

efficiency audits under the AEP Ohio Business Incentives program. In addition to 

incentives for energy audits to non-residential (commercial and industrial) customers, 

AEP Ohio will provide the technical platform and the customer services support to help 

customers establish a monthly automatic upload of their electricity usage data to 

ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager to help them make informed electrical energy 

decisions and implement strategies to capture energy savings. Portfolio Manager is an 

interactive, online energy management tool developed by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency that allows building owners and managers to track and assess 

energy and water consumption within individual buildings as well as across an entire 

portfolio of buildings in a secure online environment. Portfolio Manager can help set 

investment priorities, identify under-performing buildings, verify efficiency 

improvements and receive EPA recognition for superior energy performance.

Benchmarking will help non-residential customers set priorities for the facilities where 

energy audits will further identify economically viable improvements to yield annual 

energy savings by participating in the AEP Ohio Business incentives program. AEP Ohio 

began implementing the C/I Audit Pilot Program in early 2011 and plans to test this 

expanded program offering through this planning cycle.

Energy Efficiency Advisor. This pilot will explore offering a service to business 

customers, and possibly consumers, that may require a more one on one in depth 

approach in understanding energy efficiency and savings opportunities. The goal is to 

make it easier and less time intensive for customers to participate in energy efficiency 

programs. The Energy Efficiency Advisor could provide an opportunity for customers to 

make informed decisions, optimize their energy consumption and efficiency. The 

Advisor may provide a variety of services, including audits, energy efficiency 

recommendations, program management, completing applications and measurement

and verification. The Advisor aims also to provide guidance on other energy efficiency 

programs, processes and incentive opportunities that are available. In addition, the 

relationship with consumer and business customers may improve with the assistance of 

the Energy Efficiency Advisor. Incentives may be available for engineering and design 

costs, in depth facility audits and per kwh saved for retrofits and financing options.

Energy Efficiency Financing and Funding. AEP Ohio has had initial discussions with 

lending institutions to encourage financing, a streamlined process, and alternative 

financing mechanisms to support capital investment in EE/PDR, with the goal of 

reducing incentives in favor of financing or funding alternatives. In addition, AEP Ohio 

hopes to work collaboratively with customers to tie their sustainability activities and 

emission reduction activities to energy efficiency and increase the total available 

funding for investment. Also, AEP Ohio will continue to actively seek out state and 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 131

federal funding opportunities for EE/PDR projects that will enable customers to save 

energy. 

Business Behavior/Intelligent Prospecting. Business Behavior programs will 

continue to be investigated as pilot programs. Analytics, also known as Intelligent 

Prospecting, may be used to identify potential participants in more effective ways. 

Additional Intelligent Prospecting pilots targeting small to medium business customers 

and possibly large business customers are planned. In addition, AEP Ohio may conduct 

auditing of facilities and provide business behavioral recommendations. Candidates may 

also be funneled directly to our other Business programs where appropriate. 

The following planned programs require additional R&D prior to full scale launch:

 Advanced Lighting. The pilot will investigate opportunities to incentivize 

advanced lighting techniques for business sector customers. This lighting and 

intelligent controls initiative will encourage early adoption of innovative, 

commercially available technologies that drive deeper energy savings. Customers 

may receive enhanced administrative, technical and financial offerings and 

services. AEP Ohio may offer this program to its business sector customers. This 

is an opportunity to introduce enhanced energy savings to customers as they 

advance in their energy efficiency knowledge and as new technologies continue 

to enter the marketplace.

 Commercial New Construction Code Support. AEP Ohio will research 

approaches to overcome the barriers to the effective implementation of improved 

commercial building energy codes to capture all the energy savings available. 

AEP Ohio will consider approaches including but not limited to measuring 

commercial energy code compliance, providing training and technical support to 

improve compliance and capture the energy savings available from the code, 

providing funding and/or other resources to better equip local code agencies to 

enforce and improve energy code compliance over time, and promoting market 

awareness of the value of compliant construction. A calculation methodology to 

apportion energy savings attribution from energy codes will be developed and 

approved by the PUCO.

 Programmable Communicating Thermostat. AEP Ohio will research various 

thermostats; if proven, AEP Ohio will add respective measures and incentives to 

Efficient Products.

 Remodeling. Energy codes for residential and non-residential construction 

apply when certain thresholds such as change in use, percentage of affected 

area are exceeded. Code compliance practitioners generally agree that 

substantial energy savings may be gained by improving remodelers’ 

understanding of energy code, when it applies, and how to comply. This pilot will 

assess the potential for savings, identify the activities with greatest likelihood for 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 132

improving compliance, and test those with the estimated greatest costeffectiveness. Benefits will include increased awareness by remodelers and the 

opportunity to promote installation of energy efficient lighting, appliances, and 

HVAC equipment and controls at the time that residential and commercial 

property owners are making investment decisions.

 Water/Energy Nexus. AEP Ohio will research water/energy pilot programs for 

business customers. By focusing in a few target sectors, AEP Ohio will develop 

relationships with customers and become a trusted advisor for customers’ 

industry challenges. The program may include detailed energy audits, 

recommendations, project management assistance and financial incentives for 

implementations. Successful case studies could be developed to demonstrate the 

energy savings and market achievements.

Additional Research Under Consideration

New technologies enter the market every year. As a result, energy efficiency options 

are likely to be different from those being promoted today. AEP Ohio believes 

continuing to screen and research new technologies and program concepts will aid in 

developing future program plans. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 133

5 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Achievable Potential: the amount of energy use that efficiency can realistically be 

expected to displace assuming the most aggressive program scenario possible (such as 

providing end-users with payments for the entire incremental cost of more efficient 

equipment). This is often referred to as maximum achievable potential. Achievable 

potential takes into account real-world barriers to convincing end-users to adopt 

efficiency measures, the non-measure costs of delivering programs (for administration, 

marketing, tracking systems, monitoring and evaluation, etc.), and the capability of 

programs and administrators to ramp up program activity over time.

Applicability Factor: the fraction of the applicable dwelling units that are technically 

feasible for conversion to the efficient technology from an engineering perspective 

(e.g., it may not be possible to install CFL bulbs in all light sockets in a home because 

the CFL bulbs may not fit in every socket in a home).

Base Case Equipment End Use Intensity: the electricity used per customer per 

year by each base-case technology in each market segment. This is the consumption of 

the electric energy using equipment that the efficient technology replaces or affects. For 

example purposes only, if the efficient measure were a high efficiency lamp (CFL), the 

base end use intensity would be the annual kWh use per bulb per household associated 

with an incandescent light bulb that provides equivalent lumens to the CFL. 

Base Case Factor: the fraction of the end use electric energy that is applicable for the 

efficient technology in a given market segment. For example, for residential lighting, 

this would be the fraction of all residential electric customers that have electric lighting 

in their household.

Coincidence Factor: the fraction of connected load expected to be “on” and using 

electricity coincident with the system peak period.

Cost-Effectiveness: a measure of the relevant economic effects resulting from the 

implementation of an energy efficiency measure. If the benefits outweigh the cost, the 

measure is said to be cost-effective.

Cumulative Annual: refers to the overall savings occurring in a given year from both 

new participants and savings continuing to result from past participation with measures 

that are still in place. Cumulative annual does not always equal the sum of all prior year 

incremental values as some measures have relatively short measure lives and, as a 

result, their savings drop off over time.
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 134

Demand Response: the ability to provide peak load capacity through demand 

management (load control) programs. This methodology focuses on curtailment of 

loads during peak demand times thus avoiding the requirement to find new sources of 

generation capacity.

Dispatchable: refers to generation technologies such as coal, natural gas, nuclear, 

geothermal and biomass whose output can be varied to follow demand. For nondispatchable technologies such as wind, solar and hydro, operation is tied to the 

availability of an intermittent resource.

Early Replacement: refers to an efficiency measure or efficiency program that seeks 

to encourage the replacement of functional equipment before the end of its operating 

life with higher-efficiency units

Economic Potential: the subset of the technical potential screen that is economically 

cost-effective as compared to conventional supply-side energy resources. Both technical 

and economic potential screens are theoretical numbers that assume immediate 

implementation of efficiency measures, with no regard for the gradual “ramping up” 

process of real-life programs. In addition, they ignore market barriers to ensuring actual 

implementation of efficiency. Finally, they only consider the costs of efficiency measures 

themselves, ignoring any programmatic costs (such as marketing, analysis, 

administration) that would be necessary to capture them. 

Effective Useful Life (EUL): the number of years (or hours) that the new energy 

efficient equipment is expected to function. Useful life is also commonly referred to as 

“measure life.”

End-Use: a category of equipment or service that consumes energy (e.g., lighting, 

refrigeration, cooling, mechanical ventilation, heating, process heat, pumping, 

conveyance, compressed air). 

Energy Efficiency: the practice of using less energy to provide the same or an 

improved level of output or service to the energy user . Sometimes “conservation” is 

used as a synonym, but that term is usually taken to mean using less of a resource 

even if this results in a lower service level (e.g., setting a thermostat lower or reducing 

lighting levels). This definition recognizes that energy efficiency includes using less 

energy at any time, including at times of peak demand through demand response and 

peak shaving efforts.

Ex-Ante: refers to the “claimed” savings values reported by an implementer or 

administrator and often referred to in “deemed savings” or engineering calculations to 

estimate savings. 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 135

Ex-Post: refers to the “evaluated” or “verified” savings values reported by an 

independent, third-party evaluator after the subject energy efficiency activities have 

been implemented and an impact evaluation has been completed.

Free Drivers: the individuals or businesses that adopt an energy efficient product or 

service because of an EE/PDR program, but are difficult to identify either because they 

do not receive an incentive or are not aware of exposure to the program.

Free Riders: the participants in an EE/PDR program who would have adopted an 

EE/PDR technology or improvement in the absence of a program or financial incentive.

Incremental: refers to savings or costs in a given year associated only with new

installations happening in that year.

Impact Evaluation: the estimation of effects from the implementation of one or more 

EE/PDR programs. Most program impact projections contain ex-ante estimates of 

energy savings and demand reductions expected from program implementation efforts 

often used for program planning and contracting purposes and for setting program 

funding priorities. In contrast, the impact evaluation focuses on identifying and 

estimating the amount of energy and demand the program actually provides.

Integrated Data Collection (IDC): an approach in which surveys of key market 

actors and end-use customers (EUCs) are conducted in “real time” as close to the key 

intervention points as possible; usually integrated as part of the standard program 

implementation or other program paperwork process.

Lost-opportunity: refers to an efficiency measure or efficiency program that seeks to 

encourage the selection of higher-efficiency equipment or building practices than would 

typically be chosen at the time of a purchase or design decision. 

Market Characterization: refers to evaluations focused on the evaluation of 

program-induced market effects when the program being evaluated has a goal of 

making longer-term lasting changes in the way a market operates. These evaluations 

examine changes within a market that are caused, at least in part, by the EE/PDR

programs attempting to change that market.

Market Transformation: an approach in which a program attempts to influence 

“upstream” service and equipment provider market channels and what they offer end 

customers, along with educating and informing end customers directly. The emphasis is 

on influencing market channels and key market actors other than end customers.

Measure: any action taken to increase efficiency, whether through changes in 

construction, equipment, control strategies, or behavior. Examples are above-code 

buildings, higher-efficiency central air conditioners, occupancy sensor control of lighting, 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 136

and retro-commissioning. In some cases, bundles of technologies or practices may be 

modeled as single measures. For example, an ENERGY STARTM home package may be 

treated as a single measure. 

MegaWatt (MW): a unit of electrical output, equal to one million watts or one 

thousand kilowatts. It is typically used to refer to the output of a power plant. 

MegaWatt-hour (MWh): one thousand kilowatt-hours, or one million watt-hours. 

One MWh is equal to the use of 1,000,000 watts of power in one hour.

Net-to-Gross (NTG) Ratio: a factor representing net program savings divided by 

gross program savings that is applied to gross program impacts to convert them into 

net program load impacts

Plan: either a collection of similar programs addressing the same market, technology, 

or mechanisms; or the set of all programs conducted by one organization.

Process Evaluation: a systematic assessment of an EE/PDR program for the purposes 

of documenting program operations at the time of the examination and identifying 

improvements that can be made to increase the program’s efficiency or effectiveness 

for acquiring energy resources.

Program: a mechanism for encouraging EE/PDR. May be funded by a variety of 

sources and pursued by a wide range of approaches. Typically includes multiple 

measures.

Program Potential: the efficiency potential possible given specific program funding 

levels and designs. Often, program potential studies are referred to as “achievable” in 

contrast to “maximum achievable.”

Remaining Factor: the fraction of applicable units that have not yet been converted 

to the electric EE/PDR measure; that is, one minus the fraction of units that already 

have the EE/PDR measure installed.

Replace on Burnout (ROB): an EE/PDR measure that is not implemented until the 

existing technology it is replacing fails. An example would be an energy efficient water 

heater being purchased after the failure of the existing water heater.

Resource Acquisition: an approach in which end customers are the primary target of 

program offerings (e.g., using rebates to influence customers’ purchases of end use 

equipment).

Retrofit: refers to an efficiency measure or efficiency program that seeks to encourage 

the replacement of functional equipment before the end of its operating life with 
 2015 to 2019 EE/PDR Plan 137

higher-efficiency units (also called “early retirement”) or the installation of additional 

controls, equipment, or materials in existing facilities for purposes of reducing energy 

consumption (e.g., increased insulation, low flow devices, lighting occupancy controls, 

economizer ventilation systems). 

Savings Factor: the percentage reduction in electricity consumption resulting from 

application of the efficient technology used in the formulas for technical potential 

screens.

Technical Potential: the theoretical maximum amount of energy use that could be 

displaced by efficiency, disregarding all non-engineering constraints such as costeffectiveness and the willingness of end-users to adopt the efficiency measures. It is 

often estimated as a “snapshot” in time assuming immediate implementation of all 

technologically feasible energy saving measures, with additional efficiency opportunities 

assumed as they arise from activities such as new construction.