ii www.enernoc.com 

Energy Efficiency

Market Potential Study and 

Action Plan 

Volume 1: Executive Summary 

Report Number 1415 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 

500 Ygnacio Valley Road 

Suite 450 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Tel: 925.482.2000 

www.enernoc.com

Prepared for:

Indianapolis Power 

& Light Company 

Prepared by: 

EnerNOC, Inc. 

Presented on:

Dec 21, 2012 

 
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting iii 

This report was prepared by 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 

500 Ygnacio Valley Blvd., Suite 450 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Project Director: I. Rohmund 

Project Manager: D. Costenaro 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting v

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1-1

Background ................................................................................................................ 1-1

Objectives .................................................................................................................. 1-1

Report Organization..................................................................................................... 1-1

Definitions of Potential................................................................................................. 1-1

2 ANALYSIS APPROACH AND DATA DEVELOPMENT.............................................. 2-20

Analysis Approach ..................................................................................................... 2-20

Data Development..................................................................................................... 2-21

3 MARKET CHARACTERIZATION AND MARKET PROFILES .................................... 3-22

Energy Use Summary ................................................................................................ 3-22

Residential Sector...................................................................................................... 3-22

Commercial Sector .................................................................................................... 3-24

Industrial Sector........................................................................................................ 3-24

4 BASELINE FORECAST ............................................................................................ 4-1

Residential Sector........................................................................................................ 4-1

Commercial Sector ...................................................................................................... 4-2

Industrial Sector.......................................................................................................... 4-3

Baseline Forecast Summary.......................................................................................... 4-4

5 ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES.......................................................................... 5-1

6 ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY – OVERALL RESULTS ......................................... 6-2

Overview of Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector .......................................................... 6-3

7 ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL BY SECTOR...................................................... 7-5

Residential Electricity Potential ..................................................................................... 7-5

Commercial Electricity Potential .................................................................................... 7-7

Industrial Electricity Potential ....................................................................................... 7-9

8 ACTION PLAN........................................................................................................ 8-1

Programmatic Framework ............................................................................................ 8-1

A Note on Joint Delivery................................................................................... 8-2

Program Plans............................................................................................................. 8-2

Cost Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 8-1

9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 9-1

General Recommendations........................................................................................... 9-1

Residential Recommendations ...................................................................................... 9-2

Commercial & Industrial Recommendations ................................................................... 9-2

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting vii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2-1 Overview of Analysis Approach.......................................................................... 2-21

Figure 3-1 Sector-Level Electricity Use, 2011 ...................................................................... 3-22

Figure 3-2 Residential Electricity by End Use (2011), All Homes............................................ 3-23

Figure 3-3 Residential Electricity Intensity by End Use and Segment (kWh/household, 2011).. 3-23

Figure 3-4 Commercial Electricity Consumption by End Use (2011), All Building Types ........... 3-24

Figure 3-5 Industrial Electricity Use by End Use (2011), All Industries................................... 3-25

Figure 4-1 Residential Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use.............................................. 4-1

Figure 4-2 Commercial Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use ............................................ 4-2

Figure 4-3 Industrial Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use ............................................... 4-3

Figure 4-4 Electricity Baseline Forecast Summary (GWh) ....................................................... 4-4

Figure 6-1 Summary of Electric Energy Savings ................................................................... 6-2

Figure 7-1 Residential Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Savings ......................................... 7-5

Figure 7-2 Residential Electric Achievable Low Potential by End Use in 2017........................... 7-6

Figure 7-3 Commercial Energy Efficiency Potential Savings ................................................... 7-7

Figure 7-4 Commercial Achievable Low Potential Electricity Savings by End Use in 2017.......... 7-8

Figure 7-5 Industrial Electric Potential Savings..................................................................... 7-9

Figure 7-6 Industrial Achievable Low Electricity Potential Savings by End Use in 2017........... 7-10

Figure 8-1 Net Incremental Energy Savings (MWh) ............................................................... 8-2

Figure 8-2 Annual Utility Budgets......................................................................................... 8-3

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting ix 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 4-1 Electricity Baseline Forecast Summary (GWh) ....................................................... 4-4

Table 5-1 Number of Measures Evaluated ........................................................................... 5-1

Table 6-1 Summary of Electric Energy Efficiency Potential .................................................... 6-2

Table 6-2 Electric Achievable Potential by Sector (GWh)....................................................... 6-3

Table 8-1 Portfolio of Energy Efficiency Programs Included in Action Plan .............................. 8-1

Table 8-2 IPL Jointly Delivered Electric Energy Efficiency Portfolio Summary .......................... 8-4

Table 8-3 IPL Independently Delivered Electric Energy Efficiency Portfolio Summary............... 8-5

Table 8-4 Combined Joint Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary............................................ 8-1

Table 8-5 IPL Joint Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary...................................................... 8-2

Table 8-6 IPL Independent Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary .......................................... 8-2

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 1-1 

INTRODUCTION

Background

Energy efficiency (EE) efforts are increasing in magnitude and gaining traction in Indiana, 

building on the momentum of recently established statewide electric energy efficiency targets 

and simultaneous efforts to engage natural gas energy efficiency programs. Indianapolis Power 

and Light Company (IPL) is investigating the electric energy efficiency potential for their service 

territory. The findings of this investigation will lead directly into the development of a portfolio of 

energy efficiency programs to be delivered to customers over the time period 2014 to 2017. 

Toward this end, IPL has contracted with EnerNOC Utility Solutions (EnerNOC) to conduct a 

Market Potential Study and assemble an Action Plan that considers all metered electric customers 

in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors for this time period. Citizens Energy Group 

(Citizens) is also a party to this contract, conducting a corresponding study and action plan for 

natural gas customers in their largely overlapping service territory. 

Objectives

The study addresses energy efficiency potential and informs the CRA process in the following 

ways:

x Determines markets to address with EE programs 

x Finds the potential for energy savings for the 2013–2016 period 

x Provides high-level recommendations regarding programs 

Report Organization 

This report is presented in 4 volumes as outlined below. This document is Volume 1: Executive 

Summary.

x Volume 1, Executive Summary 

x Volume 2, Report 

x Volume 3, Market Potential Study Appendices 

x Volume 4, Action Plan Appendices: Detailed Program Write-ups 

Definitions of Potential 

In this study, we estimate the potential for energy efficiency savings. The savings estimates 

represent net savings1

 developed into three types of potential: technical potential, economic 

potential, and achievable potential. Technical and economic potential are both theoretical limits 

to efficiency savings. Achievable potential embodies a set of assumptions about the decisions 

consumers make regarding the efficiency of the equipment they purchase, the maintenance 

activities they undertake, the controls they use for energy-consuming equipment, and the 

elements of building construction. Because estimating achievable potential involves the inherent 

uncertainty of predicting human behaviors and responses to market conditions, we developed 

low and high achievable potential as boundaries for a likely range. The various levels are 

described below. 

 

1

 Savings in “net” terms instead of “gross” means that the baseline forecast includes naturally occurring efficiency. In other words, the 

baseline assumes that natural early adopters continue to make purchases of equipment and measures at efficiency levels higher than 

the minimum standard. 

CHAPTER 1
Introduction 

1-2 www.enernoc.com 

x Technical potential is defined as the theoretical upper limit of energy efficiency potential. 

It assumes that customers adopt all feasible measures regardless of their cost. At the time of 

existing equipment failure, customers replace their equipment with the most efficient option 

available. In new construction, customers and developers also choose the most efficient 

equipment option. Examples of measures that make up technical potential for electricity in 

the residential sector include: 

o Ductless mini-split air conditioners with variable refrigerant flow 

o Ground source (or geothermal) heat pumps 

o LED lighting 

Technical potential also assumes the adoption of every other available measure, where 

applicable. For example, it includes installation of high-efficiency windows in all new 

construction opportunities and furnace maintenance in all existing buildings with furnace 

systems. These retrofit measures are phased in over a number of years, which is longer for 

higher-cost and complex measures. 

x Economic potential represents the adoption of all cost-effective energy efficiency 

measures. In this analysis, the cost effectiveness is measured by the total resource cost 

(TRC) test, which compares lifetime energy and capacity benefits to the incremental cost of 

the measure. If the benefits outweigh the costs (that is, if the TRC ratio is greater than 1.0), 

a given measure is considered in the economic potential. Customers are then assumed to 

purchase the most cost-effective option applicable to them at any decision juncture. 

x Achievable High potential estimates customer adoption of economic measures when 

delivered through efficiency programs under ideal market, implementation, and customer 

preference conditions. Information channels are assumed to be established and efficient for 

marketing, educating consumers, and coordinating with trade allies and delivery partners. 

Achievable High potential establishes a maximum target for the EE savings that an 

administrator can hope to achieve through its EE programs and involves incentives that 

represent a substantial portion of the incremental cost combined with high administrative 

and marketing costs. 

x Achievable Low potential reflects expected program participation given significant barriers 

to customer acceptance, non-ideal implementation conditions, and limited program budgets. 

This represents a lower bound on achievable potential. 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-20 

ANALYSIS APPROACH AND DATA DEVELOPMENT 

This section describes the analysis approach taken for the study and the data sources used to 

develop the potential estimates. 

Analysis Approach 

To perform the energy efficiency analysis, EnerNOC used a bottom-up analysis approach as 

shown in Figure 2-1. This involved the following steps. 

1. Held a meeting with the client project team to refine the objectives of the project in detail. 

This resulted in a work plan for the study. 

2. Performed a market characterization to describe sector-level electricity use for the 

residential, commercial, and industrial sectors for the base year, 2011. This included using 

existing information contained in prior Indiana studies, in EnerNOC’s own databases and 

tools, and in other secondary data sources such as the American Community Survey (ACS) 

and the Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

3. Developed a baseline electricity forecast by sector, segment, and end use for 2011 through 

2013. Results presented in this volume focus on a four-year implementation cycle of 2014 

through 2017. Results beyond 2017 are available in the Appendices. 

4. Identified several hundred measures and estimated their effects in four levels of energyefficiency potential: Technical, Economic, Achievable High, and Achievable Low.

5. Performed a scenario analysis of to estimate the sensitivity of the potentials to changes in 

avoided costs. 

6. Reviewed the current programs offered by IPL in light of the study findings to make strategic 

program recommendations for achieving savings. 

7. Created detailed program designs and action plans through 2017 based on the potential 

analysis and strategic recommendations. 

These steps are described in further detail throughout the remainder of this chapter. 

CHAPTER 2
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 2-21 

Figure 2-1 Overview of Analysis Approach 

Data Development 

A discussion of the data sources used in this study, as well as how they were applied, is found in 

Chapter 2 of the main body of the report. In general, data were used according to the hierarchy 

given below and adapted to local conditions whenever possible, for example, by using local 

sources for measure data and local weather for building simulations. 

x IPL and Indiana specific data first 

x EnerNOC’s databases and analysis tools 

x Other secondary data and reports if necessary 
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-22 

MARKET CHARACTERIZATION AND MARKET PROFILES 

In this section, we describe how customers in the IPL service territory use electricity in the base 

year of the study, 2011. It begins with a high-level summary of energy use by sector and then 

delves into each sector in detail. 

Energy Use Summary 

Total electricity use for the residential, commercial and industrial sectors for IPL in 2011 was 

13,946 GWh. As shown in Figure 3-1, the largest sectors are residential and industrial, each 

accounting for 37% of load at 5,152 GWh and 5,195 GWh respectively. The remaining use is in 

the commercial sector, at 3,599 GWh. 

Figure 3-1 Sector-Level Electricity Use, 2011 

Residential

37%

Commercial

26%

Industrial

37%

Residential Sector 

The total number of households and electric sales for IPL were obtained for the year 2011 from 

the IPL customer database. In 2011, there were 415,768 households in the IPL service territory. 

They used 5,152 GWh of electricity.2

 We allocated these totals into two residential segments 

based on survey data from the DOE’s latest Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS 

2009), which has an oversample for IPL. 

Figure 3-2 shows the distribution of electric energy consumption by end use for all homes. Three 

main electricity end uses —appliances, space heating and cooling — account for over 50% of 

 

2 U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, See Table 2, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/

CHAPTER 3
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-23 

total use. The most energy allocated to any single category is 21% for appliances, which includes 

refrigerators, freezers, stoves, clothes washers, clothes dryers, dishwashers, and microwaves. 

Other categories with substantial energy use are lighting and electronics. Electronics includes 

computers, televisions, video game consoles, etc. The remainder of the energy falls into the 

water heating and the miscellaneous category, which is comprised of furnace fans, pool pumps, 

and other “plug” loads (hair dryers, power tools, coffee makers, etc.). 

Figure 3-2 Residential Electricity by End Use (2011), All Homes 

Figure 3-3 presents the electricity intensities by end-use and housing type, as well as all homes 

on average. 

Figure 3-3 Residential Electricity Intensity by End Use and Segment (kWh/household, 2011) 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

3-24 www.enernoc.com 

Commercial Sector 

The total electric energy consumed by commercial customers in IPL’s service area in 2011 was 3,599 

GWh. Figure 3-4 shows the distribution of electricity consumption by end use for all commercial 

building types. Electric usage is dominated by lighting, with interior and exterior varieties accounting 

for over one third of consumption. After lighting, the largest end uses are cooling, ventilation, and 

refrigeration. The remaining end uses comprise 7% or less of total usage: office equipment, 

miscellaneous, space heating, water heating, and food preparation. 

Figure 3-4 Commercial Electricity Consumption by End Use (2011), All Building Types 

Cooling 18%

Heating 5%

Ventilation

10%

Water

Heating 2%

Interior

Lighting33%

Exterior

Lighting 6%

Refrigeration

9%

Food

Preparation

3%

Office

Equipment

7%

Misc7%

Industrial Sector 

The total electric energy consumed by industrial customers in IPL in 2011 was 5,195 GWh. 

Figure 3-5 shows the distribution of electricity energy consumption by end use for all industrial 

customers. Motors are clearly the largest overall end use for the industrial sector, accounting for 

45% of energy use. Note that this end use includes a wide range of industrial equipment, such 

as air compressors and refrigeration compressors, pumps, conveyor motors, and fans. The 

process end use accounts for 21% of energy use, which includes heating, cooling, refrigeration, 

and electro-chemical processes. Lighting is the next highest, followed by cooling, ventilation, 

miscellaneous, and space heating. 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 3-25 

Figure 3-5 Industrial Electricity Use by End Use (2011), All Industries 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 4-1 

CHAPTER 4

BASELINE FORECAST 

Prior to developing estimates of energy-efficiency potential, a baseline end-use forecast was 

developed to quantify what the consumption is likely to be in the future in absence of new 

efficiency programs and naturally occurring efficiency. The baseline forecast serves as the metric 

against which energy efficiency potentials are measured. This chapter presents the baseline 

forecast for electricity for each sector. 

Residential Sector

The baseline forecast incorporates assumptions about economic growth, electricity prices, and 

appliance/equipment standards and building codes that are already mandated as described in 

Chapter 2. 

Figure 4-1 presents the baseline forecast for electricity at the end-use level for the residential 

sector as a whole. Overall, residential use increases slightly from 5,152 GWh in 2011 to 5,196 

GWh in 2017, an increase of 0.85%, or an average growth rate of 0.1% per year. This reflects 

the impact of the EISA lighting standard, additional appliance standards adopted in 2011, and 

modest customer growth. 

Figure 4-1 Residential Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use 
Baseline Forecast 

4-2 www.enernoc.com 

Commercial Sector 

Electricity use in the commercial sector stays constant during the overall forecast horizon with 

usage growing about 12 GWh totals. Usage starts at 3,599 GWh in 2011, and increases to 3,661 

GWh in 2017. Figure 4-2 presents the electricity baseline forecast at the end-use level for the 

commercial sector as a whole. Usage is generally declining due to a sluggish economic recovery 

and the phasing in of codes and standards. The EISA 2007 lighting standards and EPACT 2005 

refrigeration standards are also showing significant effects. 

Figure 4-2 Commercial Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use 
Baseline Forecast 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 4-3 

Industrial Sector 

Figure 4-3 presents the electricity baseline forecast at the end-use level for the industrial sector 

as a whole. Overall, industrial annual electricity use increases from 5,195 GWh in 2011 to 5,507 

GWh in 2017, an overall increase of 1.0% per year. This is largely driven by the economy and 

sluggish projections for recovery. 

Figure 4-3 Industrial Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use 
Baseline Forecast 

4-4 www.enernoc.com 

Baseline Forecast Summary 

Table 4-1 and Figure 4-4 provide a summary of the baseline forecast for electricity by sector for 

the city of IPL. Overall, the forecast shows only a slight incline in electricity use, due to a 

challenging macroeconomic environment and codes and standards. 

Table 4-1 Electricity Baseline Forecast Summary (GWh) 

Sector 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 % Change

Avg.

Growth

Rate

Residential 5,152 5,186 5,147 5,152 5,196 0.9% 0.1%

Commercial 3,599 3,498 3,519 3,561 3,611 0.3% 0.1%

Industrial 5,195 5,248 5,343 5,437 5,507 6.0% 1.0%

Total 13,946 13,932 14,010 14,150 14,315 2.6% 0.4%

Figure 4-4 Electricity Baseline Forecast Summary (GWh) 
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 5-1 

CHAPTER 5

ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES 

The energy efficiency measures and assumptions used in this analysis are detailed in Chapter 5 

of the main report as well as Appendix B, C, and D. Table 5-1 summarizes the number of 

equipment and non-equipment measures evaluated for each segment within each sector.3

Table 5-1 Number of Measures Evaluated 

Residential Commercial Industrial

Total Number

of Measures

Equipment Measures Evaluated 35 38 28 101

NonͲEquipment Measures Evaluated 45 81 69 195

Total Measures Evaluated 80 119 97 296

 

3

 The Indiana TRM being developed by the Indiana DSMCC EM&V subcommittee was not available at the time this study was being 

performed.
Electric Energy Efficiency – Overall Results 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 6-2 

CHAPTER 6

ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY – OVERALL RESULTS 

Table 6-1 and Figure 6-1 summarize the electric energy-efficiency savings for the different levels 

of potential relative to the baseline forecast. Figure 15-2 displays the electric energy-efficiency 

forecasts.

Table 6-1 Summary of Electric Energy Efficiency Potential 

 2014 2015 2016 2017

Baseline Forecast (GWh) 13,932 14,010 14,150 14,315

Cumulative Savings (GWh)

Achievable Low Potential 107 200 275 364

Achievable High Potential 244 441 582 741

Economic Potential 746 1,094 1,267 1,456

Technical Potential 984 1,428 1,692 1,980

Energy Savings (% of Baseline)

Achievable Low Potential 0.8% 1.4% 1.9% 2.5%

Achievable High Potential 1.8% 3.1% 4.1% 5.2%

Economic Potential 5.4% 7.8% 9.0% 10.2%

Technical Potential 7.1% 10.2% 12.0% 13.8%

Figure 6-1 Summary of Electric Energy Savings 
Electric Energy Efficiency – Overall Results 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 6-3 

Overview of Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector 

Table 6-2 summarizes the range of electric achievable potential by sector. The commercial sector 

accounts for the largest portion of the savings, followed by residential, and then industrial. 

Table 6-2 Electric Achievable Potential by Sector (GWh) 

 2014 2015 2016 2017

Achievable Low Savings (GWh)

Residential 36.9 75.5 95.7 114.8

Commercial 38.5 71.8 100.2 133.7

Industrial 31.2 52.4 79.4 115.5

Total 106.6 199.7 275.3 364.0

Achievable High Savings (GWh)

Residential 85.1 168.4 204.4 238.4

Commercial 88.2 158.3 212.5 272.0

Industrial 71.0 114.1 165.4 230.2

Total 244.3 440.8 582.3 740.6

Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 7-5 

CHAPTER 7

ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL BY SECTOR 

This chapter presents the results of the energy efficiency analysis at the sector level. First, the 

residential potential is presented, followed by the commercial, and lastly, industrial. 

Residential Electricity Potential

 Figure 7-1 depicts the four types of potential for the residential electricity sector graphically. 

Figure 7-1 Residential Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Savings 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2014 2015 2016 2017

Energy Savings(% of Baseline)

Achievable Potential Low

Achievable Potential High

Economic Potential

Technical Potential

The key measures comprising the potential are listed below: 

x Lighting: mostly CFL lamps and specialty bulbs 

x Electronics (reduce standby wattage, televisions, set top boxes, PCs) 

x Second refrigerator/ freezer removal 

x HVAC: Removal of second room AC unit, efficient air conditioners, ducting repair/sealing, 

insulation, home energy management system and programmable thermostats 
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

7-6 www.enernoc.com 

Figure 7-2 Residential Electric Achievable Low Potential by End Use in 2017 

Cooling

5%

Heating

2%

Water

Heating

1%

Interior

Lighting

Exterior 62%

Lighting

8%

Applianc

es

6%

Electroni

cs

16%

Misc.

0%
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 7-7 

Commercial Electricity Potential 

Figure 7-3 presents estimates for the four types of potential for the residential electricity sector. 

Figure 7-3 Commercial Energy Efficiency Potential Savings 

Figure 7-4 depicts these potential energy savings estimates graphically. The measures with the 

highest savings are: 

x Lighting – CFLs, LED lamps, linear fluorescent, daylighting controls, occupancy sensors, and 

HID lamps for exterior lighting 

x Energy management systems & programmable thermostats 

x Ventilation – variable speed control 

x Refrigeration – efficient equipment, control systems, decommissioning 

x Efficient office equipment – computers, servers 
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

7-8 www.enernoc.com 

Figure 7-4 Commercial Achievable Low Potential Electricity Savings by End Use in 2017 

Cooling

18%

Heating

5%

Ventilation

9%

Water Heating

4%

Interior Lighting

36%

Exterior Lighting

11%

Refrigeration

10%

Food Preparation

1% Office

Equipment

6%

Miscellaneous

0%
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 7-9 

Industrial Electricity Potential 

The IPL industrial sector accounts for 37% of total energy consumption, making for prime 

efficiency opportunities. Figure 7-5 presents the savings for the various types of potential 

considered in this study. 

Figure 7-5 Industrial Electric Potential Savings 

Figure 7-6 illustrates the achievable potential savings by electric end use in 2017 for the 

industrial sector. The largest shares of savings opportunities are in the motors and machine 

drives. Potential savings for straight equipment change-outs are diminishing due to the National 

Electrical Manufacturer’s Association (NEMA) standards, which now make premium efficiency 

motors the baseline efficiency level. As a result, potential savings are incrementally small to 

upgrade to even more efficient levels. Many of the savings opportunities in this end use come 

from controls, timers, and variable speed drives, which improve system efficiencies where motors 

are utilized. 

Beyond the replacement of motors, there are large opportunities for savings in cooling, lighting, 

process, ventilation, and finally space heating. Detailed measure information is available in the 

Volume 3 Appendices. The key measures comprising the potential are listed below: 

x Motors – drives and controls 

x Process – timers and controls 

x Application optimization and control – fans, pumps, compressed air 

x Efficient high bay lighting 

x Efficient ventilation systems 

x Energy management systems & programmable thermostats 
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

7-10 www.enernoc.com 

Figure 7-6 Industrial Achievable Low Electricity Potential Savings by End Use in 2017 
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 8-1 

CHAPTER 8

ACTION PLAN 

The Action Plan is the heart of the study. This is where the multitude of measures from the 

potential analysis gets bundled into delivery mechanisms to take on the form of specific energy 

efficiency programs. Several changes occur in the translation from the market potential 

assessment to the program designs in the Action Plan, as the measure mix may change due to 

program delivery considerations. Table 8-1 below lists the distinct programs that emerge from 

this exercise to deliver an effective and balanced portfolio of energy savings opportunities across 

all customer segments. More information on each program is available in Chapter 8 of the main 

report and the detailed write-ups in the Volume 4 Appendices. 

Table 8-1 Portfolio of Energy Efficiency Programs Included in Action Plan 

Residential Programs Commercial & Industrial Programs

Electric Prescriptive Rebate Prescriptive Rebate

Income Qualified Weatherization Schools Program

Residential New Construction Strategic Energy Management

Multi Family Direct Install Retrocommissioning

Home Energy Assessment Business & Multi Family New Construction

School Kit 

High Efficiency HVAC 

Appliance Recycling 

Behavioral Feedback Tools 

Programmatic Framework 

Each program contemplates and outlines a programmatic framework for administrators and 

implementers. The items considered and developed for this framework include those listed 

below. Detailed write-ups delve into the specific recommendations for each program in Volume 4 

of this report. 

x Target market 

x Implementation strategy, including delivery channels, marketing, education and outreach 

x Program issues, risks and risk management strategies 

x Eligible measures and incentives 

x Evaluation, measurement and verification requirements and guidance 

x Administrative requirements 

x Estimated participation 

x Program budget 

x Program energy savings and demand reduction 

x Cost effectiveness 

x Synergies with other utilities and agencies (e.g., joint delivery) 
Action Plan 

8-2 www.enernoc.com 

A Note on Joint Delivery 

Simultaneously addressing electric and natural gas energy savings is the most efficient and costeffective way to run efficiency programs. Toward this end, the state of Indiana is employing the 

progressive and forward-thinking concept of a statewide Therm Bank, which provides a 

straightforward mechanism to deliver joint electric and natural gas programs. In this paradigm, 

the electric utilities are already running efficiency programs to comply with the state mandated 

targets. The natural gas utilities can participate and contribute to the energy savings without 

creating a duplicative, administrative cost structure simply by paying into the existing budget of 

the electric programs at an agreed-upon “dollars per therm saved” basis. The existing programs 

are expanded to include additional savings for both electric and natural gas measures, and the 

budgeted dollars stretch even further. 

We analyze the programs in this portfolio first with the assumption that IPL and Citizens are 

taking advantage of this Therm Bank joint delivery mechanism where applicable, and second 

with the assumption that the two utilities deliver portfolios completely independently. 

Program Plans 

After applying all the above delivery and cost structures, the recommended programs for the 

Action Plan resulted in estimated energy savings and budgets. This was the result of combining 

the Achievable High electric potentials for IPL with the Achievable Low natural gas potentials for 

Citizens. This enables IPL to better aim for its aggressive state targets and for the slightly 

smaller company Citizens to better align with its budget capabilities. 

Figure 8-1 shows the incremental energy savings achieved in each year of the study. 

Figure 8-1 Net Incremental Energy Savings (MWh) 

Ͳ

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2014 2015 2016 2017

Bus& MF NC

Bus RCx

Bus SEM

Bus Schools Program

Bus Custom Incentives

Bus Prescriptive

Res Behavioral Feedback Tools

Res Appliance Recycling

ResHigh Efficiency HVAC

Res School Kit

ResHEA

Res MF DirectInstall

ResNC

ResIQW

Res Elec Prescriptive
Action Plan 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 8-3 

Figure 8-2 below shows the annual budgets for the portfolio, first with the joint delivery structure 

described above and second with a completely independent delivery structure. This analysis 

assumes that the savings and portfolio would stay the same with joint delivery, but the budget 

would shrink by millions of dollars. Another possibility would be if the budget stayed the same 

and savings increased. Regardless, the ratio of savings to costs improves with joint delivery. 

Figure 8-2 Annual Utility Budgets 
Action Plan 

8-4 www.enernoc.com Table 8-2 below shows the detailed annual savings and budgets for the jointly delivered portfolio. Table 8-3 shows the same for the 

independently delivered portfolio. Note that the only numbers in these two tables that are different are the budget numbers. 

Table 8-2 IPL Jointly Delivered Electric Energy Efficiency Portfolio Summary 

Total Utility Costs (000$) Total Incremental Energy Savings (MWh) Total Incremental Demand Savings (kW) Program

2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017

Res Electric Prescriptive 842 2,463 2,689 2,932 11,293* 47,775 46,756 48,131 742 3,277 3,234 3,369Res Income Qualified Weath. 873 1,141 1,144 1,150 1,627* 1,626 1,572 1,561 79 78 74 74Res New Construction 242 357 549 2,814 3,022 3,542 157 146 139Res Multifamily Direct Install 1,980 1,505 1,594 1,602 10,455 6,770 6,671 6,613 345 219 211 210Res Home Energy Assess. 489 1,231 1,235 1,242 5,000* 2,764 2,690 2,665 186 92 88 88Res School Kit 484 508 511 514 2,422* 2,441 2,361 2,333 74 72 68 67Res High Efficiency HVAC 77 91 107 120 16 18 19 24 23 25 28 34Res Appliance Recycling 914 1,013 1,112 1,211 4,119 4,404 4,674 4,933 1,369 1,521 1,673 1,825Res Behavioral Feedback Tools 795 1,125 1,318 1,318 50,348* 59,802 70,355 70,355 12,245 14,544 17,111 17,111Bus Prescriptive 9,165 2,713 3,206 3,658 78,642* 30,640 34,062 39,216 12,450 4,573 4,816 5,071Bus Custom Incentives 3,816 8,936 11,647 13,931 19,478 48,822 61,121 75,375 1,664 3,989 4,402 4,661Bus Schools Program 146 583 646 746 472 2,432 2,882 3,398 32 143 158 171Bus Strategic Energy Mgmt. 502 549 600 12,768 14,045 15,450 1,780 1,958 2,154Bus Retrocommissioning 670 878 1,167 624 816 1,056 1 1 1Bus & Multifamily New Constr. 247 357 500 950 1,313 1,643 316 372 378Residential Total: 6,455 9,320 10,066 10,636 85,280 128,414 138,120 140,156 15,063 19,985 22,632 22,916Business Total: 13,127 13,651 17,281 20,601 98,592 96,237 114,239 136,137 14,146 10,801 11,707 12,435Portfolio Total: 19,582 22,971 27,347 31,238 183,872 224,650 252,359 276,293 29,209 30,786 34,339 35,351*Asterisk in 2014 indicates already contracted amounts, with delivery subject to ultimate IPL and contractor arrangements.
Action Plan 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 8-5 Table 8-3 IPL Independently Delivered Electric Energy Efficiency Portfolio Summary 

Total Utility Costs (000$) Total Incremental Energy Savings (MWh) Total Incremental Demand Savings (kW) Program

2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017

Res Electric Prescriptive 842 2,463 2,689 2,932 11,293* 47,775 46,756 48,131 742 3,277 3,234 3,369Res Income Qualified Weath. 1,672 2,243 2,246 2,252 1,627* 1,626 1,572 1,561 79 78 74 74Res New Construction 281 410 633 2,814 3,022 3,542 157 146 139Res Multifamily Direct Install 2,217 2,059 2,148 2,157 10,455 6,770 6,671 6,613 345 219 211 210Res Home Energy Assess. 751 2,056 2,060 2,067 5,000* 2,764 2,690 2,665 186 92 88 88Res School Kit 752 788 791 794 2,422* 2,441 2,361 2,333 74 72 68 67Res High Efficiency HVAC 135 165 197 222 16 18 19 24 23 25 28 34Res Appliance Recycling 914 1,013 1,112 1,211 4,119 4,404 4,674 4,933 1,369 1,521 1,673 1,825Res Behavioral Feedback Tools 1,215 1,725 2,023 2,023 50,348* 59,802 70,355 70,355 12,245 14,544 17,111 17,111Bus Prescriptive 9,537 3,020 3,554 4,055 78,642* 30,640 34,062 39,216 12,450 4,573 4,816 5,071Bus Custom Incentives 4,018 9,392 12,292 14,749 19,478 48,822 61,121 75,375 1,664 3,989 4,402 4,661Bus Schools Program 164 616 693 803 472 2,432 2,882 3,398 32 143 158 171Bus Strategic Energy Mgmt. 645 704 770 12,768 14,045 15,450 1,780 1,958 2,154Bus Retrocommissioning 715 956 1,283 624 816 1,056 1 1 1Bus & Multifamily New Constr. 330 500 738 950 1,313 1,643 316 372 378Residential Total: 8,498 12,794 13,676 14,290 85,280 128,414 138,120 140,156 15,063 19,985 22,632 22,916Business Total: 13,720 14,718 18,700 22,397 98,592 96,237 114,239 136,137 14,146 10,801 11,707 12,435Portfolio Total: 22,217 27,512 32,376 36,686 183,872 224,650 252,359 276,293 29,209 30,786 34,339 35,351*Asterisk in 2014 indicates already contracted amounts, with delivery subject to ultimate IPL and contractor arrangements. 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 8-1 

Cost Effectiveness 

Given savings and budgets, we can perform the industry standard cost-effectiveness tests to 

gauge the economic merits of the portfolio. Each test compares the benefits of the EE programs 

to their costs with its own unique perspectives and definitions, all defined in terms of net present 

value of future cash flows. The definitions for the four standard tests most commonly used by 

program designers are described below. 

x Total Resource Cost test (TRC). The benefits in this test are the lifetime avoided energy 

costs and avoided capacity costs. The costs in this test are the incremental measure costs 

plus all administrative costs spent by the program administrator. 

x Utility Cost Test (UCT). The benefits in this test are the lifetime avoided energy costs and 

avoided capacity costs, the same as the TRC benefits. The costs in this test are the program 

administrator’s incentive costs and administrative costs. 

x Participant Cost Test (PCT). The benefits in this test are the lifetime value of retail rate 

savings (which is another way of saying “lost utility revenues”). The costs in this test are 

those seen by the participant; in other words: the incremental measure costs minus the 

value of incentives paid out.

x Rate Impact Measure test (RIM). The benefits of the RIM test are the same as the TRC 

benefits. The RIM costs are the same as the UCT, except for the addition of lost revenue. 

This test attempts to show the effects that EE programs will have on rates, which is almost 

always to raise them on a per unit basis. Thus, costs typically outweigh benefits from the 

point of view of this test, but the assumption is that absolute energy use decreases to a 

greater extent than per-unit rates are increased — resulting in lower average utility bills. 

The cost effectiveness results for the relevant combinations of program delivery are presented 

below in the tables. Table 8-4 shows the cost effectiveness for the combined electric and gas 

portfolio, jointly delivered, with an overall TRC of 1.30. The IPL share of this combined portfolio 

is shown in Table 8-5 with a TRC ratio of 1.41. 

However, with independent delivery of the same portfolio, IPL would have to spend more money 

to make up for the funds not received from Citizens through the Therm Bank, dropping the TRC 

ratio for IPL’s share of the same portfolio from 1.41 to 1.31 in Table 8-6. 

Table 8-4 Combined Joint Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary 

TRC Ratio TRC Benefits TRC Costs UCTRatio PCTRatio RIM Ratio

Res Electric Prescriptive 2.27 $30,853,832 $13,610,048 4.19 6.21 0.67

Res Natural Gas Prescriptive 0.25 $438,638 $1,738,384 0.46 0.89 0.27

ResIncome Qualified Weath. 0.83 $4,561,673 $5,518,880 0.83 Ͳ 0.36

Res New Construction 1.10 $2,322,318 $2,119,004 2.18 2.98 0.55

Res Multifamily DirectInstall 1.33 $11,779,567 $8,888,704 1.33 Ͳ 0.45

Res Home Energy Assessment 1.05 $7,360,654 $6,993,763 1.05 Ͳ 0.40

Res School Kit 1.62 $4,805,987 $2,969,344 1.62 Ͳ 0.46

Res High Efficiency HVAC 0.39 $427,159 $1,102,367 0.83 1.01 0.38

Res Appliance Recycling 1.09 $3,880,022 $3,553,543 1.09 Ͳ 0.55

Res Behavioral Feedback Tools 1.50 $11,443,914 $7,654,527 1.50 Ͳ 0.52

Bus Prescriptive 1.52 $76,617,536 $50,355,263 3.38 3.14 0.70

Bus Custom Incentives 1.13 $81,173,354 $71,811,650 2.32 2.78 0.59

Bus Schools Program 0.75 $3,516,008 $4,716,325 1.62 1.82 0.52

Bus Strategic Energy Management 2.21 $5,820,021 $2,634,151 2.21 Ͳ 0.58

Bus Retrocommissioning 0.23 $1,120,531 $4,958,245 0.49 0.60 0.29

Bus & Multifamily New Construction 1.02 $3,025,404 $2,976,909 2.30 1.93 0.67

PortfolioTotal: 1.30 $249,146,617 $191,601,106 2.23 3.89 0.59
Action Plan 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 8-2 

Table 8-5 IPL Joint Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary 

TRC Ratio TRC Benefits TRC Costs UCTRatio PCTRatio RIM Ratio

Res Electric Prescriptive 2.27 $30,853,832 $13,610,048 4.19 6.21 0.67

Res Natural Gas Prescriptive Ͳ $0 $0 ͲͲͲ

ResIncome Qualified Weath. 0.39 $1,413,779 $3,605,943 0.39 Ͳ 0.26

Res New Construction 1.12 $2,065,152 $1,842,263 2.22 2.99 0.56

Res Multifamily DirectInstall 1.28 $7,197,619 $5,641,217 1.28 Ͳ 0.47

Res Home Energy Assessment 0.86 $3,009,656 $3,482,072 0.86 Ͳ 0.40

Res School Kit 1.32 $2,238,659 $1,694,851 1.32 Ͳ 0.47

Res High Efficiency HVAC 0.11 $77,170 $698,499 0.23 0.08 0.21

Res Appliance Recycling 1.09 $3,880,022 $3,553,543 1.09 Ͳ 0.55

Res Behavioral Feedback Tools 2.45 $9,304,418 $3,793,662 2.45 Ͳ 0.65

Bus Prescriptive 1.87 $66,350,607 $35,571,905 4.12 3.61 0.77

Bus Custom Incentives 1.17 $75,361,496 $64,598,188 2.39 2.82 0.60

Bus Schools Program 0.79 $3,006,766 $3,801,447 1.72 1.84 0.54

Bus Strategic Energy Management 3.42 $4,619,086 $1,349,190 3.42 Ͳ 0.70

Bus Retrocommissioning 0.19 $909,968 $4,779,078 0.41 0.50 0.26

Bus & Multifamily New Construction 0.99 $1,999,205 $2,019,684 2.23 1.51 0.77

PortfolioTotal: 1.41 $212,287,436 $150,041,589 2.52 3.80 0.64

Table 8-6 IPL Independent Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary 

TRC Ratio TRC Benefits TRC Costs UCTRatio PCTRatio RIM Ratio

Res Electric Prescriptive 2.27 $30,853,832 $13,610,048 4.19 6.21 0.67

Res Natural Gas Prescriptive Ͳ $0 $0 ͲͲͲ

ResIncome Qualified Weath. 0.53 $1,413,779 $2,643,359 0.53 Ͳ 0.31

Res New Construction 1.27 $2,065,152 $1,628,402 2.41 3.54 0.58

Res Multifamily DirectInstall 1.18 $7,197,619 $6,101,687 1.18 Ͳ 0.45

Res Home Energy Assessment 0.90 $3,009,656 $3,332,414 0.90 Ͳ 0.41

Res School Kit 1.15 $2,238,659 $1,939,556 1.15 Ͳ 0.45

Res High Efficiency HVAC 0.62 $77,170 $124,326 0.74 1.55 0.57

Res Appliance Recycling 1.09 $3,880,022 $3,553,543 1.09 Ͳ 0.55

Res Behavioral Feedback Tools 1.24 $9,304,418 $7,503,220 1.24 Ͳ 0.52

Bus Prescriptive 1.55 $66,350,607 $42,697,720 3.39 3.04 0.74

Bus Custom Incentives 1.13 $75,361,496 $66,534,299 2.29 2.77 0.60

Bus Schools Program 0.69 $3,006,766 $4,373,562 1.50 1.60 0.52

Bus Strategic Energy Management 1.75 $4,619,086 $2,636,901 1.75 Ͳ 0.59

Bus Retrocommissioning 0.21 $909,968 $4,260,428 0.46 0.56 0.28

Bus & Multifamily New Construction 1.36 $1,999,205 $1,471,343 2.84 2.20 0.83

PortfolioTotal: 1.31 $212,287,436 $162,410,808 2.28 3.61 0.62
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 9-1 

CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The results of this study reveal that significant energy efficiency opportunities exist for IPL in the 

Indianapolis metro area, despite a challenging macroeconomic environment and aggressive 

appliance and efficiency standards. 

Our program analysis shows that IPL can achieve incremental electric energy savings of 183,872 

MWh in 2014, increasing to 276,359 MWh in 2017, by implementing the programs and measures 

presented in this report. This assumes the highest levels of program participation and realization 

developed from our range of achievable potential in the market potential assessment. 

IPL’s energy-efficiency programs are relatively young compared to other programs in the nation, 

but have made significant impacts already and are building appreciable market momentum. 

Based on our market potential assessment and program design analysis, EnerNOC provides the 

following high-level recommendations for the portfolio. We fully expect that IPL, the 

stakeholders, and the implementers will consider the plans and recommendations in this report 

now, at the outset of the forthcoming implementation cycle; and that they will adopt the 

elements that are appropriate, adjust the elements that fit differently when translated into the 

trenches and front lines of program delivery, and continue to revisit the report as a reference 

throughout the next years as situations and markets continue to change and evolve. 

General Recommendations

x Deliver electric and natural gas programs jointly when possible: Indiana’s concept of 

a statewide Therm Bank provides an excellent platform to deliver joint electric and natural 

gas programs on a straightforward and highly cost-effective basis. In this paradigm, IPL 

would bolster their programs with measures that achieve natural gas savings as well as 

electric savings. In return, IPL would receive payments on an agreed-upon “dollars per therm 

saved” basis from Citizens. Meanwhile, Citizens would be empowered to participate and 

contribute to the energy savings without creating a duplicative, administrative cost structure. 

We estimated budgets and delivery structures for programs delivered both jointly and 

independently, and joint delivery results in cost savings of $21 million through 2017, 

increasing cost effectiveness of the portfolio by 8% versus independent delivery. 

x Increase focus on non-residential programs: Our study shows that a large portion of 

the program savings from energy efficiency efforts will come from the commercial and 

industrial sectors. Historically, the majority of IPL budgets and savings have been focused on 

residential programs. IPL should consider increasing program efforts in the C&I sectors, not 

only to harvest larger EE savings, but to increase business competitiveness and decrease 

operating costs for customers. Additionally, these sectors offer larger projects, which can be 

attained and bundled more readily and efficiently. 

x Continued collaboration among stakeholders: The discourse and information sharing 

between stakeholders, utilities, and EnerNOC on this study has been effective and 

transparent. Continuing this trend is of paramount importance to the future success of 

programs. It is essential to cultivate a mutual understanding of the dynamic nature of the 

energy efficiency industry due to its intrinsic linkage with human behavior and the customer 

mind. Ongoing interactions should be marked by an understanding of collaboration, 

flexibility, and continuous improvement. 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

9-2 www.enernoc.com 

Residential Recommendations 

x Focus on lighting: The largest share of achievable energy efficiency potential in the 

residential sector continues to come from CFLs. This is in spite of the forthcoming EISA 

standards that will reduce their per-unit savings compared to the new baseline. Also, IPL 

should focus strong attention on specialty lamps, as they are not affected by the EISA 

standard.

x Implement and monitor behavioral feedback programs: The behavioral modification 

program to be implemented by OPower is shown in the program plans to comprise a full 27% 

of IPL’s portfolio savings. For both IPL and Citizens, this is an excellent opportunity, as it 

lends itself well to joint electric and natural gas delivery. This initiative was added at the 

program design stage, and was not included in our bottom-up, measure level potential 

analysis. This is due to the fact that it is not a specific action or piece of equipment, per se, 

as well as the fact that it does not go through the typical customer-choice model that other 

measures encounter. The program is simply delivered to as many participants as the 

planners desire, and produces a statistically measured energy reduction effect in a treatment 

group (vs. a control group that does not receive the program treatment). It should be 

monitored carefully, however, as it is a new and emerging opportunity. Relatively little is 

known about the specific actions that customers perform to reduce their energy usage in this 

program, and it may undergo meaningful change in customer responsiveness and evaluation 

paradigms in the coming years. Additionally, savings under this program will not persist after 

the program is ended, and must be continually renewed each year with additional cost and 

effort, whereas the savings from a capital equipment measure can last 10 to 20 years. This 

makes for relatively low-cost energy savings when considered on a first-year basis, but 

relatively high-cost energy savings on a lifetime or levelized cost basis. 

x Develop deeper, follow-on measures in existing programs: Some current IPL program 

delivery structures are pursuing low-cost measures through high volumes of rapid customer 

touches, such as the multifamily direct install program. We have recommended the addition 

of more deep, involved measures in 2015 and beyond to capitalize on customer touches as 

much as possible. While you are in the home of a customer, it makes better sense to crosssell these other measures and harvest as many energy savings as you can. This would 

include major equipment replacements and shell measures such as duct sealing and 

insulation.

x Consider social media avenues for targeted program delivery: As internet social 

media paradigms become the norm in today’s wired society, companies like Groupon, 

Amazon Local Deals, and Living Social have assembled a nationwide network of businesses 

into a well-oiled, rebate-issuing machine. IPL should consider if there are opportunities to 

link their energy efficiency trade ally network to one of these companies to facilitate the 

target marketing, processing, and delivery of rebates. These vendors have sophisticated 

tracking systems and databases that may facilitate EM&V reporting on the back end as well. 

Commercial & Industrial Recommendations 

x Aggressively pursue lighting savings: The commercial sector in particular has significant 

savings potential in lighting equipment, both interior and exterior. Notably, LED lamps are 

showing as cost effective in the commercial sector due to aggressive forecasts of cost 

reductions, as well as higher hours of operation than their non-economic counterparts in 

residential settings. Savings are also available through occupancy sensors, timers, and 

energy management systems. IPL should strongly pursue lighting savings to accelerate the 

phase out of T12 fluorescent lighting. In particular, program efforts can help intercept 

building operators before they make purchase and stocking decisions that could lead to the 

hoarding of T12 lamps. 

x Focus industrial program efforts on motor controls and system optimizations: The 

savings for the industrial sector are all about control and optimization of motors and 
Conclusions and Recommendations 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 9-3 

processes. Low-cost retrofits can often have significant energy impacts with minimal 

disruption of (and often times improvement of) business processes.

x Target niches with segment specific programs: There are specific business segments 

that offer considerable savings potential, but will not typically be reached by standard 

rebates and generic business programs. Consider initiating specifically targeted sub-programs 

within business standard and custom for areas such as: hotels and lodging, food preparation 

equipment in restaurants, and refrigeration equipment in grocery stores.

x Implement new programs: We have identified additional programs that show promise to 

expand IPL’s portfolio of programs to address Indiana’s aggressive statewide savings goals. 

These programs are as follows: 

1. Strategic Energy Management. For large customers, SEM initiatives can deliver 

substantial savings over long time horizons. This means coming alongside the larger 

customers to create a customized, multi-year plan, identify metrics, set goals, and 

provide technical assistance and attention from dedicated account executives or 

energy coaches.

2. Retro-commissioning. This program involves the initial, periodic, or continual 

monitoring and commissioning of building energy systems such as heating, cooling, 

ventilation, and lighting in order to optimize energy consumption relative to actual 

building usage. 

3. Residential, Business, and Multifamily New Construction. A program to encourage 

more rapid adoption of efficient building design practices would be a very relevant 

addition to the IPL portfolio, especially one that includes the types of multi-unit, 

multi-family buildings and complexes that are so prevalent in the Indianapolis 

metropolitan area. This is a somewhat hybrid market, containing many aspects of 

both residential and commercial construction, and would benefit from a specialized 

program targeting the particular market needs. 
About EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting is part of EnerNOC Utility Solutions group, which 

provides a comprehensive suite of demand-side management (DSM) services to 

utilities and grid operators worldwide. Hundreds of utilities have leveraged our 

technology, our people, and our proven processes to make their energy efficiency 

(EE) and demand response (DR) initiatives a success. Utilities trust EnerNOC to work 

with them at every stage of the DSM program lifecycle – assessing market potential, 

designing effective programs, implementing those programs, and measuring program 

results. 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions delivers value to our utility clients through two separate 

practice areas – Program Implementation and EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting. 

• Our Program Implementation team leverages EnerNOC’s deep “behind-the-meter 

expertise” and world-class technology platform to help utilities create and 

manage DR and EE programs that deliver reliable and cost-effective energy 

savings. We focus exclusively on the commercial and industrial (C&I) customer 

segments, with a track record of successful partnerships that spans more than a 

decade. Through a focus on high quality, measurable savings, EnerNOC has 

successfully delivered hundreds of thousands of MWh of energy efficiency for 

our utility clients, and we have thousands of MW of demand response capacity 

under management. 

• The EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting team provides expertise and analysis 

to support a broad range of utility DSM activities, including: potential 

assessments; end-use forecasts; integrated resource planning; EE, DR, and 

smart grid pilot and program design and administration; load research; 

technology assessments and demonstrations; evaluation, measurement and 

verification; and regulatory support. 

The EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting team has decades of combined experience 

in the utility DSM industry. The staff is comprised of professional electrical, 

mechanical, chemical, civil, industrial, and environmental engineers as well as 

economists, business planners, project managers, market researchers, load research 

professionals, and statisticians. Utilities view our experts as trusted advisors, and we 

work together collaboratively to make any DSM initiative a success. 
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting v

Energy Efficiency

Market Potential Study and 

Action Plan 

Volume 2: Report

Report Number 1415 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 

500 Ygnacio Valley Road 

Suite 450 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Tel: 925.482.2000 

www.enernoc.com

Prepared for:

Indianapolis Power 

& Light Company 

Prepared by: 

EnerNOC, Inc. 

Presented on:

Dec 21, 2012 

 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting vii 

This report was prepared by 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 

500 Ygnacio Valley Blvd., Suite 450 

Walnut Creek, CA 94596 

Project Director: I. Rohmund 

Project Manager: D. Costenaro 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting ix 

CONTENTS

10 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 10-1

Background .............................................................................................................. 10-1

Report Organization................................................................................................... 10-1

Definitions of Potential............................................................................................... 10-1

Abbreviations and Acronyms ...................................................................................... 10-2

11 ANALYSIS APPROACH AND DATA DEVELOPMENT.............................................. 11-1

Analysis Approach ..................................................................................................... 11-1

LoadMAP Model............................................................................................. 11-2

Market Characterization ................................................................................. 11-3

Market Profiles .............................................................................................. 11-7

Baseline Forecast........................................................................................... 11-8

Energy Efficiency Measure Analysis ................................................................. 11-8

Energy-Efficiency Potential ............................................................................11-12

Action Plans .................................................................................................11-12

Alternative Avoided Cost Scenario ..................................................................11-12

Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................11-13

Data Development....................................................................................................11-13

Data Sources................................................................................................11-13

Data Application ...........................................................................................11-15

12 MARKET CHARACTERIZATION AND MARKET PROFILES .................................... 12-1

Energy Use Summary ................................................................................................ 12-1

Residential Sector...................................................................................................... 12-1

Commercial Sector .................................................................................................... 12-7

Industrial Sector.......................................................................................................12-13

13 BASELINE FORECAST .......................................................................................... 13-1

Residential Sector...................................................................................................... 13-1

Commercial Sector .................................................................................................... 13-4

Industrial Sector........................................................................................................ 13-7

Baseline Forecast Summary........................................................................................ 13-8

14 ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES........................................................................ 14-1

List of Energy Efficiency Measures .............................................................................. 14-1

Results of the Economic Screen.................................................................................. 14-1

15 ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY – OVERALL RESULTS ....................................... 15-1

Overview of Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector ........................................................ 15-2

16 ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL BY SECTOR.................................................... 16-1

Residential Electricity Potential ................................................................................... 16-1
x www.enernoc.com 

Residential Electric Potential by Market Segment...............................................16-2

Residential Electric Potential by End Use...........................................................16-4

Commercial Electricity Potential...................................................................................16-6

Commercial Electric Potential by Market Segment..............................................16-8

Commercial Electric Potential by End Use .........................................................16-9

Industrial Electricity Potential ....................................................................................16-11

Industrial Electric Potential by Market Segment...............................................16-13

Industrial Electric Potential by End Use...........................................................16-13

17 ACTION PLAN........................................................................................................ 8-1

Programmatic Framework ............................................................................................ 8-1

A Note on Joint Delivery................................................................................... 8-2

Program Plans ............................................................................................................ 8-2

Residential Programs ......................................................................................17-7

Commercial & Industrial Programs .................................................................17-10

Cost Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 8-1

18 ALTERNATE AVOIDED COST SCENARIO ............................................................. 18-1

High Gas Price ...........................................................................................................18-1

Low Gas Price ............................................................................................................18-1

CO2 Legislation..........................................................................................................18-2

New Build of CCGT.....................................................................................................18-2

19 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................... A-1

General Recommendations........................................................................................... A-1

Residential Recommendations ...................................................................................... A-2

Commercial & Industrial Recommendations................................................................... A-2
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting xi 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2-1 LoadMAP Analysis Framework ........................................................................... 11-3

Figure 2-2 Approach for Measure Assessment..................................................................... 11-9

Figure 3-1 Sector-Level Electricity Use, 2011 ...................................................................... 12-1

Figure 3-2 Residential Electricity by End Use (2011), All Homes............................................ 12-5

Figure 3-3 Residential Electricity Intensity by End Use and Segment (kWh/household, 2011).. 12-6

Figure 3-4 Breakdown of Residential Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (2011)............. 12-7

Figure 3-5 Commercial Market Segmentation by Building Type – Percentage of Floor Space and 

Energy Use...................................................................................................... 12-8

Figure 3-6 Commercial Electricity Consumption by End Use (2011), All Building Types ..........12-10

Figure 3-7 Commercial Electricity Intensity by End Use and Segment (kWh/SqFt, 2011).......12-11

Figure 3-8 Commercial Electricity Usage by End Use Segment (GWh, 2011) .........................12-11

Figure 3-9 Commercial Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (2011) ...............................12-12

Figure 3-10 Industrial Market Segmentation – Percentage of Employees and Energy Use........12-14

Figure 3-11 Industrial Electricity Use by End Use (2011), All Industries..................................12-16

Figure 3-12 Industrial Electricity Consumption by End Use and Segment (GWh, 2011)............12-16

Figure 3-13 Percentage of Industrial Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (2011) ............12-17

Figure 4-1 Residential Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use............................................ 13-2

Figure 4-2 Residential Baseline Electricity Use per Household by End Use ............................ 13-2

Figure 4-3 Commercial Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use .......................................... 13-5

Figure 4-4 Industrial Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use ............................................. 13-7

Figure 4-5 Electricity Baseline Forecast Summary (GWh) ....................................................... 4-4

Figure 6-1 Summary of Electric Energy Savings ................................................................. 15-1

Figure 6-2 Electric Potentials Forecasts (GWh)................................................................... 15-2

Figure 6-3 Achievable Low Electric Potential by Sector (GWh) .............................................. 15-3

Figure 6-4 Achievable High Electric Potential by Sector (GWh) ............................................. 15-3

Figure 7-1 Residential Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Savings ....................................... 16-2

Figure 7-2 Residential Electric Achievable Low Potential by End Use in 2017......................... 16-5

Figure 7-3 Commercial Energy Efficiency Potential Savings ................................................. 16-7

Figure 7-4 Commercial Achievable Low Potential Electricity Savings by End Use in 2017.......16-11

Figure 7-5 Industrial Electric Potential Savings..................................................................16-12

Figure 7-6 Industrial Achievable Low Electricity Potential Savings by End Use in 2017..........16-15

Figure 8-1 Net Incremental Energy Savings (MWh) ............................................................... 8-2

Figure 8-2 Annual Utility Budgets......................................................................................... 8-3

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting xiii 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1-1 Explanation of Abbreviations and Acronyms........................................................ 10-3

Table 2-1 Overview of Segmentation Scheme for Potentials Modeling.................................. 11-4

Table 2-2 Residential Electric End Uses and Technologies................................................... 11-5

Table 2-3 Commercial Electric End Uses and Technologies.................................................. 11-6

Table 2-4 Industrial Electric End Uses and Technologies..................................................... 11-7

Table 2-5 Sample Equipment Measures for Central Air Conditioning – Single Family Home ...11-10

Table 2-6 Sample Non-Equipment Measures – Single Family Home, Existing .......................11-11

Table 2-7 Economic Screen Results for Selected Residential Equipment Measures................11-12

Table 2-8 Data Applied for the Market Profiles..................................................................11-15

Table 2-9 Data Needs for the Baseline Forecast and Potentials Estimation in LoadMAP.........11-16

Table 2-10 Residential Electric Equipment Standards Applicable to Indiana ...........................11-20

Table 2-11 Commercial Electric Equipment Standards Applicable to Indiana..........................11-21

Table 2-12 Data Needs for the Measure Characteristics in LoadMAP .....................................11-20

Table 3-1 Residential Sector Energy Usage and Intensity by Segment Type, 2011 ................ 12-2

Table 3-2 Electric Market Profile for the Residential Single Family Sector.............................. 12-3

Table 3-3 Residential, Multi Family Electric Market Profile ................................................... 12-4

Table 3-4 Residential Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (kWh/HH/year, 2011)............ 12-6

Table 3-5 Commercial Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (kWh/HH/year, 2011)........... 12-8

Table 3-6 Commercial Sector Composite Electric............................................................... 12-9

Table 3-7 Commercial Electricity Consumption by End Use (GWh, 2011).............................12-12

Table 3-8 Industrial Market Segmentation by Industry Type, Base Year 2011......................12-13

Table 3-9 Industrial Sector Composite Electric Market Profile, 2011 ....................................12-15

Table 3-10 Industrial Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (GWh, 2011)..........................12-17

Table 4-1 Residential Electricity Consumption by End Use (GWh) ........................................ 13-1

Table 4-2 Residential Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use and Technology (GWh) .......... 13-3

Table 4-3 Commercial Electricity Consumption by End Use (GWh)....................................... 13-4

Table 4-4 Commercial Baseline Electricity Forecast by End Use and Technology ( GWh)........ 13-6

Table 4-5 Industrial Electricity Consumption by End Use (GWh) .......................................... 13-7

Table 4-6 Electricity Baseline Forecast Summary (GWh) ....................................................... 4-4

Table 5-1 Number of Measures Evaluated ......................................................................... 14-1

Table 6-1 Summary of Electric Energy Efficiency Potential .................................................. 15-1

Table 6-2 Electric Achievable Potential by Sector (GWh)..................................................... 15-2

Table 7-1 Electricity Energy Efficiency Potential for the Residential Sector............................ 16-1

Table 7-2 Residential Electric Potential by Market Segment, 2017........................................ 16-2

Table 7-3 Residential Electric Achievable Low Potential by End Use and Market Segment, 

2017(GWh)...................................................................................................... 16-3

Table 7-4 Residential Electric Savings by End Use and Potential Type (GWh)........................ 16-4

Table 7-5 Electricity Efficiency Potential for the Commercial Sector...................................... 16-6

Table 7-6 Commercial Electric Potential by Market Segment, 2017 ...................................... 16-8
xiv www.enernoc.com 

Table 7-7 Commercial Electric Achievable Low Potential by End Use and Market Segment, 2017 

(GWh)............................................................................................................. 16-9

Table 7-8 Commercial Potential by End Use and Potential Type (GWh) ...............................16-10

Table 7-9 Electric Efficiency Potential for the Industrial Sector ...........................................16-12

Table 7-10 Industrial Electric Potential by Market Segment, 2017.........................................16-13

Table 7-11 Industrial Electric Achievable Potential Low by End Use and Market Segment, 201716-13

Table 7-12 Industrial Electric Potential by End Use and Potential Type (GWh) .......................16-14

Table 8-1 ortfolio of Energy Efficiency Programs Included in Action Plan................................ 8-1

Table 8-2 Electric Joint Delivery Methodology.................................................................... 17-2

Table 8-3 IPL Jointly Delivered Electric Energy Efficiency Portfolio Summary .......................... 8-4

Table 8-4 IPL Independently Delivered Electric Energy Efficiency Portfolio Summary............... 8-5

Table 8-5 Combined Joint Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary............................................ 8-1

Table 8-6 IPL Joint Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary...................................................... 8-2

Table 8-7 IPL Independent Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary .......................................... 8-2

Table 9-1 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, Count of Measures Passing Economic ScreenError! Bookmark not de

Table 9-2 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, 2017 Achievable Low Potential (GWh savings)Error! Bookmark not d

Table 9-3 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, Count of Measures Passing Economic ScreenError! Bookmark not de

Table 9-4 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, 2017 Achievable Low Potential (GWh savings)Error! Bookmark not defin

Table 9-5 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, Count of Measures Passing Economic ScreenError! Bookmark not define

Table 9-6 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, 2017 Achievable Low Potential (GWh savings)Error! Bookmark not defin

Table 9-7 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, Count of Measures Passing Economic ScreenError! Bookmark not define

Table 9-8 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, 2017 Achievable Low Potential (GWh savings)Error! Bookmark not defin
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 10-1 

INTRODUCTION

Background

Energy efficiency (EE) efforts are increasing in magnitude and gaining traction in Indiana, 

building on the momentum of recently established statewide electric energy efficiency targets 

and simultaneous efforts to engage natural gas energy efficiency programs. Indianapolis Power 

and Light Company (IPL) is investigating the electric energy efficiency potential for their service 

territory. The findings of this investigation will lead directly into the development of a portfolio of 

energy efficiency programs to be delivered to customers over the time period 2014 to 2017. 

Toward this end, IPL has contracted with EnerNOC Utility Solutions (EnerNOC) to conduct a 

Market Potential Study and assemble an Action Plan that considers all metered electric customers 

in the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors for this time period. Citizens Energy Group 

(Citizens) is also a party to this contract, conducting a corresponding study and action plan for 

natural gas customers in their largely overlapping service territory. 

EnerNOC conducted a detailed, bottom-up assessment of the IPL market in the IPL metropolitan 

area to deliver forecasts of electric energy use, forecasts of the energy savings achievable 

through efficiency measures, and program designs and strategies to optimally deliver those 

savings. This report describes the study approach and results. 

Report Organization 

This report is presented in 4 volumes as outlined below. This document is Volume 2: Market 

Potential and Action Plans.

x Volume 1, Executive Summary 

x Volume 2, Report 

x Volume 3, Market Potential Study Appendices 

x Volume 4, Action Plan Appendices: Detailed Program Write-ups 

Definitions of Potential 

In this study, we estimate the potential for energy efficiency savings. The savings estimates 

represent net savings4

 developed into three types of potential: technical potential, economic 

potential, and achievable potential. Technical and economic potential are both theoretical limits 

to efficiency savings. Achievable potential embodies a set of assumptions about the decisions 

consumers make regarding the efficiency of the equipment they purchase, the maintenance 

activities they undertake, the controls they use for energy-consuming equipment, and the 

elements of building construction. Because estimating achievable potential involves the inherent 

uncertainty of predicting human behaviors and responses to market conditions, we developed 

low and high achievable potential as boundaries for a likely range. The various levels are 

described below. 

x Technical potential is defined as the theoretical upper limit of energy efficiency potential. 

It assumes that customers adopt all feasible measures regardless of their cost. At the time of 

existing equipment failure, customers replace their equipment with the most efficient option 

 

4

 Savings in “net” terms instead of “gross” means that the baseline forecast includes naturally occurring efficiency. In other words, the 

baseline assumes that natural early adopters continue to make purchases of equipment and measures at efficiency levels higher than 

the minimum standard. 

CHAPTER 10 
Introduction 

10-2 www.enernoc.com 

available. In new construction, customers and developers also choose the most efficient 

equipment option. Examples of measures that make up technical potential for electricity in 

the residential sector include: 

o Ductless mini-split air conditioners with variable refrigerant flow 

o Ground source (or geothermal) heat pumps 

o LED lighting 

Technical potential also assumes the adoption of every other available measure, where 

applicable. For example, it includes installation of high-efficiency windows in all new 

construction opportunities and furnace maintenance in all existing buildings with furnace 

systems. These retrofit measures are phased in over a number of years, which is longer for 

higher-cost and complex measures. 

x Economic potential represents the adoption of all cost-effective energy efficiency 

measures. In this analysis, the cost effectiveness is measured by the total resource cost 

(TRC) test, which compares lifetime energy and capacity benefits to the incremental cost of 

the measure. If the benefits outweigh the costs (that is, if the TRC ratio is greater than 1.0), 

a given measure is considered in the economic potential. Customers are then assumed to 

purchase the most cost-effective option applicable to them at any decision juncture. 

x Achievable High potential estimates customer adoption of economic measures when 

delivered through efficiency programs under ideal market, implementation, and customer 

preference conditions. Information channels are assumed to be established and efficient for 

marketing, educating consumers, and coordinating with trade allies and delivery partners. 

Achievable High potential establishes a maximum target for the EE savings that an 

administrator can hope to achieve through its EE programs and involves incentives that 

represent a substantial portion of the incremental cost combined with high administrative 

and marketing costs. 

x Achievable Low potential reflects expected program participation given significant barriers 

to customer acceptance, non-ideal implementation conditions, and limited program budgets. 

This represents a lower bound on achievable potential. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Throughout the report we use several abbreviations and acronyms. Table 10-1 shows the 

abbreviation or acronym, along with an explanation. 
Introduction 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 10-3 

Table 10-1 Explanation of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Acronym Explanation 

ACS American Community Survey

AEO Annual Energy Outlook forecast developed annual by the Energy Information

Administration of the DOE

AHAM Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

B/C Ratio Benefit to cost ratio

BEST EnerNOC’s Building Energy Simulation Tool

CAC Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana

CAC Central air conditioning

C&I Commercial and industrial

CFL Compact fluorescent lamp

DEEM EnerNOC’s Database of Energy Efficiency Measures

DEER State of California Database for EnergyͲEfficient Resources

DSM Demand side management

DR Demand response

EE Energy efficiency

EIA Energy Information Administration

EISA Energy Efficiency and Security Act of 2007

EPACT Energy Policy Act of 2005

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

EUEA Efficient Use of Energy Act

EUI EnergyͲuse index

HH Household

HID High intensity discharge lamps

HPWH Heat pump water heater

IURC Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission

LED Light emitting diode lamp

LoadMAP EnerNOC’s Load Management Analysis and PlanningTM tool

OUCC Indiana Office of Utility Consumer Counselor

NWPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council

RTU Roof top unit

Sq. ft. Square feet

TRC Total resource cost

UEC Unit energy consumption

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-1 

ANALYSIS APPROACH AND DATA DEVELOPMENT 

This section describes the analysis approach taken for the study and the data sources used to 

develop the potential estimates. 

Analysis Approach 

To perform the energy efficiency analysis, EnerNOC used a bottom-up analysis approach as 

shown in Figure 2-1. This involved the following steps. 

8. Held a meeting with the client project team to refine the objectives of the project in detail. 

This resulted in a work plan for the study. 

9. Performed a market characterization to describe sector-level electricity use for the 

residential, commercial, and industrial sectors for the base year, 2011. This included using 

existing information contained in prior Indiana studies, in EnerNOC’s own databases and 

tools, and in other secondary data sources such as the American Community Survey (ACS) 

and the Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

10. Developed a baseline electricity forecast by sector, segment, and end use for 2011 through 

2013. Results presented in this volume focus on a four-year implementation cycle of 2014 

through 2017. Results beyond 2017 are available in the Appendices. 

11. Identified several hundred measures and estimated their effects in four levels of energyefficiency potential: Technical, Economic, Achievable High, and Achievable Low.

12. Performed a scenario analysis of to estimate the sensitivity of the potentials to changes in 

avoided costs. 

13. Reviewed the current programs offered by IPL in light of the study findings to make strategic 

program recommendations for achieving savings. 

14. Created detailed program designs and action plans through 2017 based on the potential 

analysis and strategic recommendations. 

These steps are described in further detail throughout the remainder of this chapter. 

CHAPTER 11 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

11-2 www.enernoc.com 

Figure 11-1 Overview of Analysis Approach 

LoadMAP Model 

We used EnerNOC’s Load Management Analysis and Planning tool (LoadMAPTM) version 3.0 to 

develop both the baseline forecast and the estimates of energy efficiency potential. EnerNOC 

developed LoadMAP in 2007 and has enhanced it over time, using it for the EPRI National 

Potential Study and numerous utility-specific forecasting and potential studies. Built in Excel, the 

LoadMAP framework (see Figure 11-2) is both accessible and transparent and has the following 

key features. 

x Embodies the basic principles of rigorous end-use models (such as EPRI’s REEPS and 

COMMEND) but in a more simplified, accessible form. 

x Includes stock-accounting algorithms that treat older, less efficient appliance/equipment 

stock separately from newer, more efficient equipment. Equipment is replaced according to 

the measure life and appliance vintage distributions defined by the user. 

x Balances the competing needs of simplicity and robustness by incorporating important 

modeling details related to equipment saturations, efficiencies, vintage, and the like, where 

market data are available, and treats end uses separately to account for varying importance 

and availability of data resources.

x Isolates new construction from existing equipment and buildings and treats purchase 

decisions for new construction and existing buildings separately. 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-3 

x Uses a simple logic for appliance and equipment decisions. Other models available for this 

purpose embody complex decision choice algorithms or diffusion assumptions, and the model 

parameters tend to be difficult to estimate or observe and sometimes produce anomalous 

results that require calibration or even overriding. The LoadMAP approach allows the user to 

drive the appliance and equipment choices year by year directly in the model. This flexible 

approach allows users to import the results from diffusion models or to input individual 

assumptions. The framework also facilitates sensitivity analysis. 

x Includes appliance and equipment models customized by end use. For example, the logic for 

lighting is distinct from refrigerators and freezers. 

x Can accommodate various levels of segmentation. Analysis can be performed at the sector 

level (e.g., total residential) or for customized segments within sectors (e.g., housing type or 

income level).

Consistent with the segmentation scheme and the market profiles we describe below, the 

LoadMAP model provides forecasts of baseline energy use by sector, segment, end use, and 

technology for existing and new buildings. It also provides forecasts of total energy use and 

energy-efficiency savings associated with the four types of potential.5

Figure 11-2 LoadMAP Analysis Framework 

Forecast Data

Market Profiles

Market size

Equipment saturation

Fuel shares

Technology shares

Vintage distribution

Unit energy consumption

Coincident demand

Base-year Energy

Consumption

by technology,

end use, segment, 

vintage & sector

Economic Data

Customer growth

Energy prices

Exogenous factors

Elasticities

Energy-efficiency

analysis

Forecast Results

List of measures

Saturations

Adoption rates

Avoided costs

Cost-effectiveness 

screening

Baseline forecast

Savings

Estimates

(Annual & peak)

Technical potential

Economic potential

Achievable potential

Customer segmentation Energy-efficiency 

forecasts:

Technical

Economic 

Achievable

Technology Data

Efficiency options

Codes and standards

Purchase shares

Market Characterization 

In order to estimate the savings potential from energy-efficient measures, it is necessary to 

understand how much energy is used today and what equipment is currently being used. This 

characterization begins with a segmentation of IPL’s energy footprint to quantify energy use by 

sector, segment, fuel, end-use application, and the current set of technologies used. We 

incorporate information from the secondary research sources to advise the market 

characterization.

 

5

 The model computes energy and peak-demand forecasts for each type of potential for each end use as an intermediate calculation.

Annual-energy and peak-demand savings are calculated as the difference between the value in the baseline forecast and the value in 

the potential forecast (e.g., the technical potential forecast). 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

11-4 www.enernoc.com 

Segmentation for Modeling Purposes 

The market assessment first defined the market segments (building types, end uses and other 

dimensions) that are relevant in the IPL service territory. The segmentation scheme for this 

project is presented in Table 11-1. 

Table 11-1 Overview of Segmentation Scheme for Potentials Modeling 

Market

Dimension Segmentation Variable Dimension Examples

1 Sector Residential, commercial, industrial

2 Building type

Residential (single family, multi family)

Commercial (office, restaurant, retail, etc.)

Industrial (chemicals & pharmaceuticals,

transportation, food products, and other.)

3 Vintage Existing and new construction

4 Fuel Electricity

5 End uses Cooling, lighting, water heat, motors, etc. (as

appropriate by sector)

6 Appliances/end uses and

technologies

Technologies such as lamp type, air conditioning

equipment, motors by application, etc.

7 Equipment efficiency levels for

new purchases

Baseline and higherͲefficiency options as appropriate

for each technology

Following this scheme, the residential sector was segmented as described below, starting with 

customer segments by building type: 

x Single family 

x Multi family owners 

In addition to segmentation by housing type, we identified the set of end uses and technologies 

that are appropriate for IPL. These are shown in Table 11-3 

Table 11-2 and Table 11-3 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-5 

Table 11-2 Residential Electric End Uses and Technologies 

End Use Technology

Cooling Central Air Conditioning (CAC)

Cooling Room Air Conditioning (RAC)

Cooling/Heating AirͲSource Heat Pump

Cooling/Heating Geothermal Heat Pump

Space Heating Electric Resistance

Space Heating Electric Furnace

Water Heating Water Heater <= 55 gal

Water Heating Water Heater > 55 gal

Interior Lighting ScrewͲin Lamps

Interior Lighting Linear Fluorescent Lamps

Exterior Lighting ScrewͲin Lamps

Appliances Clothes Washer

Appliances Clothes Dryer

Appliances Dishwasher

Appliances Refrigerator

Appliances Freezer

Appliances Second Refrigerator

Appliances Stove

Appliances Microwaves

Electronics Personal Computers

Electronics Monitor

Electronics Laptops

Electronics TVs

Electronics Printer/Fax/Copier

Electronics SetͲtop Boxes/DVR

Electronics Devices and Gadgets

Miscellaneous Pool Pump

Miscellaneous Pool Heater

Miscellaneous Hot Tub / Spa

Miscellaneous Well Pump

Miscellaneous Furnace Fan

Miscellaneous Miscellaneous

For the commercial sector, it is useful to analyze the segments based on the unique 

characteristics of the building type. For this study, we used the following building types. 

x Small Office—all types of offices, including medical/dental offices 

x Large Office—all types of offices, including large government facilities 

x Restaurant—fast-food, sit-down and cafeteria-style restaurants 

x Retail—retail establishments such as small boutiques, and large box retailers 

x Grocery—convenience stores, small markets, and supermarkets 

x College—colleges, universities and technical colleges 

x School—primary and secondary schools 

x Health—hospitals and nursing homes 

x Lodging—motels, hotels, resorts and small inns 

x Warehouse—storage facilities, refrigerated and unrefrigerated 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

11-6 www.enernoc.com 

x Miscellaneous—all remaining building types, such as police stations, parking garages, public 

assembly, amusement parks, etc. 

In addition to segmentation by building type, we identified the set of end uses and technologies 

that are appropriate for IPL. Table 11-3 lists the end uses and technologies used in this study. 

Table 11-3 Commercial Electric End Uses and Technologies 

End Use Technology

Cooling AirͲCooled Chiller

Cooling WaterͲCooled Chiller

Cooling Roof top AC

Cooling Other Cooling

Cooling/Heating AirͲSource Heat Pump

Cooling/Heating Geothermal Heat Pump

Heating Electric Room Heat

Heating Electric Furnace

Ventilation Ventilation

Water Heating Water Heater

Interior Lighting ScrewͲin

Interior Lighting HighͲBay Fixtures

Interior Lighting Linear Fluorescent

Exterior Lighting ScrewͲin

Exterior Lighting HID

Exterior Lighting Linear Fluorescent

Refrigeration WalkͲin Refrigerator

Refrigeration ReachͲin Refrigerator

Refrigeration Glass Door Display

Refrigeration Open Display Case

Refrigeration Icemaker

Refrigeration Vending Machine

Food Preparation Oven

Food Preparation Fryer

Food Preparation Dishwasher

Food Preparation Hot Food Container

Office Equipment Desktop Computer

Office Equipment Laptop

Office Equipment Server

Office Equipment Monitor

Office Equipment Printer/Copier/Fax

Office Equipment POS Terminal

Miscellaneous NonͲHVAC Motors

Miscellaneous Pool Pump

Miscellaneous Pool Heater

Miscellaneous Miscellaneous

For the industrial sector, the study isolated the top few industries in IPL by energy consumption, 

which accounted for 48% of the total 2011. The remaining group of industrial customers is 

considered in aggregate as “other industrial.” While the commercial sector has a relatively small 

set of building types that have relatively uniform characteristics, the sheer number of unique 

industry types makes it infeasible to perform a deep dive into all but the largest ones. This 

results in larger “other” or “miscellaneous” segment than that which exists in the commercial 

sector. Nonetheless, these “other” industries typically have energy use characteristics that are 

similar enough to perform an accurate potential assessment. 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-7 

The resulting segmentation is as follows: 

x Chemical and Pharmaceutical Products (analyzed together due to similar allocation of energy 

within end uses and processes) 

x Transportation Products 

x Food Products 

x Other Industrial 

In addition to segmentation by industry, we identified the set of end uses and technologies that 

are appropriate for IPL. These are shown in Table 11-4. 

Table 11-4 Industrial Electric End Uses and Technologies 

End Use Technology

Cooling AirͲCooled Chiller

Cooling WaterͲCooled Chiller

Cooling Roof top AC

Cooling Other Cooling

Cooling/Heating AirͲSource Heat Pump

Cooling/Heating Geothermal Heat Pump

Heating Electric Room Heat

Heating Electric Furnace

Ventilation Ventilation

Interior Lighting ScrewͲin

Interior Lighting HighͲBay Fixtures

Interior Lighting Linear Fluorescent

Exterior Lighting ScrewͲin

Exterior Lighting HID

Exterior Lighting Linear Fluorescent

Motors Pumps

Motors Fans & Blowers

Motors Compressed Air

Motors Material Handling

Motors Material Processing

Motors Other Motors

Process Process Heating

Process Process Cooling and Refrigeration

Process ElectroͲChemical Processes

Process Other Process

Miscellaneous Miscellaneous

With the segmentation scheme defined, we then performed a high-level market characterization 

of electricity and natural gas sales in the base year to allocate sales to each customer segment. 

We used various data sources to identify the annual sales in each customer segment, as well as 

the market size for each segment. This information provided control totals at a sector level for 

calibrating the LoadMAP model to known data for the base-year. 

Market Profiles 

The next step was to develop market profiles for each sector, customer segment, end use, and 

technology. A market profile includes the following elements: 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

11-8 www.enernoc.com 

x Market size is a representation of the number of customers in the segment. For the 

residential sector, it is number of households. In the commercial sector, it is floor space 

measured in square feet. For the industrial sector, it is number of employees. 

x Saturations define the fraction of homes and square feet with the various technologies. 

(e.g., homes with electric space heating). 

x UEC (unit energy consumption) or EUI (energy-use index) describes the amount of 

energy consumed in 2011 by a specific technology in buildings that have the technology. For 

electricity, UECs are expressed in kWh/household for the residential sector, and EUIs are 

expressed in kWh/square foot or kWh/employee for the commercial and industrial sectors, 

respectively. 

x Intensity for the residential sector represents the average energy use for the technology 

across all homes in 2011. It is computed as the product of the saturation and the UEC and is 

defined as kWh/household for electricity. For the commercial and industrial sectors, intensity, 

computed as the product of the saturation and the EUI, represents the average use for the 

technology across all floor space or all employees in 2011. 

x Usage is the annual energy use by a technology/end use in the segment. It is the product of 

the market size and intensity and is quantified in GWh. The market assessment results and 

the market profiles are presented in Chapter 3. 

Baseline Forecast 

The next step was to develop the baseline forecast of annual electricity usage for 2011 through 

2017 by customer segment and end use without new utility programs or naturally occurring 

efficiency. The end-use forecast does include the relatively certain impacts of codes and 

standards that will unfold over the study timeframe. All such mandates that were defined as of 

January 2012 are included in the baseline. The baseline forecast is the foundation for the 

analysis of savings from future EE efforts as well as the metric against which potential savings 

are measured. 

Inputs to the baseline forecast include: 

x Current economic growth forecasts (i.e., customer growth, income growth) 

x Electricity price forecasts 

x Trends in fuel shares and equipment saturations 

x Existing and approved changes to building codes and equipment standards 

We present the results of the baseline forecast development in Chapter 4. 

Energy Efficiency Measure Analysis 

This section describes the framework used to assess the savings, costs, and other attributes of 

energy-efficiency measures. These characteristics form the basis for measure-level costeffectiveness analyses as well as for determining measure-level savings. For all measures, 

EnerNOC assembled information to reflect equipment performance, incremental costs, and 

equipment lifetimes. We used this information, along with IPL’s avoided costs data, in the 

economic screen to determine economically feasible measures. Figure 11-3 outlines the 

framework for measure analysis. 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-9 

Figure 11-3 Approach for Measure Assessment 

Economic 

screen

Measure characterization

Measure 

descriptions

Energy 

savings Costs

Lifetime Saturation and 

applicability

EnerNOC 

universal 

measure list

Building 

simulations

EnerNOC measure 

data library

Client measure data 

library 

(TRMs, evaluation 

reports, etc)

Avoided costs, 

discount rate, 

delivery losses

Client review / 

feedback

Inputs Process

The framework for assessing savings, costs, and other attributes of energy efficiency measures 

involves identifying the list of energy efficiency measures to include in the analysis, determining 

their applicability to each market sector and segment, fully characterizing each measure, and 

performing cost-effectiveness screening. 

We compiled a robust list of energy efficiency measures for each customer sector, drawing upon 

the IPL program experience and protocols, EnerNOC’s own measure databases and building 

simulation models, and secondary sources. This universal list of EE measures covers all major 

types of end-use equipment, as well as devices and actions to reduce energy consumption. If 

considered today, some of these measures would not pass the economic screens initially, but 

may pass in future years as a result of lower projected equipment costs or higher avoided costs. 

The selected measures are categorized into two types according to the LoadMAP taxonomy: 

equipment measures and non-equipment measures. 

x Equipment measures are efficient energy-consuming pieces of equipment that save energy 

by providing the same service with a lower energy requirement than a standard unit. An 

example is an ENERGY STAR refrigerator that replaces a standard efficiency refrigerator. For 

equipment measures, many efficiency levels may be available for a given technology, ranging 

from the baseline unit (often determined by code or standard) up to the most efficient 

product commercially available. For instance, in the case of central air conditioners, this list 

begins with the current federal standard SEER 13 unit and spans a broad spectrum up to a 

maximum efficiency of a SEER 21 unit. 

x Non-equipment measures save energy by reducing the need for delivered energy, but do 

not involve replacement or purchase of major end-use equipment (such as a refrigerator or 

air conditioner). An example would be a programmable thermostat that is pre-set to run 

heating and cooling systems only when people are home. Non-equipment measures can 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

11-10 www.enernoc.com 

apply to more than one end use. For instance, addition of wall insulation will affect the 

energy use of both space heating and cooling. Non-equipment measures typically fall into 

one of the following categories: 

o Building shell (windows, insulation, roofing material) 

o Equipment controls (thermostat, energy management system) 

o Equipment maintenance (cleaning filters, changing setpoints) 

o Whole-building design (building orientation, passive solar lighting) 

o Lighting retrofits (included as a non-equipment measure because retrofits are performed 

prior to the equipment’s normal end of life) 

o Displacement measures (ceiling fan to reduce use of central air conditioners) 

o Commissioning and retrocommissioning 

We developed a preliminary list of EE measures, which was distributed to IPL and the 

stakeholder group for review. The list was finalized after incorporating comments, and can be 

found in Chapter 5 of this report. 

Once we assembled the list of EE measures, the project team assessed their energy-saving 

characteristics. For each measure we also characterized incremental cost, service life, and other 

performance factors. Following the measure characterization, we performed an economic 

screening of each measure, which serves as the basis for developing the economic and 

achievable potential. 

Representative Measure Data Inputs 

To provide an example of the measure data, Table 11-5 and Table 11-6 present examples of the 

detailed data inputs behind both equipment and non-equipment measures, respectively, for the 

case of residential CAC in single-family homes. Table 11-5 displays the various efficiency levels 

available as equipment measures, as well as the corresponding useful life, energy usage, and 

cost estimates. The columns labeled On Market and Off Market reflect equipment availability due 

to codes and standards or the entry of new products to the market. 

Table 11-5 Example Equipment Measures for Central Air Conditioning – Single Family Home 

Efficiency Level Useful Life Equipment

Cost

Energy

Usage(kWh/yr)

On

Market

Off

Market

SEER 13 15 $1,640 2,483 2011 n/a

SEER 14 (ENERGY STAR) 15 $1,766 2,278 2011 n/a

SEER 15 (CEE Tier 2) 15 $1,892 2,202 2011 n/a

SEER 16 (CEE Tier 3) 15 $2,018 2,137 2011 n/a

SEER 17 (Ductless MiniͲsplit) 15 $3,863 2,083 2011 n/a

SEER 21 15 $3,784 1,686 2011 n/a

Table 11-6 lists some of the non-equipment measures applicable to CAC in an existing singlefamily home. All measures are evaluated for cost effectiveness based on the lifetime benefits 

relative to the cost of the measure. The total savings and costs are calculated for each year of 

the study and depend on the base year saturation of the measure, the applicability6

 of the 

measure, and the savings as a percentage of the relevant energy end uses. 

 

6

 The applicability factors take into account whether the measure is applicable to a particular building type and whether it is feasible to 

install the measure. For instance, attic fans are not applicable to homes where there is insufficient space in the attic or there is no attic 

at all. 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-11 

Table 11-6 Example Non-Equipment Measures – Single Family Home, Existing 

End Use Measure Saturation

in 20117

ApplicaͲ

bility

Lifetime

(yrs)

Measure

Installed

Cost

Energy

Savings (%)

Cooling Central ACͲMaintenance 37% 100% 4 $125 9.9%

Cooling Repair and Sealing –

Ducting 16% 50% 18 $500 8.8%

Cooling InsulationͲCeiling 16% 72% 20 $1000 15.5%

Cooling Windows – Install Reflective

Film 20% 45% 10 $895 26.2%

Cooling WindowsͲENERGY STAR 47% 90% 25 $7500 7.2%

Cooling ThermostatͲ

Clock/Programmable 54% 56% 12 $73 7.3%

Screening Measures for Cost-Effectiveness 

Only measures that are cost-effective are included in economic and achievable potential. 

Therefore, for each individual measure, LoadMAP performs an economic screen. This study uses 

the TRC test that compares the lifetime energy benefits (and peak demand for electricity) of 

each applicable measure with its incremental installed cost, including material and labor. There is 

no program administration cost considered in this analysis, and therefore, no specific program 

delivery methods or mechanisms are assumed. The lifetime benefits are calculated by multiplying 

the annual energy and demand savings for each measure by all appropriate avoided costs for 

each year, and discounting the dollar savings to the present value equivalent. The analysis uses 

each measure’s values for savings, costs, and lifetimes that were developed as part of the 

measure characterization process described above. 

The LoadMAP model performs this screening dynamically, taking into account changing savings 

and cost data over time. Thus, some measures pass the economic screen for some — but not all 

— of the years in the forecast. 

It is important to note the following about the economic screen: 

x The economic evaluation of every measure in the screen is conducted relative to a baseline 

condition. For instance, in order to determine the kilowatt-hour (kWh) savings potential of a 

measure, kWh consumption with the measure applied must be compared to the kWh 

consumption of a baseline condition. 

x The economic screening was conducted only for measures that are applicable to each 

building type and vintage; thus if a measure is deemed to be irrelevant to a particular 

building type and vintage, it is excluded from the respective economic screen. 

Table 11-7 shows the results of the economic screen, highlighting the economic unit for CAC and 

select other measures. Throughout the time frame shown, the most cost-effective CAC option is 

SEER 16. For pool heaters, the electric resistance unit is what is included in economic potential, 

until the heat pump unit becomes cost effective in 2015 due to changing market conditions and 

avoided costs. For refrigerators, however, the AHAM federal efficiency standards cause existing 

Energy Star units to become obsolete in 2014. Units compliant with AHAM 2014 thus become the 

new minimum efficiency baseline. Since there is not a more efficient, cost-effective unit 

available, they become the economic unit by default. If the measure passes the screen (has a 

B/C ratio greater than or equal to 1), the measure is included in economic potential. Otherwise, 

 

7

 Note that saturation levels reflected for the base year change over time as more measures are adopted. 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

11-12 www.enernoc.com 

it is screened out for that year. If multiple equipment measures have B/C ratios greater than or 

equal to 1.0, the most efficient technology is selected by the economic screen. 

Table 11-7 Economic Screen Results for Selected Residential Equipment Measures 

Technology 2013 2014 2015 2016

Central AC SEER 16 SEER 16 SEER 16 SEER 16

Pool Heater Electric

Resistance

Electric

Resistance

Heat Pump

(COP = 5.0)

Heat Pump

(COP = 5.0)

Refrigerator Energy Star AHAM (2014) AHAM (2014) AHAM (2014)

Energy-Efficiency Potential 

The approach we used for this study adheres to the approaches and conventions outlined in the 

National Action Plan for Energy-Efficiency (NAPEE) Guide for Conducting Potential Studies 

(November 2007).8

 The NAPEE Guide represents the most credible and comprehensive industry 

practice for specifying energy-efficiency potential. As described in Chapter 1, four types of 

potentials were developed as part of this effort: Technical potential, Economic potential, 

Achievable High potential and Achievable Low potential. 

The calculation of Technical and Economic potential is a straightforward algorithm. To develop 

estimates for Achievable potential, we develop market adoption rates for each measure that 

specify the percentage of customers that will select the highest–efficiency economic option. The 

Achievable High adoption rates are based on the ramp rates from the Northwest Power & 

Conservation Council’s Sixth Plan as a starting point. The NWPCC has been running programs in 

the Pacific Northwest for many years, and the portfolio of programs reflects a similar profile of 

market maturity. The ramp rates are then adjusted downward by 10% to account for a generally 

younger program history and then adjusted specifically as needed based on information from 

program evaluations. The Achievable Low adoption rates start with the Achievable High rates and 

decrement them by 40% to 60% based on where measures lie in the time horizon of the study 

or whether they are already familiar inclusions in existing programs. Finally, reasonableness 

checks are applied by comparing the adoption rates to those from other relevant potential 

studies and market research. 

The overall energy efficiency potential results are available in Chapter 6, and the results by 

sector are given in Chapter 7. 

Action Plans 

We then developed energy efficiency action plans where we map the cost effective measures to 

programs. We describe the programs in terms of costs, savings, strategy, and delivery 

mechanism. The actions plans are described in detail in chapter 8. The supporting documentation 

and details for the action plans are in Volume 4. 

Alternative Avoided Cost Scenario 

To observe the sensitivity of study results to changes in forecast market prices of electricity and 

natural gas, we ran several scenarios that changed the avoided costs over time. The models 

were then re-run with all other variables held constant. The chosen scenarios and their results 

are described in Chapter 9. 

 

8

 National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2007). National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency Vision for 2025: Developing a Framework 

for Change. www.epa.gov/eeactionplan.
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-13 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

In this final step, we review the potential estimates by measure, customer segment, and sector 

to develop a set of conclusions and recommendations to guide program efforts toward optimal 

pursuit of energy efficiency savings. The results of this review are presented in Chapter 10. 

Data Development 

This section details the data sources used in this study, followed by a discussion of how these 

sources were applied. In general, data were adapted to local conditions, for example, by using 

local sources for measure data and local weather for building simulations. 

Data Sources 

The data sources are organized into the following categories: 

x IPL and Indiana-specific data 

x EnerNOC’s databases and analysis tools 

x Other secondary data and reports 

Indiana Data 

Our highest priority data sources for this study were those that were specific to IPL. 

x IPL customer data: IPL provided number of customers and total electric usage by sector 

from the customer billing database. 

x IPL program implementation and evaluation data: Program reports that outline the 

details of energy efficiency programs, program goals and achievements. 

x Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS). In the most recent RECS survey 

conducted by the U.S. DOE, Indiana data was combined with Ohio data in a sample 

indicative of the two Midwest states. We used these data extensively to develop residential 

market profiles as described below. http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/

x Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). We used state and 

regional data extensively to develop commercial market profiles. 

x Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS). We used state and regional data 

extensively to develop industrial market profiles. 

x American Community Survey: The US Census American Community Survey is an ongoing 

survey that provides data every year on household characteristics. Data for IPL were 

available for this study. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

x Indiana Weather Data: Weather from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for 

Indianapolis, IN was used as the basis for building simulations. 

EnerNOC Databases, Analysis Tools, and Reports 

EnerNOC maintains several databases and modeling tools that we use for forecasting and 

potential studies. 

x EnerNOC Energy Market Profiles: For more than 10 years, EnerNOC staff have 

maintained profiles of end-use consumption for the residential, commercial, and industrial 

sectors. These profiles include market size, fuel shares, unit consumption estimates, and 

annual energy use by fuel (electricity and natural gas), customer segment and end use for 10 

regions in the U.S. The Energy Information Administration surveys (RECS, CBECS and MECS) 

as well as state-level statistics and local customer research provide the foundation for these 

regional profiles. 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

11-14 www.enernoc.com 

x Building Energy Simulation Tool (BEST). EnerNOC’s BEST is a derivative of the DOE 2.2 

building simulation model, used to estimate base-year UECs and EUIs, as well as measure 

savings for the HVAC-related measures. 

x EnerNOC’s EnergyShapeTM: This database of load shapes includes the following: 

Residential – electric load shapes for 10 regions, 3 housing types, 13 end uses; Commercial – 

electric load shapes for 9 regions, 54 building types, 10 end uses; Industrial – electric load 

shapes, whole facility only, 19 2-digit SIC codes, as well as various 3-digit and 4-digit SIC 

codes

x EnerNOC’s Database of Energy Efficiency Measures (DEEM): EnerNOC maintains an 

extensive database of measure data for our studies. Our database draws upon reliable 

sources including the California Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER), the EIA 

Technology Forecast Updates – Residential and Commercial Building Technologies – 

Reference Case, RS Means cost data, and Grainger Catalog Cost data.

x Recent studies. EnerNOC has conducted numerous studies of EE potential in the last five 

years. We checked our input assumptions and analysis results against the results from these 

other studies, which include AmerenUE, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 

Consolidated Edison of New York, Avista Utilities, the State of New Mexico, Tennessee Valley 

Authority, and Seattle City Light. In addition, we used the information about impacts of 

building codes and appliance standards from a recent report for the Institute for Energy 

Efficiency.9

Other Secondary Data and Reports 

Finally, a variety of secondary data sources and reports were used for this study. The main 

sources are identified below. 

x Indiana and regional data from past EnerNOC projects: EnerNOC referenced data 

from our project with MISO, as well as regional data from similar studies for Ameren Illinois 

and Ameren Missouri. 

x California Statewide Surveys. The Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) and 

the Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) are comprehensive market research studies 

conducted by the California Energy Commission. These databases provide a wealth of 

information on appliance use in homes and businesses. RASS is based on information from 

almost 25,000 homes and CEUS is based on information from a stratified random sample of 

almost 3,000 businesses in California. 

x Annual Energy Outlook. The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO), conducted each year by the 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), presents yearly projections and analysis of 

energy topics. For this study, we used data from the 2011 AEO. 

x Electric Power Research Institute – Assessment of Achievable Potential from 

Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs in the U.S., also known as the 

EPRI National Potential Study (2009). In 2009, EPRI hired EnerNOC to conduct an 

assessment of the national potential for energy efficiency, with estimates derived for the four 

DOE regions. 

x EPRI End-Use Models (REEPS and COMMEND). These models provide the elasticities we 

apply to electricity prices, household income, home size and heating and cooling. 

x Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER). The California Energy Commission 

and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) sponsor this database, which is designed to 

provide well-documented estimates of energy and peak demand savings values, measure 

 

9

 “Assessment of Electricity Savings in the U.S. Achievable through New Appliance/Equipment Efficiency Standards and Building 

Efficiency Codes (2010 – 2025).” Global Energy Partners, LLC for the Institute for Electric Efficiency, May 2011. 

http://www.edisonfoundation.net/iee/reports/IEE_CodesandStandardsAssessment_2010-2025_UPDATE.pdf 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-15 

costs, and effective useful life (EUL) for the state of California. We used the DEER database 

to cross check the measure savings we developed using BEST and DEEM. 

x Northwest Power and Conservation Council Sixth Plan workbooks. To develop its 

Power Plan, the Council maintains workbooks with detailed information about measures. 

x Other relevant regional sources: These include reports from the Consortium for Energy 

Efficiency, the EPA, and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

Data Application 

We now discuss how the data sources described above were used for each step of the study. 

Data Application for Market Characterization 

To construct the high-level market characterization of electricity use and households/floor space 

for the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, we applied the following data sources: 

x RECS 2009 and the American Community Survey to allocate residential customers by housing 

type

x EIA, AEO 2011 and our Energy Market Profiles Database to allocate sales and square footage 

by building type for the commercial sector 

x EIA data on energy use by industry type, Bureau of Labor Statistics and AEO 2011 data to 

allocate sales and employment for the industrial sector 

Data Application for Market Profiles 

The specific data elements for the market profiles, together with the key data sources, are 

shown in Table 11-8. To develop the market profiles for each segment, we used the following 

approach: 

1. Developed control totals for each segment. These include market size, segment-level annual 

electricity use, and annual intensity. 

2. Used RECS 2009 and the American Housing Survey to incorporate information on existing 

appliance saturations, appliance and equipment characteristics, and building characteristics. 

3. Incorporated secondary data sources to supplement and corroborate the data from items 1 

and 2 above. 

4. Compared and cross-checked with regional data obtained as part of the EPRI National 

Potential Study and with the Energy Market Profiles Database. 

5. Ensured calibration to control totals for annual electricity sales in each sector and segment. 

6. Worked with IPL staff to vet the data against their knowledge and experience. 

Table 11-8 Data Applied for the Market Profiles 

Model Inputs Description Key Sources

Market size

BaseͲyear residential dwellings

commercial floor space, and industrial

employment

IPL customer database

American Community Survey

Energy Market Profiles

AEO

Annual intensity

Residential: Annual energy use

(kWh/household)

Commercial: Annual energy use (kWh/sq

ft)

Industrial: Annual energy use

(kWh/employee)

Energy Market Profiles

AEO

Previous studies

Appliance/equipment Fraction of dwellings with an RECS 2009
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

11-16 www.enernoc.com 

saturations appliance/technology

Percentage of C&I floor

space/employment with

equipment/technology

Energy Market Profiles

UEC/EUI for each endͲ

use technology

UEC: Annual electricity use for a

technology in dwellings that have the

technology

EUI: Annual electricity use per square

foot/employee for a technology in floor

space that has the technology

HVAC uses: BEST simulations using

prototypes developed for NJ

Engineering analysis

DEEM

Previous EnerNOC studies

California RASS and CEUS

Appliance/equipment

vintage distribution Age distribution for each technology RECS 2009Previous EnerNOC studies

Efficiency options for

each technology

List of available efficiency options and

annual energy use for each technology

DEEM

DEER

NWPCC workbooks

Annual Energy Outlook

Previous studies

Peak factors Share of technology energy use that

occurs during the peak hour EnergyShape database

Data Application for Baseline Forecast 

Table 11-9 summarizes the LoadMAP model inputs required for the baseline forecast. These inputs 

are required for each segment within each sector, as well as for new construction and existing 

dwellings/buildings. 

Table 11-9 Data Needs for the Baseline Forecast and Potentials Estimation in LoadMAP 

Model Inputs Description Key Sources

Customer growth forecasts Forecasts of new construction in

residential and C&I sectors

AEO 2011 growth forecast

US BLS

Equipment purchase shares for

baseline forecast

For each equipment/technology,

purchase shares for each efficiency

level; specified separately for

existing equipment replacement

and new construction

Shipments data from AEO

AEO 2011 regional forecast

assumptions10

Appliance/efficiency standards

analysis

IPL program results and evaluation

reports

Electricity prices

Forecast of average energy and

capacity avoided costs and retail

prices

IPL supply planning consultant

projections

AEO 2011

Utilization model parameters

Price elasticities, elasticities for

other variables (income, weather)

EPRI’s REEPS and COMMEND

models

AEO 2011

NOAA data for normal cooling &

heating degree days for IPL, IN

In addition, we implemented assumptions for known future equipment standards as of January, 

2012, as shown in the tables below. 

 

10 We developed baseline purchase decisions using the Energy Information Agency’s Annual Energy Outlook report (2011), which 

utilizes the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to produce a self-consistent supply and demand economic model. We calibrated

equipment purchase options to match manufacturer shipment data for recent years and then held values constant for the study period.

This removes any effects of naturally occurring conservation or effects of future DSM programs that may be embedded in the AEO 

forecasts. 

Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-20 Table 11-10 Residential Electric Equipment Standards Applicable to Indiana 

Today's Efficiency or Standard Assumption 1st Standard (relative to today'sstandard)

2nd Standard (relative to today'sstandard)

End Use Technology 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Central ACRoom ACEvaporative Central AC

Evaporative Room AC

Cooling/Heating Heat PumpSpace Heating Electric Resistance

Water Heater (<=55 gallons)

Water Heater (>55 gallons)

ScrewͲin/Pin Lamps

Linear FluorescentRefrigerator/2nd RefrigeratorFreezerDishwasherClothes WasherClothes DryerRange/OvenMicrowavePersonal ComputerMonitorLaptop ComputerTVCopier/Printer/FaxDVD/VCR/AudioDevices and GadgetsPool PumpWell Pump

Furnace Fan

Miscellaneous

ConventionalConventionalConventional

SEER 13

ConventionalConventional

Electronics

Conventional/Energy Star

Conventional

Conventional/Energy Star

Conventional/Energy Star

ConventionalConventionalConventional

Conventional (355

/ )

14% more efficient (307 kWh/yr)

Conventional (MEF 1.26 for top loader) MEF 1.72 for top loader MEF 2.0 for top loader

Conventional (EF 3.01) 5% more efficient (EF 3.17)

Lighting

Incandescent Advanced IncandescentͲtier 1 Advanced IncandescentͲtier 2

T8

Appliances

NAECA Standard 25% more efficient

NAECA Standard 25% more efficient

SEER 13.0/HSPF 7.7 SEER 14.0/HSPF 8.0

Electric Resistance

Water Heating

EF 0.90 EF 0.95

EF 0.90 Heat Pump Water Heater

Cooling

EER 9.8 EER 11.0

ConventionalConventional
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-21 Table 11-11 Commercial Electric Equipment Standards Applicable to Indiana 

Today's Efficiency or Standard Assumption 1st Standard (relative to today's standard)

2nd Standard (relative to today'sstandard)

End Use Technology 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

ChillersRoof Top Units

Packaged Terminal AC/HP EER 9.8

Cooling/Heating Heat Pump

Electric Resistance

Electric Furnace

Ventilation Ventilation

ScrewͲin/Pin LampsLinear Fluorescent T12

High Intensity Discharge

Water Heating Water Heater

WalkͲin Refrigerator/Freezer

ReachͲin Refrigerator

Glass Door Display EPACT 2005 Standard

Open Display Case EPACT 2005 Standard

Vending Machines EPACT 2005 Standard

IcemakerDesktop ComputerLaptop Computer

NonͲHVAC MotorsCommercial Laundry

Miscellaneous

Advanced IncandescentͲtier 1 Incandescent

T8

EISA 2007 Standard

MEF 1.6 MEF 1.26

70% Efficiency 62.3% Efficiency

EF 0.97

Office Equipment

Refrigeration

EPACT 2005 Standard

42% more efficient

18% more efficient

33% more efficient

2010 Standard

Conventional/Energy Star

Conventional/Energy Star

Cooling

Space Heating

Lighting

2007 ASHRAE 90.1

EER 11.0/11.2

EER 11.0

EER 11.0/COP 3.3

Advanced IncandescentͲtier 2

Electric Resistance

Electric Furnace

Constant Air Volume/Variable Air Volume

Metal Halide
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-20 

Energy Efficiency Measure Data Application 

Table 11-12 details the data sources used for measure characterization. 

Table 11-12 Data Needs for the Measure Characteristics in LoadMAP 

Model Inputs Description Key Sources

Energy Impacts

The annual reduction in consumption attributable

to each specific measure. Savings were developed

as a percentage of the energy end use that the

measure affects.

BEST

DEEM

DEER

NWPCC workbooks

Other secondary sources

Peak Demand Impacts

Savings during the peak demand periods are

specified for each electric measure. These impacts

relate to the energy savings and depend on the

extent to which each measure is coincident with

the system peak.

BEST

EnergyShape

Costs

Equipment Measures: Includes the full cost of

purchasing and installing the equipment on a perͲ

household, perͲsquareͲfoot, or per employee basis

for the residential, commercial, and industrial

sectors, respectively.

NonͲequipment measures: Existing buildings – full

installed cost. New ConstructionͲthe costs may be

either the full cost of the measure, or as

appropriate, it may be the incremental cost of

upgrading from a standard level to a higher

efficiency level.

DEEM

DEER

NWPCC workbooks

RS Means

Other secondary sources

Measure Lifetimes

Estimates derived from the technical data and

secondary data sources that support the measure

demand and energy savings analysis.

DEEM

DEER

NWPCC workbooks

Other secondary sources

Applicability

Estimate of the percentage of either dwellings in

the residential sector or square feet/employment

in the C&I sectors where the measure is applicable

and where it is technically feasible to implement.

DEEM

DEER

NWPCC workbooks

Other secondary sources

On Market and Off

Market Availability

Expressed as years for equipment measures to

reflect when the equipment technology is available

or no longer available in the market.

EnerNOC appliance

standards and building codes

analysis

Data Application for Cost-effectiveness Screening 

To perform the cost-effectiveness screening, a number of economic assumptions were needed. 

All cost and benefit values were analyzed as real 2011 dollars. A discount rate of 8.2% in 

nominal terms was used, as provided by IPL. This is equivalent to a 5.1% discount rate in real 

terms when adjusting for 2.92% inflation.11 As mentioned above, avoided costs were obtained 

from an analysis performed by the IPL Supply Planning Consultant. Also, energy savings at the 

meter reduce system needs by that amount plus the avoided line losses, so benefits are 

increased by a factor equivalent to IPL’s average electric delivery losses, or 5.5%. 

Achievable Potential Estimation 

To estimate achievable potentials, three sets of parameters were required to account for the 

decision making behavior of humans in the efficiency marketplace. 

 

11 Inflation adjuster of 2.92% based on the average annual growth forecast in US Consumer Price Index from the 2012 Annual Energy

Outlook for 2010-2035. 
Analysis Approach and Data Development 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 11-21 

x Adoption curves for non-equipment measures. Equipment measures are installed when 

existing units fail. Non-equipment measures do not have this natural periodicity, so rather 

than installing all available non-equipment measures in the first year of the forecast 

(instantaneous potential), they are phased in according to adoption schedules that vary 

based on cost and complexity. The adoption rates used in this analysis take several factors 

into account to determine how quickly the market can absorb these measures. Typically, 

measures that cause disruption to the building, such as wall insulation in existing buildings, 

receive longer adoption curves, while those with drop-in installations, such as programmable 

thermostats in new buildings, receive shorter ones. High capital cost measures will also 

receive longer adoption curves than ones with low capital cost. These adoption rates are 

used within LoadMAP to generate the Technical and Economic potentials. In general, the 

rates align with the diffusion of similar equipment measures. 

x Achievable High adoption rates. These factors are applied to Economic potential to 

estimate the upper bound: Achievable High. These estimate customer adoption of economic 

measures when delivered through efficiency programs under ideal market, implementation, 

and customer preference conditions. Information channels are assumed to be established 

and efficient for marketing, educating consumers, and coordinating with trade allies and 

delivery partners. The Achievable High adoption rates are based on the ramp rates from the 

Northwest Power & Conservation Council’s Sixth Plan as a starting point. The NWPCC has 

been running programs in the Pacific Northwest for many years, so the portfolio of programs 

reflects a more mature profile of market maturity. Because of this, the ramp rates are 

adjusted downward by 10%, and then further adjusted with actual IPL program history and 

information from program evaluations. Achievable High potential establishes a maximum 

target for the EE savings that an administrator can hope to achieve through its EE programs 

and involves incentives that represent a substantial portion of the incremental cost combined 

with high administrative and marketing costs. 

x Achievable Low adoption rates. These factors are applied to Achievable High potential to 

calculate Achievable Low potential, decrementing them by a range of 40% to 75% based on 

where measures lie in the time horizon of the study or whether they are already familiar 

inclusions in existing programs. These rates reflect expected program participation given 

significant barriers to customer acceptance, non-ideal implementation conditions, and limited 

program budgets. This represents a lower bound on achievable potential. 

Achievable Low and Achievable High adoption rates are presented in Volume 3, Appendix E. 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 12-1 

MARKET CHARACTERIZATION AND MARKET PROFILES 

In this section, we describe how customers in the IPL service territory use electricity in the base 

year of the study, 2011. It begins with a high-level summary of energy use by sector and then 

delves into each sector in detail. 

Energy Use Summary 

Total electricity use for the residential, commercial and industrial sectors for IPL in 2011 was 

13,946 GWh. As shown in Figure 3-1, the largest sectors are residential and industrial, each 

accounting for 37% of load at 5,152 GWh and 5,195 GWh respectively. The remaining use is in 

the commercial sector, at 3,599 GWh. 

Figure 12-1 Sector-Level Electricity Use, 2011 

Residential

37%

Commercial

26%

Industrial

37%

Residential Sector 

The total number of households and electric sales for IPL were obtained for the year 2011 from 

the IPL customer database. In 2011, there were 415,768 households in the IPL service territory. 

They used 5,152 GWh of electricity.12 We allocated these totals into two residential segments 

based on survey data from the DOE’s latest Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS 

2009), which has an oversample for IPL. The values are shown in Table 12-1 below, and referred 

to throughout the study as the control totals to which all energy usage is calibrated in the base 

year of the study. 

 

12 U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, See Table 2, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/

CHAPTER 12 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

12-2 www.enernoc.com 

Table 12-1 Residential Sector Energy Usage and Intensity by Segment Type, 2011 

Segment Households Intensity

(kWh/HH)

2011

Electricity

Use

Single Family 298,461 14,071 4,200

Multi Family 117,307 8,120 952

Total 415,768 12,392 5,152

As we describe in the previous chapter, the market profiles provide the foundation upon which 

we develop the baseline forecast. The market profiles for the residential sector housing segments 

are presented in Table 12-2 and Table 12-3. They are also presented in Volume 3, Appendix A. 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 12-3 

Table 12-2 Electric Market Profile for the Residential Single Family Sector 

Currently Viewing:

Residential :

Total Households:

GWh:

UEC Intensity Usage

(kWh) (kWh/HH) (GWh)

Cooling Central AC 58.3% 3,302 1,925 574.4

Cooling Room AC 18.7% 1,292 242 72.2

Cooling AirͲSource Heat Pump 8.5% 2,701 230 68.5

Cooling Geothermal Heat Pump 0.1% 2,398 2 0.7

Cooling Evaporative AC 0.0% 2,382 0 0.0

Space Heating Electric Resistance 5.6% 12,830 724 216.1

Space Heating Electric Furnace 7.5% 13,472 1,009 301.1

Space Heating AirͲSource Heat Pump 8.5% 9,157 778 232.3

Space Heating Geothermal Heat Pump 0.1% 5,234 5 1.6

Water Heating Water Heater <= 55 gal 25.4% 3,294 835 249.4

Water Heating Water Heater > 55 gal 9.8% 3,511 345 102.9

Interior Lighting ScrewͲin 100.0% 1,122 1,122 334.9

Interior Lighting Linear Fluorescent 100.0% 130 130 38.7

Interior Lighting Specialty 100.0% 498 498 148.5

Exterior Lighting ScrewͲin 100.0% 273 273 81.6

Appliances Clothes Washer 97.5% 110 107 32.0

Appliances Clothes Dryer 81.4% 846 689 205.6

Appliances Dishwasher 60.3% 458 276 82.4

Appliances Refrigerator 100.0% 832 832 248.2

Appliances Freezer 47.7% 663 316 94.3

Appliances Second Refrigerator 31.6% 969 306 91.3

Appliances Stove 60.2% 520 313 93.5

Appliances Microwave 97.6% 137 134 39.9

Electronics Personal Computers 82.3% 289 237 70.8

Electronics Monitor 82.3% 57 47 14.1

Electronics Laptops 63.7% 124 79 23.6

Electronics TVs 281.1% 235 659 196.8

Electronics Printer/Fax/Copier 99.7% 44 44 13.2

Electronics SetͲtop Boxes/DVR 281.1% 149 419 125.0

Electronics Devices and Gadgets 100.0% 110 110 32.8

Miscellaneous Pool Pump 6.3% 1,500 94 28.0

Miscellaneous Pool Heater 0.5% 4,981 26 7.8

Miscellaneous Hot Tub / Spa 4.9% 950 47 13.9

Miscellaneous Well Pump 12.4% 561 70 20.8

Miscellaneous Furnace Fan 73.4% 527 387 115.4

Miscellaneous Miscellaneous 100.0% 761 761 227.1

14,071 4,199.5

Average Market ProfilesͲElectricity

Single Family

Total

End Use Technology Saturation

298,461

4,200
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

12-4 www.enernoc.com 

Table 12-3 Residential, Multi Family Electric Market Profile 

Currently Viewing:

Residential :

Total Households:

GWh:

UEC Intensity Usage

(kWh) (kWh/HH) (GWh)

Cooling Central AC 43.4% 952 413 48.4

Cooling Room AC 35.5% 398 141 16.6

Cooling AirͲSource Heat Pump 4.1% 741 30 3.6

Cooling Geothermal Heat Pump 0.1% 615 1 0.1

Cooling Evaporative AC 0.0% 606 0 0.0

Space Heating Electric Resistance 25.0% 3,431 858 100.6

Space Heating Electric Furnace 26.0% 3,602 936 109.7

Space Heating AirͲSource Heat Pump 4.1% 3,307 136 15.9

Space Heating Geothermal Heat Pump 0.1% 2,479 2 0.3

Water Heating Water Heater <= 55 gal 34.5% 2,123 733 85.9

Water Heating Water Heater > 55 gal 9.1% 2,263 205 24.1

Interior Lighting ScrewͲin 100.0% 701 701 82.3

Interior Lighting Linear Fluorescent 100.0% 121 121 14.2

Interior Lighting Specialty 100.0% 294 294 34.5

Exterior Lighting ScrewͲin 100.0% 113 113 13.3

Appliances Clothes Washer 56.1% 100 56 6.6

Appliances Clothes Dryer 47.0% 684 321 37.7

Appliances Dishwasher 42.5% 416 177 20.7

Appliances Refrigerator 100.0% 756 756 88.7

Appliances Freezer 12.6% 602 76 8.9

Appliances Second Refrigerator 5.8% 880 51 5.9

Appliances Stove 70.8% 456 323 37.9

Appliances Microwave 95.1% 125 118 13.9

Electronics Personal Computers 64.5% 262 169 19.9

Electronics Monitor 64.5% 52 34 4.0

Electronics Laptops 61.1% 113 69 8.1

Electronics TVs 204.2% 213 436 51.1

Electronics Printer/Fax/Copier 51.7% 40 21 2.4

Electronics SetͲtop Boxes/DVR 204.2% 135 277 32.5

Electronics Devices and Gadgets 100.0% 100 100 11.7

Miscellaneous Pool Pump 0.0% 1,500 0 0.0

Miscellaneous Pool Heater 0.0% 4,981 0 0.0

Miscellaneous Hot Tub / Spa 1.1% 950 10 1.2

Miscellaneous Well Pump 0.0% 556 0 0.0

Miscellaneous Furnace Fan 74.2% 273 203 23.8

Miscellaneous Miscellaneous 100.0% 240 240 28.1

8,120 952.5

Average Market ProfilesͲElectricity

Multi Family

Total

End Use Technology Saturation

117,307

952
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 12-5 

Figure 3-2 shows the distribution of electric energy consumption by end use for all homes. Three 

main electricity end uses —appliances, space heating and cooling — account for over 50% of 

total use. The most energy allocated to any single category is 21% for appliances, which includes 

refrigerators, freezers, stoves, clothes washers, clothes dryers, dishwashers, and microwaves. 

Other categories with substantial energy use are lighting and electronics. Electronics includes 

computers, televisions, video game consoles, etc. The remainder of the energy falls into the 

water heating and the miscellaneous category, which is comprised of furnace fans, pool pumps, 

and other “plug” loads (hair dryers, power tools, coffee makers, etc.). 

Figure 12-2 Residential Electricity by End Use (2011), All Homes 

Figure 3-3 and Table 12-4 present the electricity intensities by end-use and housing type, as well 

as all homes on average. Figure 12-4 shows the same data as a percentage of total energy use. 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

12-6 www.enernoc.com 

Figure 12-3 Residential Electricity Intensity by End Use and Segment (kWh/household, 2011) 

Table 12-4 Residential Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (kWh/HH/year, 2011) 

End Use Single Family Multi Family Total

Cooling 2,399 585 1,887

Space Heating 2,516 1,932 2,351

Water Heating 1,180 938 1,112

Interior Lighting 1,750 1,116 1,571

Exterior Lighting 273 113 228

Appliances 2,973 1,878 2,664

Electronics 1,596 1,105 1,458

Misc. 1,384 453 1,121

Total 14,071 8,120 12,392
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 12-7 

Figure 12-4 Breakdown of Residential Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (2011) 

Commercial Sector 

To develop a Baseline Forecast for IPL’s commercial sector, the first step was to determine the 

characteristics of energy use in the study’s base year, 2011, for eleven building-type segments 

agreed upon for the study: Small Office, Large Office, Restaurant, Retail, Grocery, College, 

School, Health, Lodging, Warehouse, and Miscellaneous. 

The total electric energy consumed by commercial customers in IPL’s service area in 2011 was 3,599 

GWh. IPL’s billing database does not distinguish between commercial and industrial customers, but 

rather by rate class. Thus, the allocation for commercial was determined by taking the total usage 

from all of IPL’s non-residential classes and allocating it between commercial and industrial based on 

two sources: a manual categorization for the 30 largest IPL accounts and the state average from the 

US EIA for the remaining accounts.13 We used our internal database of Energy Market Profiles for the 

Midwest region, as well as the list of top 30 customers, to allocate this energy usage to the various 

building types according to square footage and energy intensity data. The values are shown in Table 

12-5 below, and referred to throughout the study as the control totals to which all energy usage is 

calibrated in the base year of the study.

 

13 U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, See Table 2, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

12-8 www.enernoc.com 

Table 12-5 Commercial Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (kWh/SqFt/year, 2011) 

Segment

Floor Space

(million SqFt)

Intensity

(kWh/SqFt)

Electricity Use

(GWh)

Small Office 23 15.20 357

Large Office 26 17.99 476

Restaurant 5 38.66 206

Retail 48 13.93 662

Grocery 8 48.86 367

College 23 11.54 264

School 33 8.04 264

Health 21 24.58 507

Lodging 6 13.71 80

Warehouse 32 6.44 204

Miscellaneous 28 7.63 211

Total 252 14.28 3,599

Figure 12-5 shows the size of each of the building-types as a percentage of commercial sector 

energy sales. 

Figure 12-5 Commercial Market Segmentation by Building Type – Percentage of Floor Space 

and Energy Use 

Small

Office

9% Large

Office

11% Restaurant

2%

Retail

19%

Grocery

3%

College

9%

School

13%

Health

8%

Lodging

2%

Warehouse

13%

Miscellaneous

11%

Percentageof Floor Space

Small

Office

10%

Large Office

13%

Restaurant

6%

Retail

19%

Grocery

10%

College

7%

School

7%

Health

14%

Lodging

2%

Warehouse

6%

Miscellaneous

6%

Percentageof Use

Composite Electric Profile 

Table 12-6 shows the market profile for electricity of the commercial sector as a whole, 

representing a composite of all the building types. Overall, about 55% of commercial floor space 

is cooled. Only about 13% of commercial floor space is heated using electric equipment, either 

some form of resistance heating or heat pumps. Linear fluorescent lighting and screw-in lamps 

are the largest energy-consuming technologies in the commercial sector, followed by ventilation 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 12-9 

and roof top AC units. Market profiles for each building type are presented in Volume 3, 

Appendix A. 

Table 12-6 Commercial Sector Composite Electric 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

12-10 www.enernoc.com 

Commercial Electricity Consumption

Figure 3-4 shows the distribution of electricity consumption by end use for all commercial 

building types. Electric usage is dominated by lighting, with interior and exterior varieties 

accounting for over one third of consumption. After lighting, the largest end uses are cooling, 

ventilation, and refrigeration. The remaining end uses comprise 7% or less of total usage: office 

equipment, miscellaneous, space heating, water heating, and food preparation. 

Figure 12-6 Commercial Electricity Consumption by End Use (2011), All Building Types 

Cooling 18%

Heating 5%

Ventilation

10%

Water

Heating 2%

Interior

Lighting 33%

Exterior

Lighting 6%

Refrigeration

9%

Food

Preparation

3%

Office

Equipment

7%

Misc7%

Figure 12-7 shows the electricity intensity by end use and building type in terms of kWh per 

square foot of building floor space. Figure 12-8 and Table 12-7 present the electricity usage in 

GWh by end use and building type. Figure 12-9 shows the same data as a percentage of total 

energy use for each segment.
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 12-11 

Figure 12-7 Commercial Electricity Intensity by End Use and Segment (kWh/SqFt, 2011) 

Figure 12-8 Commercial Electricity Usage by End Use Segment (GWh, 2011) 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

12-12 www.enernoc.com 

Table 12-7 Commercial Electricity Consumption by End Use (GWh, 2011) 

End Use

Small

Office

Large

Office

RestͲ

aurant Retail Grocery College School Health Lodging

WareͲ

house Misc. Total

Cooling 94 95 28 132 42 50 32 125 15 18 28 661

Heating 24 29 3 43 9 17 8 41 9 7 5 194

Ventilation 26 71 13 53 17 30 26 73 7 12 15 343

Water

Heating 10 11 6 18 5 9 6 3 3 4 7 83

Interior

Lighting 102 122 41 269 72 105 126 116 30 100 90 1,172

Exterior

Lighting 23 15 12 43 10 17 18 10 4 19 28 200

Refrigeration 1 6 52 33 194 3 13 13 4 18 5 341

Food Prep. 0 4 40 13 9 4 8 22 2 0 2 104

Office Equip. 52 95 4 23 3 18 17 20 1 8 10 250

Misc 25 29 7 34 7 11 9 83 6 18 22 251

Total 357 476 206 662 367 264 264 507 80 204 211 3,599

Figure 12-9 Commercial Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (2011) 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 12-13 

Industrial Sector 

To develop a Baseline Forecast for IPL’s industrial sector, the first step was to determine the 

characteristics of energy use in the study’s base year, 2011. We agreed upon a segmentation 

strategy for the study that would highlight the top few industries in IPL by energy consumption. 

The large number of unique industry types makes it infeasible to perform a deep dive into all but 

the largest ones. After reviewing the 30 largest IPL accounts, we determined there were three 

key segments to highlight: Chemical and Pharmaceutical (considered as one segment due to 

similarities in energy use and production methods), Transportation, and Food – with the 

remaining customers classified as Other Industrial. These “other” industries typically have energy 

use characteristics that are similar enough that further granularity would not meaningfully affect 

the study results.

The total electric energy consumed by industrial customers in IPL in 2011 was 5,195 GWh. IPL’s 

billing database does not distinguish between commercial and industrial customers, but rather by 

rate class. Thus, the allocation for industrial was determined by taking the total usage from all of 

IPL’s non-residential classes and allocating it between commercial and industrial based on two 

sources: a manual categorization for the 30 largest IPL accounts and the state average from the 

US EIA for the remaining accounts.14 To allocate this energy usage to the various industry 

segments, we used energy per employee data from our internal Energy Market Profiles for the 

Midwest region in combination with employee data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 

resulting allocations are shown in Table 12-8, and referred to throughout the study as the control 

totals to which all energy usage is calibrated in the base year of the study. 

Table 12-8 Industrial Market Segmentation by Industry Type, Base Year 2011 

Segment Number of Employees Electricity Use

(GWh)

Chemical and Pharmaceutical 4,628 1,128

Food Products 7,661 604

Transportation 12,884 757

Other Industrial 98,877 2,706

Total 124,050 5,195

Figure 12-10 shows the size of each of the segments as a percentage of industrial sector 

employees and energy sales. 

 

14 U.S. DOE Energy Information Administration, See Table 2, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

12-14 www.enernoc.com 

Figure 12-10 Industrial Market Segmentation – Percentage of Employees and Energy Use 

As with the residential and commercial sectors, the industrial market profiles characterize 

electricity use in terms of end use and technology for the base year 2011. Table 12-9 shows the 

composite market profile for the industrial sector. 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 12-15 

Table 12-9 Industrial Sector Composite Electric Market Profile, 2011 

Total

Employees: 124,050 

Control Total (GWh): 5,195.0 

Intensity (kWh/employee): 41,879 

EUI Intensity Usage

(kWh) (kWh/Employee) (GWh)

Cooling AirͲCooled Chiller 2.5% 14,338 358 44.5

Cooling WaterͲCooled Chiller 2.5% 13,751 344 42.6

Cooling Roof top AC 11.7% 22,054 2,586 320.8

Cooling Air Source Heat Pump 0.1% 21,659 31 3.9

Cooling Geothermal Heat Pump 0.0% 14,446 5 0.6

Cooling Other Cooling 0.7% 14,145 92 11.5

Heating Air Source Heat Pump 0.1% 54,112 78 9.6

Heating Geothermal Heat Pump 0.0% 36,093 13 1.6

Heating Electric Room Heat 0.2% 56,621 131 16.2

Heating Electric Furnace 1.9% 59,452 1,130 140.1

Ventilation Ventilation 100.0% 2,172 2,172 269.4

Interior Lighting ScrewͲin 100.0% 1,106 1,106 137.2

Interior Lighting HighͲBay Fixtures 100.0% 235 235 29.2

Interior Lighting Linear Fluorescent 100.0% 3,222 3,222 399.7

Exterior Lighting ScrewͲin 100.0% 2 2 0.3

Exterior Lighting HID 100.0% 872 872 108.1

Exterior Lighting Linear Fluorescent 100.0% 0 0 0.0

Motors Pumps 100.0% 3,488 3,488 432.7

Motors Fans & Blowers 100.0% 3,019 3,019 374.5

Motors Compressed Air 100.0% 3,346 3,346 415.1

Motors Matl Handling 100.0% 2,017 2,017 250.3

Motors Matl Processing 100.0% 6,373 6,373 790.5

Motors Other Motors 100.0% 413 413 51.3

Process Process Heating 100.0% 4,332 4,332 537.3

Process Process Cooling and Refrigeration 100.0% 3,635 3,635 451.0

Process ElectroͲChemical Processes 100.0% 563 563 69.9

Process Other Process 100.0% 398 398 49.4

Misc Misc 100.0% 1,916 1,916 237.7

41,879 5,195.0

Average Market Profiles

End Use Technology Saturation

Total

Figure 3-5 shows the distribution of electricity energy consumption by end use for all industrial 

customers. Motors are clearly the largest overall end use for the industrial sector, accounting for 

45% of energy use. Note that this end use includes a wide range of industrial equipment, such 

as air compressors and refrigeration compressors, pumps, conveyor motors, and fans. The 

process end use accounts for 21% of energy use, which includes heating, cooling, refrigeration, 

and electro-chemical processes. Lighting is the next highest, followed by cooling, ventilation, 

miscellaneous, and space heating. 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

12-16 www.enernoc.com 

Figure 12-11 Industrial Electricity Use by End Use (2011), All Industries 

Figure 12-12 presents the electricity consumption by end-use and industry type. Figure 12-13 

shows the same data as a percentage of total energy use for each segment. 

Figure 12-12 Industrial Electricity Consumption by End Use and Segment (GWh, 2011) 
Market Characterization and Market Profiles 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 12-17 

Table 12-10 Industrial Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (GWh, 2011) 

End Use

Chemical &

Pharmaceutical Food Products Transportation

Other

Industrial. Total

Cooling 32.6 22.2 67.3 301.8 423.9

Heating 12.9 8.8 26.6 119.3 167.6

Ventilation 20.7 14.1 42.7 191.8 269.4

Interior Lighting 40.7 37.2 96.1 392.2 566.2

Exterior Lighting 7.8 7.1 18.4 75.1 108.4

Motors 743.2 290.2 296.9 984.0 2,314.4

Process 245.1 203.2 171.3 487.9 1,107.6

Misc. 25.2 21.0 37.4 154.0 237.7

Total 1,128 604 757 2,706 5,195.0

Figure 12-13 Percentage of Industrial Electricity Use by End Use and Segment (2011) 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 13-1 

CHAPTER 13 

BASELINE FORECAST 

Prior to developing estimates of energy-efficiency potential, a baseline end-use forecast was 

developed to quantify what the consumption is likely to be in the future in absence of new 

efficiency programs and naturally occurring efficiency. The baseline forecast serves as the metric 

against which energy efficiency potentials are measured. This chapter presents the baseline 

forecast for electricity for each sector. 

Residential Sector

The baseline forecast incorporates assumptions about economic growth, electricity prices, and 

appliance/equipment standards and building codes that are already mandated as described in 

Chapter 2. 

Table 13-1 and Figure 4-1 present the baseline forecast for electricity at the end-use level for the 

residential sector as a whole. Overall, residential use increases slightly from 5,152 GWh in 2011 

to 5,196 GWh in 2017, an increase of 0.85%, or an average growth rate of 0.1% per year. This 

reflects the impact of the EISA lighting standard, additional appliance standards adopted in 2011, 

and modest customer growth Figure 13-2 presents the forecast of use per household. Most 

noticeable is that lighting use decreases significantly throughout the time period as the lighting 

efficiency standards from EISA come into effect. 

Table 13-1 Residential Electricity Consumption by End Use (GWh) 

End Use 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 % Change

Avg.

Growth

Rate

Cooling 785 788 794 800 807 3% 0.5%

Heating 978 999 1,012 1,024 1,037 6% 1.0%

Water Heating 462 463 461 461 458 Ͳ1% Ͳ0.2%

Interior Lighting 653 639 570 534 529 Ͳ19% Ͳ3.5%

Exterior Lighting 95 79 67 61 61 Ͳ36% Ͳ7.4%

Appliances 1,107 1,017 994 975 959 Ͳ13% Ͳ2.4%

Electronics 606 691 722 753 785 30% 4.3%

Miscellaneous 466 509 527 544 561 20% 3.1%

Total 5,152 5,186 5,147 5,152 5,196 0.9% 0.1%
Baseline Forecast 

13-2 www.enernoc.com 

Figure 13-1 Residential Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use 

Figure 13-2 Residential Baseline Electricity Use per Household by End Use 
Baseline Forecast 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 13-3 

Table 13-2 shows the end-use forecast at the technology level. Specific observations include: 

1. The primary reason for the reduction in the baseline forecast beginning in 2012 is the federal 

lighting standards. The standard phases general service incandescent lamps out of the 

market over a three-year period, causing a decline in interior screw-in lighting use by 36.9% 

over the forecast period. 

2. Appliance energy use decreases markedly, reflecting efficiency gains from standards. 

3. Growth in use in electronics is substantial and reflects an increase in the saturation of 

electronics and the trend toward higher-powered computers. 

4. Growth in miscellaneous use is also substantial. This use includes various plug loads not 

elsewhere classified (e.g., hair dryers, power tools, coffee makers, etc.). This end use has 

grown consistently in the past and we incorporate future growth assumptions that are 

consistent with the Annual Energy Outlook. 

Table 13-2 Residential Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use and Technology (GWh) 

End Use Technology 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 % Change Avg. Growth

Rate

Cooling Central AC 623  627 632 637 643 3.2% 0.5%

Room AC 89  88 89 89 89 0.2% 0.0%

AirͲSource Heat Pump 72  72 72 73 74 2.9% 0.5%

Geothermal Heat Pump 1  1 1 1 1 3.9% 0.6%

Heating Furnace 411  425 431 436 441 7.4% 1.2%

AirͲSource Heat Pump 248  245 247 250 253 2.1% 0.3%

Geothermal Heat Pump 2  2 2 2 2 7.4% 1.2%

Electric Resistance 317  327 332 336 340 7.5% 1.2%

Water Heating Water Heater > 55 gal 127  127 124 122  Ͳ 118 7.3% Ͳ1.3%

Water Heater <= 55 gal 335  336 337 339 340 1.5% 0.3%

Interior Lighting ScrewͲin 417  367 300 266  Ͳ 263 36.9% Ͳ7.7%

Linear Fluorescent 53  55 57 58 59 10.6% 1.7%

Specialty 183  216 213 210 207 13.2% 2.1%

Exterior Lighting Exterior Lighting 95  79 67 61  Ͳ 61 36.0% Ͳ7.4%

Appliances Clothes Washer 39  35 33 31  Ͳ 30 23.3% Ͳ4.4%

Clothes Dryer 243  224 220 216  Ͳ 213 12.3% Ͳ2.2%

Dishwasher 103  88 85 82  Ͳ 80 22.5% Ͳ4.2%

Refrigerator 337  303 291 281  Ͳ 273 19.0% Ͳ3.5%

Freezer 103  89 85 83  Ͳ 81 22.0% Ͳ4.1%

Second Refrigerator 97  86 83 81  Ͳ 79 18.9% Ͳ3.5%

Stove 131  138 140 143 146 11.0% 1.7%

Microwave 54  56 56 57 58 7.5% 1.2%

Electronics Personal Computers 91  101 105 108 112 23.8% 3.6%

Monitor 18  20 20 21 22 21.1% 3.2%

Laptops 32  35 36 38 39 23.6% 3.5%

TVs 248  287 301 316 330 33.2% 4.8%

Printer/Fax/Copier 16  16 16 16 16 1.2% 0.2%

SetͲtop Boxes/DVR 157  182 191 200 208 32.4% 4.7%

Devices and Gadgets 45  50 53 55 57 28.5% 4.2%

Miscellaneous Pool Pump 28  29 30 30 30 8.6% 1.4%

Pool Heater 8  8 8 8 8 1.8% 0.3%

Hot Tub / Spa 15  16 16 16 16 8.9% 1.4%

Well Pump 21  22 22 22 23 8.6% 1.4%

Furnace Fan 139  145 147 150 152 9.1% 1.4%

Miscellaneous 255  290 304 318 332 30.1% 4.4%

Total 5,152  5,186 5,147 5,152 5,196 0.9% 0.1%
Baseline Forecast 

13-4 www.enernoc.com 

Commercial Sector 

Electricity use in the commercial sector stays constant during the overall forecast horizon with 

usage growing about 12 GWh totals. Usage starts at 3,599 GWh in 2011, and increases to 3,661 

GWh in 2017. Table 13-3 and Figure 4-2 present the electricity baseline forecast at the end-use 

level for the commercial sector as a whole. Usage is generally declining due to a sluggish 

economic recovery and the phasing in of codes and standards. The EISA 2007 lighting standards 

and EPACT 2005 refrigeration standards are also showing significant effects. 

Table 13-3 Commercial Electricity Consumption by End Use (GWh) 

End Use 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 % Change

Avg.

Growth

Rate

Cooling 661 724 750 776 804 22% 3.3%

Heating 194 230 243 257 271 40% 5.6%

Ventilation 343 328 324 322 320 Ͳ7% Ͳ1.1%

Water Heating 83 89 91 94 96 16% 2.5%

Interior Lighting 1,172 1,001 984 976 971 Ͳ17% Ͳ3.1%

Exterior Lighting 200 184 180 177 176 Ͳ12% Ͳ2.1%

Refrigeration 341 304 296 291 287 Ͳ16% Ͳ2.9%

Food Preparation 104 107 108 109 111 7% 1.1%

Office Equipment 250 255 258 264 269 8% 1.2%

Miscellaneous 251 276 285 295 305 21% 3.2%

Total 3,599 3,498 3,519 3,561 3,611 0% 0.1%
Baseline Forecast 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 13-5 

Figure 13-3 Commercial Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use 

Table 13-4 presents the commercial sector electricity forecast by technology. Interior screw-in 

lighting and refrigeration decrease significantly over the forecast period as a result of efficiency 

standards.
Baseline Forecast 

13-6 www.enernoc.com 

Table 13-4 Commercial Baseline Electricity Forecast by End Use and Technology (GWh) 

End Use Technology 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 % Change Avg. Growth

Rate

Cooling AirͲCooled Chiller 51 63 68 72 77 53.0% 7.1%

WaterͲCooled Chiller 100 110 114 119 124 24.2% 3.6%

Roof top AC 443 448 452 457 462 4.2% 0.7%

Geothermal Heat Pump 5 15 19 23 26 458.5% 28.7%

Other Cooling 35 46 49 54 58 67.1% 8.6%

Air Source Heat Pump 28 42 47 53 58 104.4% 11.9%

Heating Geothermal Heat Pump 5 19 24 28 33 514.2% 30.3%

Electric Room Heat 16 16 16 16 16 4.0% 0.6%

Electric Furnace 140 142 143 144 146 3.9% 0.6%

Air Source Heat Pump 32 53 61 68 76 133.8% 14.2%

Ventilation Ventilation 343 328 324 322 320 Ͳ6.7% Ͳ1.1%

Water Heating Water Heating 83 89 91 94 96 16.0% 2.5%

Interior Lighting ScrewͲin 479 330 317 308 301 Ͳ37.1% Ͳ7.7%

HighͲBay Fixtures 101 75 70 67 65 Ͳ35.0% Ͳ7.2%

Linear Fluorescent 593 596 598 601 604 2.0% 0.3%

Exterior Lighting ScrewͲin 51 49 47 46 45 Ͳ12.2% Ͳ2.2%

HID 138 125 121 120 119 Ͳ13.8% Ͳ2.5%

Linear Fluorescent 10 11 11 12 12 19.7% 3.0%

Refrigeration WalkͲin Refrigerator 106 88 84 81 80 Ͳ24.9% Ͳ4.8%

ReachͲin Refrigerator 11 9 9 8 8 Ͳ28.0% Ͳ5.5%

Glass Door Display 127 113 110 107 105 Ͳ17.0% Ͳ3.1%

Open Display Case 57 58 58 59 59 3.4% 0.6%

Icemaker 20 19 19 20 20 Ͳ0.8% Ͳ0.1%

Vending Machine 20 17 16 16 15 Ͳ25.4% Ͳ4.9%

Food Preparation Oven 22 24 24 25 26 16.1% 2.5%

Fryer 32 34 35 36 37 14.4% 2.2%

Dishwasher 38 37 37 37 37 Ͳ4.5% Ͳ0.8%

Hot Food Container 11 11 11 12 12 7.9% 1.3%

Office Equipment Desktop Computer 127 131 132 135 137 8.3% 1.3%

Laptop 19 20 21 22 22 16.5% 2.5%

Server 57 57 58 60 61 7.4% 1.2%

Monitor 23 24 25 25 26 10.0% 1.6%

Printer/Copier/Fax 18 18 18 18 18 Ͳ2.1% Ͳ0.4%

POS Terminal 5 5 5 5 5 Ͳ10.2% Ͳ1.8%

Miscellaneous NonͲHVAC Motors 57 58 58 58 59 3.2% 0.5%

Pool Pump 0 0 0 0 0 7.2% 1.2%

Pool Heater 0 0 0 0 0 9.7% 1.5%

Miscellaneous 194 219 227 236 246 26.5% 3.9%

Total 3,599  3,498 3,519 3,561 3,611 0.3% 0.1%
Baseline Forecast 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 13-7 

Industrial SectorFigure 4-3 presents the electricity baseline forecast at the end-use level for the 

industrial sector as a whole. Overall, industrial annual electricity use increases from 5,195 GWh 

in 2011 to 5,507 GWh in 2017, an overall increase of 1.0% per year. This is largely driven by the 

economy and sluggish projections for recovery. 

Table 13-5 Industrial Electricity Consumption by End Use (GWh) 

End Use 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 %

Change

Avg.

Growth

Rate

Cooling 424 412 415 417 418 Ͳ1% Ͳ0.3%

Heating 168 173 176 180 182 8% 1.4%

Ventilation 269 268 271 272 273 1% 0.2%

Interior Lighting 566 510 506 508 510 Ͳ10% Ͳ1.7%

Exterior Lighting 108 81 79 79 79 Ͳ27% Ͳ5.2%

Motors 2,314 2,388 2,441 2,490 2,525 9% 1.5%

Process 1,108 1,148 1,174 1,198 1,215 10% 1.5%

Miscellaneous 238 268 282 295 306 29% 4.2%

Total 5,195 5,248 5,343 5,437 5,507 6% 1.0%

Figure 13-4 Industrial Electricity Baseline Forecast by End Use 
Baseline Forecast 

13-8 www.enernoc.com 

Baseline Forecast Summary 

Table 4-1 and Figure 4-4 provide a summary of the baseline forecast for electricity by sector for 

the city of IPL. Overall, the forecast shows only a slight incline in electricity use, due to a 

challenging macroeconomic environment and codes and standards. 

Table 13-6 Electricity Baseline Forecast Summary (GWh) 

Sector 2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 % Change

Avg.

Growth

Rate

Residential 5,152 5,186 5,147 5,152 5,196 0.9% 0.1%

Commercial 3,599 3,498 3,519 3,561 3,611 0.3% 0.1%

Industrial 5,195 5,248 5,343 5,437 5,507 6.0% 1.0%

Total 13,946 13,932 14,010 14,150 14,315 2.6% 0.4%

Figure 13-5 Electricity Baseline Forecast Summary (GWh) 
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 14-1 

CHAPTER 14 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES 

List of Energy Efficiency Measures 

The first step of the energy efficiency measure analysis is to identify the list of all relevant 

energy efficiency measures that should be considered for the IPL potential assessment. 

For this study, EnerNOC prepared a preliminary list of measures for IPL staff and stakeholders to 

review. After incorporating feedback, we populated the full databases for the three sectors. 

Sources for the measure assumptions were drawn from past IPL program experience, EnerNOC’s 

building simulation tool (BEST), EnerNOC’s measure database (DEEM), TRM’s from neighboring 

states of Illinois and Ohio, the California DEER, NWPCC workbooks, other secondary sources, and 

other data from EnerNOC’s previous studies and program work.15

x Residential Measures. The residential measures span all end uses and vary significantly in 

the manner in which they impact energy consumption. All residential measures considered 

for this study are listed and described in Volume 3. 

x Commercial Measures. All commercial measures considered for this study are listed and 

described in Volume 3. 

x Industrial Measures. All industrial measures considered for this study are listed and 

described in Volume 3. 

Results of the Economic Screen 

Table 5-1 summarizes the number of equipment and non-equipment measures evaluated for 

each segment within each sector. 

Table 14-1 Number of Measures Evaluated 

Residential Commercial Industrial

Total Number

of Measures

Equipment Measures Evaluated 35 38 28 101

NonͲEquipment Measures Evaluated 45 81 69 195

Total Measures Evaluated 80 119 97 296

Volume 3 gives results for the economic screening process by segment, vintage, end use and 

measure for all sectors. 

 

15 The Indiana TRM being developed by the Indiana DSMCC EM&V subcommittee was not available at the time this study was being 

performed.

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 15-1 

CHAPTER 15 

ELECTRIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY – OVERALL RESULTS 

Table 6-1 and Figure 6-1 summarize the electric energy-efficiency savings for the different levels of 

potential relative to the baseline forecast. Figure 15-2 displays the electric energy-efficiency 

forecasts.

Table 15-1 Summary of Electric Energy Efficiency Potential 

 2014 2015 2016 2017

Baseline Forecast (GWh) 13,932 14,010 14,150 14,315

Cumulative Savings (GWh)

Achievable Low Potential 107 200 275 364

Achievable High Potential 244 441 582 741

Economic Potential 746 1,094 1,267 1,456

Technical Potential 984 1,428 1,692 1,980

Energy Savings (% of Baseline)

Achievable Low Potential 0.8% 1.4% 1.9% 2.5%

Achievable High Potential 1.8% 3.1% 4.1% 5.2%

Economic Potential 5.4% 7.8% 9.0% 10.2%

Technical Potential 7.1% 10.2% 12.0% 13.8%

Figure 15-1 Summary of Electric Energy Savings 
Electric Energy Efficiency – Overall Results 

15-2 www.enernoc.com 

Figure 15-2 Electric Potentials Forecasts (GWh) 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000 Energy Consumption (1,000 MWh)

Baseline Forecast

Achievable Potential Low

Achievable Potential High

Economic Potential

Technical Potential

Overview of Energy Efficiency Potential by Sector 

Table 6-2, Figure 15-3, and Figure 15-4 summarize the range of electric achievable potential by 

sector. The commercial sector accounts for the largest portion of the savings, followed by residential, 

and then industrial. 

Table 15-2 Electric Achievable Potential by Sector (GWh) 

 2014 2015 2016 2017

Achievable Low Savings (GWh)

Residential 36.9 75.5 95.7 114.8

Commercial 38.5 71.8 100.2 133.7

Industrial 31.2 52.4 79.4 115.5

Total 106.6 199.7 275.3 364.0

Achievable High Savings (GWh)

Residential 85.1 168.4 204.4 238.4

Commercial 88.2 158.3 212.5 272.0

Industrial 71.0 114.1 165.4 230.2

Total 244.3 440.8 582.3 740.6
Electric Energy Efficiency – Overall Results 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 15-3 

Figure 15-3 Achievable Low Electric Potential by Sector (GWh) 

Figure 15-4 Achievable High Electric Potential by Sector (GWh) 

Details for each sector are presented in the following chapter. 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 16-1 

CHAPTER 16 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL BY SECTOR 

This chapter presents the results of the energy efficiency analysis at the sector level. First, the 

residential potential is presented, followed by the commercial, and lastly, industrial. 

Residential Electricity Potential

Table 16-1 presents estimates for the four types of potential for the residential electricity sector. 

Figure 7-1 depicts these potential energy savings estimates graphically. 

x Achievable Low potential projects 37 GWh of energy savings in 2014, 0.7% of the 

baseline forecast. This increases to 115 GWh, 2.2% of the baseline forecast, in 2017. 

x Achievable High potential is 85 GWh in 2014, which represents 1.6% of the baseline 

forecast. By 2017, the cumulative energy savings are 238 GWh, 4.6% of the baseline 

forecast.

x Economic potential, which reflects a theoretical limit to savings when all cost-effective 

measures are taken, is 248 GWh in 2014. This represents 4.8% of the baseline energy 

forecast. By 2017, economic potential reaches 464 GWh, 8.9% of the baseline energy 

forecast.

x Technical potential, which reflects the adoption of all energy efficiency measures 

regardless of cost, is a theoretical upper bound on savings. In 2014, energy savings are 377 

GWh, or 7.3% of the baseline energy forecast. By 2017, technical potential reaches 769 

GWh, 14.8% of the baseline energy forecast. 

Table 16-1 Electricity Energy Efficiency Potential for the Residential Sector 

2014 2015 2016 2017

Baseline Forecast (GWh) 5,186 5,147 5,152 5,196

Energy Savings (GWh)

Achievable Low Potential 37 76 96 115

Achievable High Potential 85 168 204 238

Economic Potential 248 407 431 464

Technical Potential 377 600 678 769

Energy Savings (% of Baseline)

Achievable Low Potential 0.7% 1.5% 1.9% 2.2%

Achievable High Potential 1.6% 3.3% 4.0% 4.6%

Economic Potential 4.8% 7.9% 8.4% 8.9%

Technical Potential 7.3% 11.7% 13.2% 14.8%
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

16-2 www.enernoc.com 

Figure 16-1 Residential Electric Energy Efficiency Potential Savings 

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

2014 2015 2016 2017

Energy Savings(% of Baseline)

Achievable Potential Low

Achievable Potential High

Economic Potential

Technical Potential

Residential Electric Potential by Market Segment 

Single-family homes in IPL account for the majority of this sector’s total sales in the base year 

and throughout the forecast. Similarly, single-family homes account for the largest share of 

potential savings by segment, as displayed in Table 16-2, which shows results for 2017. 

Table 16-3 shows the Achievable Low savings by end use and market segment in 2017. Singlefamily homes have more exterior lighting and so have more savings potential for this end use. 

Table 16-2 Residential Electric Potential by Market Segment, 2017 

Single Family Multi Family

Baseline Forecast (GWh) 4,,214 983

Energy Savings (GWh)

Achievable Low Potential 94 21

Achievable High Potential 195 44

Economic Potential 379 85

Technical Potential 630 162

Energy Savings as % of Baseline

Achievable Low Potential 2.2% 2.1%

Achievable High Potential 4.6% 4.4%

Economic Potential 9.0% 8.6%

Technical Potential 15.0% 16.4%
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 16-3 

Table 16-3 Residential Electric Achievable Low Potential by End Use and Market Segment, 

2017(GWh) 

End Use Single Family Multi Family

Cooling 5.3 0.7

Heating 1.6 0.2

Water Heating 1.1 0.5

Interior Lighting 56.7 13.8

Exterior Lighting 8.1 1.4

Appliances 6.9 0.4

Electronics 14.1 3.9

Miscellaneous Ͳ Ͳ

Total 93.8 21.0
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

16-4 www.enernoc.com 

Residential Electric Potential by End Use 

Table 16-4 provides estimates of savings for each end use and type of potential. The most 

significant savings opportunities come from the lighting end use. 

Table 16-4 Residential Electric Savings by End Use and Potential Type (GWh) 

End Use Case 2014 2015 2016 2017

Achievable Low Potential 2.20 3.41 4.42 112.14

Achievable High Potential 5.00 7.40 9.21 112.31

Economic Potential 13.32 17.85 21.97 113.48 Cooling

Technical Potential 33.78 50.95 68.36 159.45

Achievable Low Potential 0.56 1.11 2.08 76.00

Achievable High Potential 3.35 4.96 7.40 76.00

Economic Potential 0.30 0.60 0.96 56.00 Heating

Technical Potential 5.46 7.60 9.74 65.14

Achievable Low Potential 1.59 2.19 3.04 56.15

Achievable High Potential 0.35 0.34 0.34 12.34

Economic Potential 1.53 1.53 1.53 13.52

Water Heating

Technical Potential 27.66 36.92 46.05 69.29

Achievable Low Potential 21.15 49.48 61.50 86.53

Achievable High Potential 49.11 110.73 131.45 162.67

Economic Potential 147.04 265.32 261.86 277.62

Interior Lighting

Technical Potential 170.00 305.14 307.07 330.99

Achievable Low Potential 15.97 21.59 23.22 37.51

Achievable High Potential 31.12 40.93 43.53 48.10

Economic Potential 17.36 30.45 28.78 33.14

Exterior Lighting

Technical Potential 21.64 38.23 37.37 42.06

Achievable Low Potential Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ 4.00

Achievable High Potential Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ 8.00

Economic Potential Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ 8.00 Appliances

Technical Potential 23.51 33.54 43.65 61.48

Achievable Potential Low 3.93 7.34 11.84 18.02

Achievable Potential High 9.11 16.50 25.89 38.22

Economic Potential 40.44 61.03 81.93 104.28

Electronics

Technical Potential 40.44 61.03 81.93 104.28

Achievable Low Potential Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ

Achievable High Potential Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ

Economic Potential Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Miscellaneous

Technical Potential 8.30 12.12 15.72 19.23

Achievable Low Potential 45.41 85.11 106.11 390.35

Achievable High Potential 98.04 180.86 217.82 457.65

Economic Potential 219.99 376.77 397.01 606.03

Total

Technical Potential 330.78 545.52 609.88 851.91

Figure 7-2 focuses on the residential achievable low potential in 2017. Lighting equipment 

replacement accounts for the highest portion of the savings in the near term as a result of the 

efficiency gap between CFL lamps and advanced incandescent lamps, even those that will meet 

the EISA 2007 standard. Electronics, cooling, and appliances also contribute significantly to the 
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 16-5 

savings. Detailed measure information is available in Volume 3 Appendices. The key measures 

comprising the potential are listed below: 

x Lighting: mostly CFL lamps and specialty bulbs 

x Electronics (reduce standby wattage, televisions, set top boxes, PCs) 

x Second refrigerator/ freezer removal 

x HVAC: Removal of second room AC unit, efficient air conditioners, ducting repair/sealing, 

insulation, home energy management system and programmable thermostats 

Figure 16-2 Residential Electric Achievable Low Potential by End Use in 2017 

Cooling

5%

Heating

2%

Water

Heating

1%

Interior

Lighting

Exterior 62%

Lighting

8%

Applianc

es

6%

Electroni

cs

16%

Misc.

0%
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

16-6 www.enernoc.com 

Commercial Electricity Potential 

The baseline forecast for the commercial sector only grows slightly, which reflects the sluggish 

near-term economy and forthcoming codes and standards. Nevertheless, the opportunity for 

energy-efficiency savings is still significant for the commercial sector. Table 16-5 presents 

estimates for the four types of potential for the residential electricity sector. Figure 7-3 depicts 

these potential energy savings estimates graphically. 

x Achievable Low potential projects 39 GWh of energy savings in 2014, 1.1% of the 

baseline forecast. The cumulative savings increase to 134 GWh, 3.7% of the baseline 

forecast, in 2017. 

x Achievable High potential is 88 GWh in 2014, which represents 2.5% of the baseline 

forecast. By 2017, the cumulative energy savings are 272 GWh, 7.5% of the baseline 

forecast.

x Economic potential, which reflects a theoretical limit to savings when all cost-effective 

measures are taken, is 271 GWh in 2014. This represents 7.7% of the baseline energy 

forecast. By 2017, cumulative economic potential reaches 533 GWh, 14.8% of the baseline 

energy forecast. 

x Technical potential, which reflects the adoption of all energy efficiency measures 

regardless of cost, is a theoretical upper bound on savings. In 2014, energy savings are 357 

GWh, or 10.2% of the baseline energy forecast. By 2017, technical potential reaches 697 

GWh, 19.3% of the baseline energy forecast. 

Table 16-5 Electricity Efficiency Potential for the Commercial Sector 

2014 2015 2016 2017

Baseline Forecast (GWh) 3,498 3,519 3,561 3,611

Savings (GWh)

Achievable Low Potential 39 72 100 134

Achievable High Potential 88 158 213 272

Economic Potential 271 386 460 533

Technical Potential 357 496 596 697

Savings (% of Baseline)

Achievable Low Potential 1.1% 2.0% 2.8% 3.7%

Achievable High Potential 2.5% 4.5% 6.0% 7.5%

Economic Potential 7.7% 11.0% 12.9% 14.8%

Technical Potential 10.2% 14.1% 16.7% 19.3%
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 16-7 

Figure 16-3 Commercial Energy Efficiency Potential Savings 
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

16-8 www.enernoc.com 

Commercial Electric Potential by Market Segment 

Table 16-6 shows potential estimates by building type segment in 2017. Retail has the largest 

achievable- low savings potential in 2017, followed by health, grocery, and large office. Table 16-

7 summarizes achievable potential for each segment and end use. 

Table 16-6 Commercial Electric Potential by Market Segment, 2017 

Small

Office Large Office Restaurant Retail Grocery College

Baseline Forecast 374 498 187 624 334 278

Energy Savings (GWh)

Achievable Low Potential 11 14 7 24 15 10

Achievable High Potential 23 29 14 49 31 21

Economic Potential 48 57 28 97 61 41

Technical Potential 73 77 35 134 79 53

Energy Savings (% of Baseline)

Achievable Low Potential 2.97% 2.87% 3.74% 3.87% 4.58% 3.68%

Achievable High Potential 6.14% 5.89% 7.59% 7.92% 9.15% 7.56%

Economic Potential 12.72% 11.42% 14.84% 15.55% 18.32% 14.79%

Technical Potential 19.42% 15.57% 18.90% 21.45% 23.66% 18.98%

School Health Lodging Warehouse Misc. Total

Baseline Forecast 267 549 73 223 202 3,611

Energy Savings (GWh)

Achievable Low Potential 11 17 3 11 9 134

Achievable High Potential 23 35 6 21 19 272

Economic Potential 43 70 11 42 36 533

Technical Potential 56 86 13 49 42 697

Energy Savings (% of Baseline)

Achievable Low Potential 4.27% 3.18% 3.98% 4.74% 4.53% 3.70%

Achievable High Potential 8.75% 6.42% 8.15% 9.56% 9.15% 7.53%

Economic Potential 15.92% 12.66% 14.64% 18.97% 17.84% 14.76%

Technical Potential 21.04% 15.63% 17.82% 21.79% 20.83% 19.31%
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 16-9 

Table 16-7 Commercial Electric Achievable Low Potential by End Use and Market Segment, 

2017 (GWh) 

Segment Cooling Space

Heating

Ventilatio

n

Water

Heat

Int.

Lighting

Ext.

Lighting Food Prep Refrigeration

Office

Equip Misc Total

Small Office 5.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 3.6 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 14.9

Large

Office 5.6 1.0 3.9 0.8 5.7 0.9 0.0 0.1 2.8 0.0 20.9

Restaurant 1.7 0.1 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.1 0.4 3.7 0.1 0.0 10.4

Retail 8.3 2.6 2.7 1.6 10.1 5.6 0.4 2.0 0.8 0.0 33.9

Grocery 3.9 1.5 1.6 0.6 2.9 0.8 0.9 14.1 0.1 0.0 26.4

College 3.0 0.7 2.2 0.8 5.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 14.3

School 2.1 0.5 1.9 0.6 7.4 1.1 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.0 15.2

Health 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.4 4.1 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.0 8.1

Lodging 1.7 1.4 1.1 0.2 7.2 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 13.2

Warehouse 2.3 0.9 1.3 0.5 4.4 2.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 12.8

Misc. 9.7 3.0 6.4 0.5 5.4 1.5 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 27.7

Total 45.0 12.9 23.1 7.3 58.0 17.3 2.2 23.8 8.4 0.1 197.9

Commercial Electric Potential by End Use 

Table 16-8 presents the commercial sector savings by end use and potential type. The end uses 

with the highest technical and economic potential are lighting, cooling, ventilation, and 

refrigeration. 

Figure 7-4 focuses on achievable potential savings by end use. Not surprisingly, interior lighting 

delivers the highest achievable savings throughout the study period. In 2017, Cooling is second, 

and exterior lighting is third. Regarding refrigeration, it is interesting to point out a relatively new 

control and sensing technology that vendors such as “eCube” are using to regulate the system 

energy. The technology consists of a solid, waxy food simulant that is fitted around a thermostat 

sensor that would otherwise measure air temperature. The refrigeration controls therefore 

attempt to regulate the temperature of food, which changes more slowly and gradually than air, 

thereby reducing the frequency of refrigeration on/off cycles. Refrigeration energy savings are 

then followed in descending order by cooling, ventilation, office equipment, and small amounts 

of the other end uses. 

Detailed measure information is available in the Volume 3 Appendices. The key measures 

comprising the potential are listed below: 

x Lighting – CFLs, LED lamps, linear fluorescent, daylighting controls, occupancy sensors, and 

HID lamps for exterior lighting 

x Energy management systems & programmable thermostats 

x Ventilation – variable speed control 

x Refrigeration – efficient equipment, control systems, decommissioning 

x Efficient office equipment – computers, servers 
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

16-10 www.enernoc.com 

Table 16-8 Commercial Potential by End Use and Potential Type (GWh) 

End Use Case 2014 2015 2016 2017

Achievable Potential Low 5 9 15 24

Achievable Potential High 11 19 31 47

Economic Potential 43 59 79 100 Cooling

Technical Potential 68 94 124 157

Achievable Potential Low 0 0 0 0

Achievable Potential High 0 0 0 0

Economic Potential 1 2 4 7 Heating

Technical Potential 4 7 11 16

Achievable Potential Low 13 19 25 32

Achievable Potential High 18 25 34 43

Economic Potential 6 9 12 15

Ventilation

Technical Potential 6 9 12 15

Achievable Potential Low 3 6 9 15

Achievable Potential High 7 12 20 30

Economic Potential 28 39 51 63

Water Heating

Technical Potential 33 45 58 72

Achievable Potential Low 14 27 32 35

Achievable Potential High 32 61 70 75

Economic Potential 86 134 143 148

Interior Lighting

Technical Potential 90 138 148 154

Achievable Potential Low 7 12 16 19

Achievable Potential High 14 24 30 35

Economic Potential 20 31 35 37

Exterior Lighting

Technical Potential 20 31 35 38

Achievable Potential Low 4 6 10 14

Achievable Potential High 9 13 20 27

Economic Potential 26 31 39 47 Refrigeration

Technical Potential 61 73 89 107

Achievable Potential Low 0 1 1 1

Achievable Potential High 1 1 2 3

Economic Potential 2 4 5 7

Food Preparation

Technical Potential 2 4 5 7

Achievable Potential Low 3 5 7 8

Achievable Potential High 6 11 15 17

Economic Potential 14 23 29 34

Office Equipment

Technical Potential 16 26 33 38

Achievable Potential Low 4 5 6 7

Achievable Potential High 8 10 13 16

Economic Potential 0 0 0 1

Miscellaneous

Technical Potential 0 0 0 1

Achievable Potential Low 53 88 120 155

Achievable Potential High 105 177 233 294

Economic Potential 227 333 397 460 Total

Technical Potential 300 428 516 604
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 16-11 

Figure 16-4 Commercial Achievable Low Potential Electricity Savings by End Use in 2017 

Cooling

18%

Heating

5%

Ventilation

9%

Water Heating

4%

Interior Lighting

36%

Exterior Lighting

11%

Refrigeration

10%

Food Preparation

1% Office

Equipment

6%

Miscellaneous

0%

Industrial Electricity Potential 

The IPL industrial sector accounts for 37% of total energy consumption, making for prime 

efficiency opportunities. Table 16-9 and Figure 7-5 present the savings for the various types of 

potential considered in this study. 

x Achievable Low potential projects 31 GWh of energy savings in 2014 and 116 GWh in 

2017. This corresponds to 0.6% of the baseline forecast in 2014 and 2.1% in 2017. 

x Achievable High potential is 71 GWh in 2014, which represents 1.4% of the baseline 

forecast. By 2017, the cumulative energy savings are 232 GWh, 4.2% of the baseline 

forecast.

x Economic potential, which reflects the savings when all cost-effective measures are taken, 

is 230 GWh in 2014. This represents 4.4% of the baseline energy forecast. By 2017, 

economic potential reaches 265 GWh, 8.4% of the baseline energy forecast. 

x Technical potential, which reflects the adoption of all energy efficiency measures 

regardless of cost, is a theoretical upper bound on savings. In 2014, energy savings are 249 

GWh, or 4.8% of the baseline energy forecast. By 2017, technical potential reaches 514 

GWh, 9.3% of the baseline energy forecast. 
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 16-12 

Table 16-9 Electric Efficiency Potential for the Industrial Sector 

2014 2015 2016 2017

Energy Forecasts (GWh) 5,248 5,343 5,437 5,507

Cumulative Energy Savings (GWh)

Achievable Low Potential 31 53 80 116

Achievable High Potential 71 115 166 232

Economic Potential 230 305 381 465

Technical Potential 249 332 418 514

Energy Savings (% of Baseline Forecast)

Achievable Low Potential 0.6% 1.0% 1.5% 2.1%

Achievable High Potential 1.4% 2.1% 3.1% 4.2%

Economic Potential 4.4% 5.7% 7.0% 8.4%

Technical Potential 4.8% 6.2% 7.7% 9.3%

Figure 16-5 Industrial Electric Potential Savings 
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 16-13 

Industrial Electric Potential by Market Segment 

Table 16-10 shows electric energy efficiency potential for the four industrial segments in 2017. 

Table 16-11 shows the Achievable Low savings by end use and market segment in 2017. 

Table 16-10 Industrial Electric Potential by Market Segment, 2017 

Chemical and

Pharmaceutical

Transportat

ion Food OtherIndustrial Total

Baseline Forecast (GWh) 1,222 798 651 2,837 5,507

Energy Savings (GWh)

Achievable Low Potential 24 14 13 65 116

Achievable High Potential 47 28 26 129 230

Economic Potential 88 58 49 264 459

Technical Potential 99 66 57 292 514

Energy Savings as % of Baseline

Achievable Low Potential 1.9% 1.8% 2.0% 2.3% 2.1%

Achievable High Potential 3.8% 3.6% 3.9% 4.6% 4.2%

Economic Potential 7.2% 7.3% 7.5% 9.3% 8.3%

Technical Potential 8.1% 8.3% 8.8% 10.3% 9.3%

Table 16-11 Industrial Electric Achievable Potential Low by End Use and Market Segment, 2017 

End Use Chemicals and

Pharmaceutical

Food

Products

Transportat

ion Other Industrial Grand Total

Cooling 1.20 0.81 2.46 11.04 15.51

Heating 0.27 0.18 0.55 2.47 3.46

Ventilation 0.17 0.11 0.34 1.54 2.16

Interior

Lighting 2.00 1.83 4.72 19.27 27.82

Exterior

Lighting 0.19 0.18 0.46 1.88 2.71

Motors 18.30 7.28 4.84 25.89 56.31

Process 1.55 2.46 0.87 2.67 7.54

Miscellaneous Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ

Grand Total 23.67 12.85 14.24 64.76 115.52

Industrial Electric Potential by End Use 

Table 16-12 provides estimates of savings for each end use and type of potential. Not 

surprisingly, the largest savings opportunities are found in motors and drives. 
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

16-14 www.enernoc.com 

Table 16-12 Industrial Electric Potential by End Use and Potential Type (GWh) 

End Use Potential 2014 2015 2016 2017

Achievable Low Potential 3.43 6.20 10.25 15.54

Achievable High Potential 7.79 13.46 21.31 30.90

Economic Potential 30.02 40.63 52.82 65.13 Cooling

Technical Potential 32.42 43.63 56.14 68.97

Achievable Low Potential 0.72 1.35 2.27 3.47

Achievable High Potential 1.64 2.93 4.70 6.90

Economic Potential 7.89 10.85 14.15 17.35 Heating

Technical Potential 8.99 12.23 15.85 19.36

Achievable Low Potential 0.49 0.95 1.51 2.16

Achievable High Potential 1.13 2.13 3.30 4.59

Economic Potential 9.58 15.03 20.08 24.67

Ventilation

Technical Potential 11.10 16.84 22.22 27.17

Achievable Low Potential 7.62 13.08 19.41 27.82

Achievable High Potential 17.46 28.79 40.71 55.86

Economic Potential 58.89 78.78 94.02 112.28

Interior Lighting

Technical Potential 63.14 84.13 100.89 120.87

Achievable Low Potential 1.40 2.19 2.51 2.71

Achievable High Potential 3.24 4.95 5.41 5.59

Economic Potential 7.88 10.19 9.61 9.23

Exterior Lighting

Technical Potential 9.11 11.88 12.05 12.68

Achievable Low Potential 16.48 26.42 39.46 56.95

Achievable High Potential 37.31 57.11 81.57 112.69

Economic Potential 105.30 134.67 169.43 208.31

Motors

Technical Potential 106.56 137.39 174.94 217.66

Achievable Low Potential 1.25 2.50 4.53 7.54

Achievable High Potential 2.84 5.42 9.42 15.04

Economic Potential 10.61 15.18 21.04 27.96

Process

Technical Potential 18.04 25.89 35.93 47.72

Achievable Low Potential Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ

Achievable High Potential Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ

Economic Potential Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Miscellaneous

Technical Potential Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ Ͳ

Achievable Low Potential 31.39 52.68 79.94 116.19

Achievable High Potential 71.41 114.78 166.42 231.57

Economic Potential 230.18 305.32 381.14 464.95

Total

Technical Potential 249.38 331.99 418.01 514.43

Figure 7-6 illustrates the achievable potential savings by electric end use in 2017 for the 

industrial sector. The largest shares of savings opportunities are in the motors and machine 

drives. Potential savings for straight equipment change-outs are diminishing due to the National 

Electrical Manufacturer’s Association (NEMA) standards, which now make premium efficiency 
Energy Efficiency Potential By Sector 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 16-15 

motors the baseline efficiency level. As a result, potential savings are incrementally small to 

upgrade to even more efficient levels. Many of the savings opportunities in this end use come 

from controls, timers, and variable speed drives, which improve system efficiencies where motors 

are utilized. 

Beyond the replacement of motors, there are large opportunities for savings in cooling, lighting, 

process, ventilation, and finally space heating. Detailed measure information is available in the 

Volume 3 Appendices. The key measures comprising the potential are listed below: 

x Motors – drives and controls 

x Process – timers and controls 

x Application optimization and control – fans, pumps, compressed air 

x Efficient high bay lighting 

x Efficient ventilation systems 

x Energy management systems & programmable thermostats 

Figure 16-6 Industrial Achievable Low Electricity Potential Savings by End Use in 2017 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 17-1 

CHAPTER 17 

ACTION PLAN 

The Action Plan is the heart of the study. This is where the multitude of measures from the 

potential analysis gets bundled into delivery mechanisms to take on the form of specific energy 

efficiency programs. Several changes occur in the translation from the market potential 

assessment to the program designs in the Action Plan, as the measure mix may change due to 

program delivery considerations. Table 8-1 below lists the distinct programs that emerge from 

this exercise to deliver an effective and balanced portfolio of energy savings opportunities across 

all customer segments. 

Table 17-1 Portfolio of Energy Efficiency Programs Included in Action Plan 

Residential Programs Commercial & Industrial Programs

Electric Prescriptive Rebate Prescriptive Rebate

Income Qualified Weatherization Schools Program

Residential New Construction Strategic Energy Management

Multi Family Direct Install Retrocommissioning

Home Energy Assessment Business & Multi Family New Construction

School Kit 

High Efficiency HVAC 

Appliance Recycling 

Behavioral Feedback Tools 

Programmatic Framework 

Each program contemplates and outlines a programmatic framework for administrators and 

implementers. The items considered and developed for this framework include those listed 

below. Detailed write-ups delve into the specific recommendations for each program in Volume 4 

of this report. 

x Target market 

x Implementation strategy, including delivery channels, marketing, education and outreach 

x Program issues, risks and risk management strategies 

x Eligible measures and incentives 

x Evaluation, measurement and verification requirements and guidance 

x Administrative requirements 

x Estimated participation 

x Program budget 

x Program energy savings and demand reduction 

x Cost effectiveness 

x Synergies with other utilities and agencies (e.g., joint delivery) 
Action Plan 

17-2 www.enernoc.com 

Indiana mandated efficiency targets dictate that regulated electric utilities should reach certain 

levels of savings by implementing a required set of programs, known as Core programs, and that 

they should make up any shortfall between the goals and the Core program savings with a 

flexible or optional set of Core Plus programs, which can be designed to suit each utility. These 

distinctions are outlined later in the program highlights and descriptions. 

A Note on Joint Delivery 

Simultaneously addressing electric and natural gas energy savings is the most efficient and costeffective way to run efficiency programs. Toward this end, the state of Indiana is employing the 

progressive and forward-thinking concept of a statewide Therm Bank, which provides a 

straightforward mechanism to deliver joint electric and natural gas programs. In this paradigm, 

the electric utilities are already running efficiency programs to comply with the state mandated 

targets. The natural gas utilities can participate and contribute to the energy savings without 

creating a duplicative, administrative cost structure simply by paying into the existing budget of 

the electric programs at an agreed-upon “dollars per therm saved” basis. The existing programs 

are expanded to include additional savings for both electric and natural gas measures, and the 

budgeted dollars stretch even further. 

We analyze the programs in this portfolio first with the assumption that IPL and Citizens are 

taking advantage of this Therm Bank joint delivery mechanism where applicable, and second 

with the assumption that the two utilities deliver portfolios completely independently. In the case 

of joint delivery, the assumed payment per therm saved is listed below in Table 17-2 

Table 17-2 Electric Joint Delivery Methodology 

Program $ paid perincremental

therm saved Notes

Res Electric Prescriptive Ͳ No gas savings in program

Res Natural Gas Prescriptive Ͳ Gas only, not jointly delivered

ResIncome Qualified Weatherization $3.01

Res New Construction $3.30

Res Multifamily DirectInstall $3.30

Res Home Energy Assessment $3.59

Res School Kit $2.13

Res High Efficiency HVAC $3.30

Res Appliance Recycling Ͳ No gas savings in program

Res Behavioral Feedback Tools $0.98

Bus Prescriptive $3.00

Bus Custom Incentives $3.30

Bus Schools Program $3.30

Bus Strategic Energy Management $1.63

Bus Retrocommissioning $3.30

Bus & Multifamily New Construction $3.30
Action Plan 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 17-3 

Program Plans 

After applying all the above delivery and cost structures, the recommended programs for the 

Action Plan resulted in estimated energy savings and budgets. This was the result of combining 

the Achievable High electric potentials for IPL with the Achievable Low natural gas potentials for 

Citizens. This enables IPL to better aim for its aggressive state targets and for the slightly 

smaller company Citizens to better align with its budget capabilities. 

Figure 8-1 shows the incremental energy savings achieved in each year of the study. 

Figure 17-1 Net Incremental Energy Savings (MWh) 

Ͳ

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2014 2015 2016 2017

Bus& MF NC

Bus RCx

Bus SEM

Bus Schools Program

Bus Custom Incentives

Bus Prescriptive

Res Behavioral Feedback Tools

Res Appliance Recycling

ResHigh Efficiency HVAC

Res School Kit

ResHEA

Res MF DirectInstall

ResNC

ResIQW

Res Elec Prescriptive
Action Plan 

17-4 www.enernoc.com 

Figure 8-2 below shows the annual budgets for the portfolio, first with the joint delivery structure 

described above and second with a completely independent delivery structure. This analysis 

assumes that the savings and portfolio would stay the same with joint delivery, but the budget 

would shrink by millions of dollars. Another possibility would be if the budget stayed the same 

and savings increased. Regardless, the ratio of savings to costs improves with joint delivery. 

Figure 17-2 Annual Utility Budgets 
Action Plan 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 17-5 Table 8-2 below shows the detailed annual savings and budgets for the jointly delivered portfolio. Table 8-3 shows the same for the 

independently delivered portfolio. Note that the only numbers in these two tables that are different are the budget numbers. 

Table 17-3 IPL Jointly Delivered Electric Energy Efficiency Portfolio Summary 

Total Utility Costs (000$) Total Incremental Energy Savings (MWh) Total Incremental Demand Savings (kW) Program

2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017

Res Electric Prescriptive 842 2,463 2,689 2,932 11,293* 47,775 46,756 48,131 742 3,277 3,234 3,369Res Income Qualified Weath. 873 1,141 1,144 1,150 1,627* 1,626 1,572 1,561 79 78 74 74Res New Construction 242 357 549 2,814 3,022 3,542 157 146 139Res Multifamily Direct Install 1,980 1,505 1,594 1,602 10,455 6,770 6,671 6,613 345 219 211 210Res Home Energy Assess. 489 1,231 1,235 1,242 5,000* 2,764 2,690 2,665 186 92 88 88Res School Kit 484 508 511 514 2,422* 2,441 2,361 2,333 74 72 68 67Res High Efficiency HVAC 77 91 107 120 16 18 19 24 23 25 28 34Res Appliance Recycling 914 1,013 1,112 1,211 4,119 4,404 4,674 4,933 1,369 1,521 1,673 1,825Res Behavioral Feedback Tools 795 1,125 1,318 1,318 50,348* 59,802 70,355 70,355 12,245 14,544 17,111 17,111Bus Prescriptive 9,165 2,713 3,206 3,658 78,642* 30,640 34,062 39,216 12,450 4,573 4,816 5,071Bus Custom Incentives 3,816 8,936 11,647 13,931 19,478 48,822 61,121 75,375 1,664 3,989 4,402 4,661Bus Schools Program 146 583 646 746 472 2,432 2,882 3,398 32 143 158 171Bus Strategic Energy Mgmt. 502 549 600 12,768 14,045 15,450 1,780 1,958 2,154Bus Retrocommissioning 670 878 1,167 624 816 1,056 1 1 1Bus & Multifamily New Constr. 247 357 500 950 1,313 1,643 316 372 378Residential Total: 6,455 9,320 10,066 10,636 85,280 128,414 138,120 140,156 15,063 19,985 22,632 22,916Business Total: 13,127 13,651 17,281 20,601 98,592 96,237 114,239 136,137 14,146 10,801 11,707 12,435Portfolio Total: 19,582 22,971 27,347 31,238 183,872 224,650 252,359 276,293 29,209 30,786 34,339 35,351*Asterisk in 2014 indicates already contracted amounts, with delivery subject to ultimate IPL and contractor arrangements.
Action Plan 

17-6 www.enernoc.com Table 17-4 IPL Independently Delivered Electric Energy Efficiency Portfolio Summary 

Total Utility Costs (000$) Total Incremental Energy Savings (MWh) Total Incremental Demand Savings (kW) Program

2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017

Res Electric Prescriptive 842 2,463 2,689 2,932 11,293* 47,775 46,756 48,131 742 3,277 3,234 3,369Res Income Qualified Weath. 1,672 2,243 2,246 2,252 1,627* 1,626 1,572 1,561 79 78 74 74Res New Construction 281 410 633 2,814 3,022 3,542 157 146 139Res Multifamily Direct Install 2,217 2,059 2,148 2,157 10,455 6,770 6,671 6,613 345 219 211 210Res Home Energy Assess. 751 2,056 2,060 2,067 5,000* 2,764 2,690 2,665 186 92 88 88Res School Kit 752 788 791 794 2,422* 2,441 2,361 2,333 74 72 68 67Res High Efficiency HVAC 135 165 197 222 16 18 19 24 23 25 28 34Res Appliance Recycling 914 1,013 1,112 1,211 4,119 4,404 4,674 4,933 1,369 1,521 1,673 1,825Res Behavioral Feedback Tools 1,215 1,725 2,023 2,023 50,348* 59,802 70,355 70,355 12,245 14,544 17,111 17,111Bus Prescriptive 9,537 3,020 3,554 4,055 78,642* 30,640 34,062 39,216 12,450 4,573 4,816 5,071Bus Custom Incentives 4,018 9,392 12,292 14,749 19,478 48,822 61,121 75,375 1,664 3,989 4,402 4,661Bus Schools Program 164 616 693 803 472 2,432 2,882 3,398 32 143 158 171Bus Strategic Energy Mgmt. 645 704 770 12,768 14,045 15,450 1,780 1,958 2,154Bus Retrocommissioning 715 956 1,283 624 816 1,056 1 1 1Bus & Multifamily New Constr. 330 500 738 950 1,313 1,643 316 372 378Residential Total: 8,498 12,794 13,676 14,290 85,280 128,414 138,120 140,156 15,063 19,985 22,632 22,916Business Total: 13,720 14,718 18,700 22,397 98,592 96,237 114,239 136,137 14,146 10,801 11,707 12,435Portfolio Total: 22,217 27,512 32,376 36,686 183,872 224,650 252,359 276,293 29,209 30,786 34,339 35,351*Asterisk in 2014 indicates already contracted amounts, with delivery subject to ultimate IPL and contractor arrangements.
Action Plan 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 17-7 

Below are summary highlights of the programs we recommend for delivery. As mentioned above, 

detailed write-ups are available in Volume 4 of this report. 

Residential Programs 

x Electric Prescriptive Rebate

This program emphasizes standardized rebates, and upstream buydowns, with a market 

transformation focus. The concentration will mainly be on CFL lighting. It should be 

noted that the number of general purpose bulbs decreases over the timeframe, due to 

lower savings, the increasing efficiency of the baseline technology due to the EISA 2007 

legislation, and increased market transformation. Meanwhile, the number of specialty 

bulbs delivered by the program increases over the same period, as these are not “general 

service bulbs” to which the EISA legislation is limited. 

The measure list expands in 2015 beyond simply lighting to include an electronics 

program, computers, TV’s, set-top boxes, ceiling fans, and Energy Star room air 

conditioners. 

The lighting portion of this program is a Core program, required by the Indiana Utility 

Regulatory Commission (IURC) generic order. Joint delivery is not an option for this 

program, as there are no savings in natural gas. 

x Income Qualified Weatherization 

This program provides education and a suite of electric and gas efficiency measures to 

help income qualified customers reduce their energy bills. These customers are defined 

as those living in geographic census blocks with an average household income at or 

below 200% of the federal poverty level. 

Full installation of measures is subsidized and provided to the residents, therefore full 

measure costs are used in the analysis rather than incremental measure costs. Program 

implementation costs include a blower door test. Coverage is targeted at 1,000 

households in 2013, ramping up to 4,000 households in 2017. Of these households, 80% 

are assumed to have gas heat and be involved in the natural gas program through the 

Therm Bank. 

Measures in this program are CFLs, low-flow water fixtures, and building shell infiltration 

control. Expanded “Plus” measures recommended for 2015 and beyond include 

insulation, programmable thermostats, duct repair & sealing, and whole-house fans. 

This particular program is not highly cost-effective, but consensus agreement around the 

nation is that this is OK for income-limited populations, as long as the overall portfolio is 

still cost-effective. 

This is a Core program and is a prime target for joint delivery. 

x Residential New Construction 

This program, starting in 2015, is designed to accelerate the incorporation of energy 

efficient design, construction, and operation in new residential buildings. It provides 

education and incentive payments to upstream designer-builders and owner-builders for 

installing high efficiency end-use equipment and building envelope measures. Under it, 

different “tiers” or “packages” of building performance receive tiered incentives. 

This is not a Core program. This program is a candidate for joint delivery. 

x Multi Family Direct Install 

This program provides targeted, highly cost-effective measures to multifamily households 

in a quickly deployable program delivery mechanism. These are often rental units with 

split-landlord-and-renter barrier, i.e., the owner of the equipment does not pay the 
Action Plan 

17-8 www.enernoc.com 

energy bills. It is therefore typically an underserved market with respect to energy 

efficiency programs and an important program to include in the portfolio. 

Measures in this program are CFLs, low-flow water fixtures, and building infiltration 

control. Full installation of measures is provided, therefore full measure costs are used 

rather than incremental measure costs. Expanded “Plus” measures in 2015 and beyond 

include insulation, programmable thermostats, duct repair & sealing, etc. delivered in 

follow-up touches by a network of qualified trade allies and contractors. These expanded 

measures would not be fully paid for, like the direct install measures, by the program. 

The initial target is 20,000 households in 2013 ramping down to avoid market saturation 

to 10,000 households in 2017. Of these households, 40% are assumed to have gas heat 

and be involved in the natural gas program through the Therm Bank. 

This is not a Core program; however it is eligible for joint delivery. 

x Home Energy Assessment 

This program provides education and a suite of electric and gas efficiency measures to 

help single family customers reduce their energy bills. 

Measures in this program are CFLs, low-flow water fixtures, and building infiltration 

control. Full installation of measures is provided, therefore full measure costs are used 

rather than incremental measure costs. The implementation cost in this case includes the 

cost of an optional blower door test if requested by the participant. Expanded “Plus” 

measures in 2015 and beyond include insulation, programmable thermostats, duct repair 

& sealing, etc, delivered in follow-up touches by a network of qualified trade allies and 

contractors. These expanded measures would not be fully paid for, like the direct install 

measures, by the program. 

The initial target is 20,000 households in 2013, ramping down to avoid market saturation 

to 5,000 households in 2017. Of these households, 60% are assumed to have gas heat 

and be involved in the natural gas program through the Therm Bank. 

This is a Core program, required by the IURC generic order, and is also a prime 

candidate for joint delivery. 

x School Kit 

Under this program, an educational module is provided to 5th graders, along with a takehome kit of energy efficiency measures (CFLs and low-flow water fixtures). A planned 

12,000 kits will be distributed in 2013, leveling off at 6,000 kits in future years through 

2017. Of these households, 60% are assumed to have gas heat and be involved in the 

natural gas program through the Therm Bank. 

This is a Core program required by the IURC generic order, and is eligible for joint 

delivery.

x High Efficiency HVAC 

This program is designed to provide energy savings through the replacement and 

installation of efficient heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. Stringent 

codes and standards make the cost-effectiveness of this program challenging. There is 

therefore a relatively small list of marginally passing measures, comprising Energy Star 

room air conditioners, efficient furnaces, and boilers. 

This program is not cost-effective on a standalone basis, and must be included in the 

portfolio view to merit its continuance. Earmarking part or all of these rebate funds for 

preferential access to income qualified participants is recommended. Income qualified 

households can have larger savings due to presence of very old equipment that does not 

get replaced regularly. Another possibility would be combining these measures into the 

Home Energy Assessment program as “Plus” measures. 
Action Plan 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 17-9 

This is not a Core program; however it is eligible for joint delivery. 

x Appliance Recycling 

This program pursues energy savings by offering a bounty payment to customers to 

remove their old, inefficient appliances from the grid and recycle them. It has the 

potential to deliver large savings available from cost-effective measures, most notably 

secondary refrigerators (3,000 to 5,000 units per year) and old room air conditioners 

(1,200 to 1,600 units per year). 

One concern with this program is the possibility that after program pick-up of their 

secondary refrigerator, residents might simply buy a new unit and move their former 

primary unit into the garage or basement to replace it. This is why the program is 

penalized with a challenging net-to-gross ratio. 

This is not a Core program, and is not eligible for joint delivery, as there are no 

associated gas savings.

x Behavioral Feedback Tools 

This program uses energy reports sent periodically to customers to give them selfawareness and a peer comparison of their energy usage. Social competitiveness effects 

increase efficient behaviors to reduce energy consumption. The model assumes 2% 

electric savings and 1% gas savings for single family households. 

This initiative was added at the program design stage, and was not included in our 

bottom-up, measure level potential analysis. This is due to the fact that it is not a 

specific action or piece of equipment, per se, as well as the fact that it does not go 

through the typical customer-choice model that other measures encounter. The program 

is simply delivered to as many participants as the planners desire, and produces a 

statistically measured energy reduction effect in a treatment group (vs. a control group 

that does not receive the program treatment). 

It should be monitored carefully, however, as it is a new and emerging opportunity. 

Relatively little is known about the specific actions that customers perform to reduce 

their energy usage in this program, and it may undergo meaningful change in customer 

responsiveness and evaluation paradigms in the coming years. 

In this case, measure life and persistence is a key issue: behavioral effects only continue 

while the reports are being provided, and measured effects decay over a period of 

several months after the reports stop coming. Therefore, savings must be continually 

renewed each year with additional cost and effort, whereas the savings from a capital 

equipment measure can last 10 to 20 years. This makes for relatively low-cost energy 

savings when considered on a first-year basis, but relatively high-cost energy savings on 

a lifetime or levelized cost basis. 

Implementation for the electric program is targeted at 150,000 households in 2014, 

ramping up to 250,000 households in 2017. Of these households, 60% are assumed to 

have gas heat and be involved in the natural gas program through the Therm Bank. 

This is not a Core program, but it is a prime candidate for joint delivery. 
Action Plan 

17-10 www.enernoc.com 

Commercial & Industrial Programs 

x Prescriptive Rebate 

This program is designed to help non-residential customers save energy through a broad 

range of EE options that address all major end uses and processes. It offers incentives to 

customers and engages equipment suppliers and contractors to promote the incentiveeligible equipment, focusing on standardized rebates, upstream buydowns, and market 

transformation.

Together with Bus Custom Incentives, this is where a bulk of program savings and dollars 

are focused. Business energy efficiency efforts are very project-centric, with many large 

projects participating in a hybrid of standard, prescriptive rebates and custom project 

incentives. Thus, delivery is integrated in many ways between the two programs. 

This is a Core program required by the IURC generic order, and is a prime candidate for 

joint delivery. 

x Custom Incentives 

This program is designed to help non-residential customers save energy through 

customizable projects that are too complex to fit in standard rebate offering. 

Together with Bus Prescriptive, this is where a bulk of program savings and dollars are 

focused. Business energy efficiency efforts are very project-centric, with many large 

projects participating in a hybrid of standard, prescriptive rebates and custom project 

incentives. Thus, delivery is integrated in many ways between the two programs. 

Current incentive caps of $25,000 per project significantly limit savings and participation 

in this program. Our recommendation is to remove or expand those caps and open up 

the vast opportunities of the Custom program for future years. 

This is not a Core program, but is a prime candidate for joint delivery. 

x Schools Program 

This program is essentially a combination of the Business Prescriptive and Custom 

Incentives programs that is targeted toward public schools. It offers an audit and 

assessment, followed by the opportunity to install efficiency measures for school 

buildings. 

It is a Core program and a good candidate for joint delivery. 

x Strategic Energy Management 

SEM involves energy education, advising, and coaching for non-residential customers to 

drive behavioral change and transformation of company culture toward improved energy 

efficiency and utilization. This means the appointment of energy liaisons and teams 

within participating organizations who will regularly correspond with program 

representatives. Institutionalizing internal policies and practices this way creates longerlasting behavioral-based savings than residential behavioral programs. 

The program is planned to begin in 2015. It is not a Core program, but is a prime 

candidate for joint delivery. 

x Retrocommissioning 

This program involves the initial, periodic, or continual monitoring and commissioning of 

building energy systems such as heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting in order to 

optimize energy consumption relative to actual building usage. 

This program is not cost-effective on a standalone basis, and must be included in the 

portfolio view to merit its continuance. While it does not show as cost effective with the 
Action Plan 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 17-11 

particular, conservative assumptions we have included in this analysis, there are many 

incarnations of this program and it is worth investigating further. Specific customer types 

like offices, hospitals, and universities can be more cost effective than others. One can 

also consider combining this offering with the Strategic Energy Management program. 

The program is planned to begin in 2015. It is not a Core program, but is a prime 

candidate for joint delivery. 

x Business & Multi Family New Construction 

This program, starting in 2015, is designed to accelerate the incorporation of energy 

efficient design, construction, and operation in new business and multi family residential 

buildings. It provides education and incentive payments to upstream designer-builders 

and owner-builders for installing high efficiency end-use equipment and building 

envelope measures. Under it, different “tiers” or “packages” of building performance 

receive tiered incentives. 

This is a very relevant addition to this portfolio, especially considering the multi-unit, 

multi-family buildings and complexes that are so prevalent in the Indianapolis 

metropolitan area. This is a somewhat hybrid market, containing many aspects of both 

residential and commercial construction, and would benefit from a specialized program 

targeting the particular market needs. 

The program is not a Core program, but is a prime candidate for joint delivery. 
Action Plan 

17-12 www.enernoc.com 

Cost Effectiveness 

Given savings and budgets, we can perform the industry standard cost-effectiveness tests to 

gauge the economic merits of the portfolio. Each test compares the benefits of the EE programs 

to their costs with its own unique perspectives and definitions, all defined in terms of net present 

value of future cash flows. The definitions for the four standard tests most commonly used by 

program designers are described below. 

x Total Resource Cost test (TRC). The benefits in this test are the lifetime avoided energy 

costs and avoided capacity costs. The costs in this test are the incremental measure costs 

plus all administrative costs spent by the program administrator. 

x Utility Cost Test (UCT). The benefits in this test are the lifetime avoided energy costs and 

avoided capacity costs, the same as the TRC benefits. The costs in this test are the program 

administrator’s incentive costs and administrative costs. 

x Participant Cost Test (PCT). The benefits in this test are the lifetime value of retail rate 

savings (which is another way of saying “lost utility revenues”). The costs in this test are 

those seen by the participant; in other words: the incremental measure costs minus the 

value of incentives paid out.

x Rate Impact Measure test (RIM). The benefits of the RIM test are the same as the TRC 

benefits. The RIM costs are the same as the UCT, except for the addition of lost revenue. 

This test attempts to show the effects that EE programs will have on rates, which is almost 

always to raise them on a per unit basis. Thus, costs typically outweigh benefits from the 

point of view of this test, but the assumption is that absolute energy use decreases to a 

greater extent than per-unit rates are increased — resulting in lower average utility bills. 

The cost effectiveness results for the relevant combinations of program delivery are presented 

below in the tables. Table 8-4 shows the cost effectiveness for the combined electric and gas 

portfolio, jointly delivered, with an overall TRC of 1.30. The IPL share of this combined portfolio 

is shown in Table 8-5 with a TRC ratio of 1.41. 

However, with independent delivery of the same portfolio, IPL would have to spend more money 

to make up for the funds not received from Citizens through the Therm Bank, dropping the TRC 

ratio for IPL’s share of the same portfolio from 1.41 to 1.31 in Table 8-6. 

Table 17-5 Combined Joint Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary 

TRC Ratio TRC Benefits TRC Costs UCTRatio PCTRatio RIM Ratio

Res Electric Prescriptive 2.27 $30,853,832 $13,610,048 4.19 6.21 0.67

Res Natural Gas Prescriptive 0.25 $438,638 $1,738,384 0.46 0.89 0.27

ResIncome Qualified Weath. 0.83 $4,561,673 $5,518,880 0.83 Ͳ 0.36

Res New Construction 1.10 $2,322,318 $2,119,004 2.18 2.98 0.55

Res Multifamily DirectInstall 1.33 $11,779,567 $8,888,704 1.33 Ͳ 0.45

Res Home Energy Assessment 1.05 $7,360,654 $6,993,763 1.05 Ͳ 0.40

Res School Kit 1.62 $4,805,987 $2,969,344 1.62 Ͳ 0.46

Res High Efficiency HVAC 0.39 $427,159 $1,102,367 0.83 1.01 0.38

Res Appliance Recycling 1.09 $3,880,022 $3,553,543 1.09 Ͳ 0.55

Res Behavioral Feedback Tools 1.50 $11,443,914 $7,654,527 1.50 Ͳ 0.52

Bus Prescriptive 1.52 $76,617,536 $50,355,263 3.38 3.14 0.70

Bus Custom Incentives 1.13 $81,173,354 $71,811,650 2.32 2.78 0.59

Bus Schools Program 0.75 $3,516,008 $4,716,325 1.62 1.82 0.52

Bus Strategic Energy Management 2.21 $5,820,021 $2,634,151 2.21 Ͳ 0.58

Bus Retrocommissioning 0.23 $1,120,531 $4,958,245 0.49 0.60 0.29

Bus & Multifamily New Construction 1.02 $3,025,404 $2,976,909 2.30 1.93 0.67

PortfolioTotal: 1.30 $249,146,617 $191,601,106 2.23 3.89 0.59
Action Plan 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 17-13 

Table 17-6 IPL Joint Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary 

TRC Ratio TRC Benefits TRC Costs UCTRatio PCTRatio RIM Ratio

Res Electric Prescriptive 2.27 $30,853,832 $13,610,048 4.19 6.21 0.67

Res Natural Gas Prescriptive Ͳ $0 $0 ͲͲͲ

ResIncome Qualified Weath. 0.39 $1,413,779 $3,605,943 0.39 Ͳ 0.26

Res New Construction 1.12 $2,065,152 $1,842,263 2.22 2.99 0.56

Res Multifamily DirectInstall 1.28 $7,197,619 $5,641,217 1.28 Ͳ 0.47

Res Home Energy Assessment 0.86 $3,009,656 $3,482,072 0.86 Ͳ 0.40

Res School Kit 1.32 $2,238,659 $1,694,851 1.32 Ͳ 0.47

Res High Efficiency HVAC 0.11 $77,170 $698,499 0.23 0.08 0.21

Res Appliance Recycling 1.09 $3,880,022 $3,553,543 1.09 Ͳ 0.55

Res Behavioral Feedback Tools 2.45 $9,304,418 $3,793,662 2.45 Ͳ 0.65

Bus Prescriptive 1.87 $66,350,607 $35,571,905 4.12 3.61 0.77

Bus Custom Incentives 1.17 $75,361,496 $64,598,188 2.39 2.82 0.60

Bus Schools Program 0.79 $3,006,766 $3,801,447 1.72 1.84 0.54

Bus Strategic Energy Management 3.42 $4,619,086 $1,349,190 3.42 Ͳ 0.70

Bus Retrocommissioning 0.19 $909,968 $4,779,078 0.41 0.50 0.26

Bus & Multifamily New Construction 0.99 $1,999,205 $2,019,684 2.23 1.51 0.77

PortfolioTotal: 1.41 $212,287,436 $150,041,589 2.52 3.80 0.64

Table 17-7 IPL Independent Delivery-Cost effectiveness summary 

TRC Ratio TRC Benefits TRC Costs UCTRatio PCTRatio RIM Ratio

Res Electric Prescriptive 2.27 $30,853,832 $13,610,048 4.19 6.21 0.67

Res Natural Gas Prescriptive Ͳ $0 $0 ͲͲͲ

ResIncome Qualified Weath. 0.53 $1,413,779 $2,643,359 0.53 Ͳ 0.31

Res New Construction 1.27 $2,065,152 $1,628,402 2.41 3.54 0.58

Res Multifamily DirectInstall 1.18 $7,197,619 $6,101,687 1.18 Ͳ 0.45

Res Home Energy Assessment 0.90 $3,009,656 $3,332,414 0.90 Ͳ 0.41

Res School Kit 1.15 $2,238,659 $1,939,556 1.15 Ͳ 0.45

Res High Efficiency HVAC 0.62 $77,170 $124,326 0.74 1.55 0.57

Res Appliance Recycling 1.09 $3,880,022 $3,553,543 1.09 Ͳ 0.55

Res Behavioral Feedback Tools 1.24 $9,304,418 $7,503,220 1.24 Ͳ 0.52

Bus Prescriptive 1.55 $66,350,607 $42,697,720 3.39 3.04 0.74

Bus Custom Incentives 1.13 $75,361,496 $66,534,299 2.29 2.77 0.60

Bus Schools Program 0.69 $3,006,766 $4,373,562 1.50 1.60 0.52

Bus Strategic Energy Management 1.75 $4,619,086 $2,636,901 1.75 Ͳ 0.59

Bus Retrocommissioning 0.21 $909,968 $4,260,428 0.46 0.56 0.28

Bus & Multifamily New Construction 1.36 $1,999,205 $1,471,343 2.84 2.20 0.83

PortfolioTotal: 1.31 $212,287,436 $162,410,808 2.28 3.61 0.62

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 18-1 

CHAPTER 18 

ALTERNATE AVOIDED COST SCENARIO 

To observe the sensitivity of study results to changes in forecast avoided energy and capacity 

costs, we ran several scenarios in our LoadMAP potential models. All other variables were held 

constant while the results were re-run. No avoided cost scenarios other than the Base Case were 

passed on to program design and action plans, so these only serve as indicative scenarios to 

show how program potential may be affected by variations in avoided cost. 

High Gas Price

The first scenario anticipates the effect of high natural gas commodity prices on electric markets 

and demand. In this scenario, the avoided energy cost increases by an average of 31% in all 

years as compared to the Base Case. Avoided capacity costs remain the same. A new subset of 

marginally cost-effective measures therefore pass the economic screen and migrate from 

technical potential into economic and achievable potential, increasing the savings by a small 

amount. The electric achievable low potential in 2017, for instance, only increases from 364 GWh 

to 372 GWh, a change of 2.22%. See Table 18-1 below. 

Table 18-1 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, 2017 Achievable Low Potential (GWh savings) 

Sector

Base Case:

Primary EnerNOC Analysis

Alternate Case: High Gas Delta

Residential 114.8 115.3 0.43%

Commercial 133.7 137.0 2.51%

Industrial 115.5 119.7 3.65%

Total 364.0 372.0 2.22%

Low Gas Price

The second scenario contemplates the effect of very low gas prices, an average reduction of 

30% versus the avoided energy costs in the Base Case. Avoided capacity costs remain the same. 

This combination intuitively has the opposite effect of the High Gas Price scenario; causing fewer 

measures to pass and a slightly lower achievable potential. The electric achievable low potential 

decreases from 364 GWh to 357.5 GWh in 2017, a change of -1.78%. See Table 18-2 below. 

Table 18-2 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, 2017 Achievable Low Potential (GWh savings) 

Sector

Base Case:

Primary EnerNOC Analysis

Alternate Case: Low Gas Delta

Residential 114.8 114.5 Ͳ0.22%

Commercial 133.7 128.2 Ͳ4.12%

Industrial 115.5 114.8 Ͳ0.60%

Total 364.0 357.5 Ͳ1.78%
Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 18-2 

CO2 Legislation 

The third scenario anticipates the effect of a carbon tax enacted after 2020. In this scenario, 

avoided capacity costs again remain the same, but avoided energy costs increase significantly 

starting after 2020 for an overall average increase of 24%. The electric achievable low potential 

in 2017 increases in this case from 364 GWh to 366.8 GWh, a difference of only 0.77%, as 

shown in Table 18-3. 

Table 18-3 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, 2017 Achievable Low Potential (GWh savings) 

Sector

Base Case:

Primary EnerNOC Analysis

Alternate Case: CO2 Delta

Residential 114.8 115.0 0.20%

Commercial 133.7 134.2 0.38%

Industrial 115.5 117.6 1.79%

Total 364.0 366.8 0.77%

New Build of CCGT

The third scenario considers what might happen if, instead of buying incremental electric 

capacity from the market, IPL were to build a new Combined Cycle Generating Turbine to meet 

capacity shortfalls. In this scenario, the avoided cost of energy actually decreases by an average 

of 17%, while the avoided cost of capacity increases by 60% to account for the new generation 

plant. There is a slight uptick in potentials, but most pronounced in the residential sector, as 

these customers have the lowest load factors and are the most peak-coincident, thereby making 

their capacity-saving measures more valuable. The electric achievable low potential in 2017 

increased in this case from 364 GWh to 367.4 GWh, an increase of only 0.95%. See Table 18-4. 

Table 18-4 Alternate Avoided Cost Scenario, 2017 Achievable Low Potential (GWh savings) 

Sector

Base Case:

Primary EnerNOC Analysis

Alternate Case: CCTG Delta

Residential 114.8 117.7 2.53%

Commercial 133.7 133.7 0.00%

Industrial 115.5 116.1 0.47%

Total 364.0 367.4 0.95%

These results indicate that, for the various avoided cost scenarios (differing from the Base Case 

avoided costs value by an approximate range of plus or minus 30%), the energy efficiency potential 

changes are in an absolute range of less than 3%. Therefore, one can say that the potential is 

affected by, but relatively insulated from swings in avoided costs. 
EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting A-1

CHAPTER 19 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The results of this study reveal that significant energy efficiency opportunities exist for IPL in the 

Indianapolis metro area, despite a challenging macroeconomic environment and aggressive 

appliance and efficiency standards. 

Our program analysis shows that IPL can achieve incremental electric energy savings of 183,872 

MWh in 2014, increasing to 276,359 MWh in 2017, by implementing the programs and measures 

presented in this report. This assumes the highest levels of program participation and realization 

developed from our range of achievable potential in the market potential assessment. 

IPL’s energy-efficiency programs are relatively young compared to other programs in the nation, 

but have made significant impacts already and are building appreciable market momentum. 

Based on our market potential assessment and program design analysis, EnerNOC provides the 

following high-level recommendations for the portfolio. We fully expect that IPL, the 

stakeholders, and the implementers will consider the plans and recommendations in this report 

now, at the outset of the forthcoming implementation cycle; and that they will adopt the 

elements that are appropriate, adjust the elements that fit differently when translated into the 

trenches and front lines of program delivery, and continue to revisit the report as a reference 

throughout the next years as situations and markets continue to change and evolve. 

General Recommendations

x Deliver electric and natural gas programs jointly when possible: Indiana’s concept of 

a statewide Therm Bank provides an excellent platform to deliver joint electric and natural 

gas programs on a straightforward and highly cost-effective basis. In this paradigm, IPL 

would bolster their programs with measures that achieve natural gas savings as well as 

electric savings. In return, IPL would receive payments on an agreed-upon “dollars per therm 

saved” basis from Citizens. Meanwhile, Citizens would be empowered to participate and 

contribute to the energy savings without creating a duplicative, administrative cost structure. 

We estimated budgets and delivery structures for programs delivered both jointly and 

independently, and joint delivery results in cost savings of $21 million through 2017, 

increasing cost effectiveness of the portfolio by 8% versus independent delivery. 

x Increase focus on non-residential programs: Our study shows that a large portion of 

the program savings from energy efficiency efforts will come from the commercial and 

industrial sectors. Historically, the majority of IPL budgets and savings have been focused on 

residential programs. IPL should consider increasing program efforts in the C&I sectors, not 

only to harvest larger EE savings, but to increase business competitiveness and decrease 

operating costs for customers. Additionally, these sectors offer larger projects, which can be 

attained and bundled more readily and efficiently. 

x Continued collaboration among stakeholders: The discourse and information sharing 

between stakeholders, utilities, and EnerNOC on this study has been effective and 

transparent. Continuing this trend is of paramount importance to the future success of 

programs. It is essential to cultivate a mutual understanding of the dynamic nature of the 

energy efficiency industry due to its intrinsic linkage with human behavior and the customer 

mind. Ongoing interactions should be marked by an understanding of collaboration, 

flexibility, and continuous improvement. 
Residential Recommendations 

x Focus on lighting: The largest share of achievable energy efficiency potential in the 

residential sector continues to come from CFLs. This is in spite of the forthcoming EISA 

standards that will reduce their per-unit savings compared to the new baseline. Also, IPL 

should focus strong attention on specialty lamps, as they are not affected by the EISA 

standard.

x Implement and monitor behavioral feedback programs: The behavioral modification 

program to be implemented by OPower is shown in the program plans to comprise a full 27% 

of IPL’s portfolio savings. For both IPL and Citizens, this is an excellent opportunity, as it 

lends itself well to joint electric and natural gas delivery. This initiative was added at the 

program design stage, and was not included in our bottom-up, measure level potential 

analysis. This is due to the fact that it is not a specific action or piece of equipment, per se, 

as well as the fact that it does not go through the typical customer-choice model that other 

measures encounter. The program is simply delivered to as many participants as the 

planners desire, and produces a statistically measured energy reduction effect in a treatment 

group (vs. a control group that does not receive the program treatment). It should be 

monitored carefully, however, as it is a new and emerging opportunity. Relatively little is 

known about the specific actions that customers perform to reduce their energy usage in this 

program, and it may undergo meaningful change in customer responsiveness and evaluation 

paradigms in the coming years. Additionally, savings under this program will not persist after 

the program is ended, and must be continually renewed each year with additional cost and 

effort, whereas the savings from a capital equipment measure can last 10 to 20 years. This 

makes for relatively low-cost energy savings when considered on a first-year basis, but 

relatively high-cost energy savings on a lifetime or levelized cost basis. 

x Develop deeper, follow-on measures in existing programs: Some current IPL program 

delivery structures are pursuing low-cost measures through high volumes of rapid customer 

touches, such as the multifamily direct install program. We have recommended the addition 

of more deep, involved measures in 2015 and beyond to capitalize on customer touches as 

much as possible. While you are in the home of a customer, it makes better sense to crosssell these other measures and harvest as many energy savings as you can. This would 

include major equipment replacements and shell measures such as duct sealing and 

insulation.

x Consider social media avenues for targeted program delivery: As internet social 

media paradigms become the norm in today’s wired society, companies like Groupon, 

Amazon Local Deals, and Living Social have assembled a nationwide network of businesses 

into a well-oiled, rebate-issuing machine. IPL should consider if there are opportunities to 

link their energy efficiency trade ally network to one of these companies to facilitate the 

target marketing, processing, and delivery of rebates. These vendors have sophisticated 

tracking systems and databases that may facilitate EM&V reporting on the back end as well. 

Commercial & Industrial Recommendations 

x Aggressively pursue lighting savings: The commercial sector in particular has significant 

savings potential in lighting equipment, both interior and exterior. Notably, LED lamps are 

showing as cost effective in the commercial sector due to aggressive forecasts of cost 

reductions, as well as higher hours of operation than their non-economic counterparts in 

residential settings. Savings are also available through occupancy sensors, timers, and 

energy management systems. IPL should strongly pursue lighting savings to accelerate the 

phase out of T12 fluorescent lighting. In particular, program efforts can help intercept 

building operators before they make purchase and stocking decisions that could lead to the 

hoarding of T12 lamps. 

x Focus industrial program efforts on motor controls and system optimizations: The 

savings for the industrial sector are all about control and optimization of motors and 
processes. Low-cost retrofits can often have significant energy impacts with minimal 

disruption of (and often times improvement of) business processes.

x Target niches with segment specific programs: There are specific business segments 

that offer considerable savings potential, but will not typically be reached by standard 

rebates and generic business programs. Consider initiating specifically targeted sub-programs 

within business standard and custom for areas such as: hotels and lodging, food preparation 

equipment in restaurants, and refrigeration equipment in grocery stores.

x Implement new programs: We have identified additional programs that show promise to 

expand IPL’s portfolio of programs to address Indiana’s aggressive statewide savings goals. 

These programs are as follows: 

1. Strategic Energy Management. For large customers, SEM initiatives can deliver 

substantial savings over long time horizons. This means coming alongside the larger 

customers to create a customized, multi-year plan, identify metrics, set goals, and 

provide technical assistance and attention from dedicated account executives or 

energy coaches.

2. Retro-commissioning. This program involves the initial, periodic, or continual 

monitoring and commissioning of building energy systems such as heating, cooling, 

ventilation, and lighting in order to optimize energy consumption relative to actual 

building usage. 

3. Residential, Business, and Multifamily New Construction. A program to encourage 

more rapid adoption of efficient building design practices would be a very relevant 

addition to the IPL portfolio, especially one that includes the types of multi-unit, 

multi-family buildings and complexes that are so prevalent in the Indianapolis 

metropolitan area. This is a somewhat hybrid market, containing many aspects of 

both residential and commercial construction, and would benefit from a specialized 

program targeting the particular market needs. 
About EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting is part of EnerNOC Utility Solutions group, which 

provides a comprehensive suite of demand-side management (DSM) services to 

utilities and grid operators worldwide. Hundreds of utilities have leveraged our 

technology, our people, and our proven processes to make their energy efficiency 

(EE) and demand response (DR) initiatives a success. Utilities trust EnerNOC to work 

with them at every stage of the DSM program lifecycle – assessing market potential, 

designing effective programs, implementing those programs, and measuring program 

results. 

EnerNOC Utility Solutions delivers value to our utility clients through two separate 

practice areas – Program Implementation and EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting. 

• Our Program Implementation team leverages EnerNOC’s deep “behind-the-meter 

expertise” and world-class technology platform to help utilities create and 

manage DR and EE programs that deliver reliable and cost-effective energy 

savings. We focus exclusively on the commercial and industrial (C&I) customer 

segments, with a track record of successful partnerships that spans more than a 

decade. Through a focus on high quality, measurable savings, EnerNOC has 

successfully delivered hundreds of thousands of MWh of energy efficiency for 

our utility clients, and we have thousands of MW of demand response capacity 

under management. 

• The EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting team provides expertise and analysis 

to support a broad range of utility DSM activities, including: potential 

assessments; end-use forecasts; integrated resource planning; EE, DR, and 

smart grid pilot and program design and administration; load research; 

technology assessments and demonstrations; evaluation, measurement and 

verification; and regulatory support. 

The EnerNOC Utility Solutions Consulting team has decades of combined experience 

in the utility DSM industry. The staff is comprised of professional electrical, 

mechanical, chemical, civil, industrial, and environmental engineers as well as 

economists, business planners, project managers, market researchers, load research 

professionals, and statisticians. Utilities view our experts as trusted advisors, and we 

work together collaboratively to make any DSM initiative a success.