Richar

dG
. Webster , Jr
. Vic e Presiden t Rcfjulator y Polic y ari d Slratey y PEC O 230 1 Marke t St reel
. S1 5 Philadelphia , P

A njio- ? Telephon e 215.841.400 0 t:x t 577 7 Fa x215.841.620 8 www.peco.cor n dick.websterffppeoo-eneujy.cn m A n Exelo n Compan y

Novembe r15 , 201 3

Rosemar y Chiavetta , Secretar

y Pennsylvani a Publi c Utilit y Commissio n Commonwealt h Keyston e Buildin g 40 0 Nort h Stree t Secon d Floo r Harrisburg , Pennsylvani a 1712 0 Re : PU C Docke t No . M-2008-206988 7 Energ y Efficienc y an d Conservatio n Progra m Fina l Annua l Repor t Jun e 1 , 201 2 throug h Ma y 31 , 201 3 Dea rSecretar

y Chiavetta : I n accordanc e wit h th e Commission' s Secretaria l Lette rdate d Ma y 25 , 2011 , enclose d i s PECO' s 201 3 Fina l Annua l Energ y Efficienc y & Conservatio n Report fo rth e progra m yea ro f Jun e 1 , 201 2 throug h Ma y 31 , 2013
. PEC O i s providin g a cop y ofth e report t o th e Ac t 12 9 Statewid e Evaluato r(GD S Associates , Inc. ) an d i s als o postin g th e report o n th e PEC O website
. Pleas e acknowledg e receip t o f th e foregoin g o n th e enclose d cop y o f thi s letter
. I f yo u hav e an y furthe rquestion s regardin g thi s matter , pleas e cal l m e a t 215-841-5777
. " Sincerely ,

cc : C

. Walker-Davis , Director , Offic e o f Specia l Assistant s P
. T
. Diskin , Director , Burea u o f Technica l Utilit y Service s D
. P
. Hosier , Director , Burea u o f Audit s J
. E
. Simms , Director , Burea u o f Investigatio n & Enforcemen t Offic e o f Consume rAdvocat e Offic e o f Smal l Busines s Advocat e McNees , Wallac e & Nuric k 

# RECEIVE D NO V 

## 1 5 201 3 P A PUBLI C UTILITY COMMISSIO N SECRETARY' S BUREA U enclosure s

# Fina l Annua l Repor tfo r th e Pennsylvani a Publi c Utility Commissio n

Forth e Perio d Jun e 201 2 throug h Ma y 201 3 Progra m Yea r4

Fo r Pennsylvani aAc t

12 9 o f 200 8 Energy Efficienc y andConservatio n Pla n

Prepare d b y Navigan t

Consulting , Inc
. For PEC O Energ y Compan y Novembe r

15 , 201 3

## Tabl e o f Content s ACRONYM S V H REPOR T DEFINITION S X 1 OVERVIE

W OFPORTFOLI O 1
1. 1 SUMMARYOI ; PROCRKSSTOWARDCOMPUANCI;TARCI-:T S 2 1. 2 SUMMAR Y OI- ' ENKRG Y IMPACT S 1 0 1.3 SUMMAR Y OFFUJ-J , SWITCHIN G IMPACT S 1 6 1.4 SUMMAR Y O F DKMAN D IMPACT S 1 7 1.5R!-:CONCII.lATiO N WIT I I PRIO R ANNUA L RliPORT S 2 7 1. 6 SUMMAR Y O P PY 4 NPT-TO-GROS S RATIO S 3 3 1. 7 SUMMAR Y O P PORTI-OLI O FINANCE S AN D COST-EFFPCTIVI-NPS S 3 3 1. 8 SUMMARYorCosr-EimrnviwHs s K Y PROGRA M 3 6 2 SMAR

T LIGHTIN G DISCOUNT S 39
2. 1 PROGRA M UPDATP S 39 2. 2 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N GROS S SAVING S 39 2. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N NH T SAVING S 46 2. 4 PROCLS S EVALUATIO N 47 2. 5 FINANCIA L RI-PORTIN G 49 3 SMAR

T APPLIANC E RECYCLING 5 2
3.1 PROGRAM

UPDATES

52 3. 2 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N GROS S SAVING S 52 3. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N NF. T SAVING S 5 6 3. 4 PROCHS S EVALUATIO N 5 9 3. 5 FINANCIA L RUPORTIN G 62
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Page i i4 SMAR T HOM E REBATE S 6 4
4. 1 PROGRA M UPDATE S 6 4 4. 2 IMPAC T EVA I .UATIO N GROS S SAVING S 6 4 4. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N NIJTSAVING S 6 9 4. 4 PROCHS S EVALUATIO N 70 4. 5 FINANCIA L RP.PORTIN G 73 5 LOW-INCOM E ENERG Y EFFICIENCY PROGRA M 7 5
5. 1 PROGRA M UPDATI B 76 5. 2 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N GROS S SAVING S 76 5. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N Nir rSAVING S 9 0 5. 4 PROCIS S EVA I .UATIO N 9 0 5. 5 FINANCIA L RLPORTIN C 95 6 SMAR

T EQUIPMENT INCENTIVES : COMMERCIA L AN D INDUSTRIA L PROGRA M 9

8
6. 1 PROGRA M UPDATP S 9 9 6. 2 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N CROS S SAVING S 9 9 6. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N NP. T SAVING S 108 6. 4 PROCPS S EVALUATIO N Il l 6. 5 FINANCIA I , RLPORTIN C 11 5 7 SMAR

T EQUIPMENT INCENTIVE S - GOVERNMENT , NONPROFIT , INSTITUTIONA L PROGRA M 11 7
7. 1 PROGRA M UPDATE S 11 7 7. 2 IMPAC T EVA I .UATIO N GROS S SAVING S 11 7 7. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N NL T SAVING S 12 7 7. 4 PROCLS S EVALUATIO N 13 0 7. 5 FINANCIA L RLPORTIN C 13 4 PEC O Energ y Compan y | Page ii i8 SMAR T CONSTRUCTIO N INCENTIVE S PROGRA M 13 5
8. 1 PROGRA M UPDATK S 13 5 8. 2 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N GROS S SAVING S 13 5 8. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N NI T SAVING S 13 9 8. 4 PROCPS S EVALUATIO N 14 1 8. 5 FINANCIA L RLPORTIN C . • 14 3 9 CONSERVATIO N VOLTAG E REDUCTIO N PROGRA M 14 5
9. 1 PROGRA M UPDATE S 14 5
9. 2 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N GROS S SAVING S 14 5 9. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N Nir r SAVING S 14 5 9.4 FfNANCiAi. RLPORTINC 146 1 0 RESIDENTIA L SMAR T A/ C SAVE RPROGRA M 14 8
10. 1 PROGRA M UPDATI S 14 8 10. 2 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N GROS S SAVING S 148 10. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N NL T SAVING S 15 3 10. 4 PROCHS S EVALUATIO N : 15 3 10. 5 FINANCIA L RHPORTIN G 15 7 1 1 COMMERCIA L SMAR T A/ C SAVE RPROGRA M 15 9
11. 1 PROGRA M UPDATP S 15 9 11. 2 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N GROS S SAVING S 15 9 11. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N NH T SAVING S 163 11. 4 PROCHS S EVALUATIO N 16 3 11. 5 FINANCIA L RHPORTIN G 166 12 PERMANEN T LOA D REDUCTIO N 16 8
12. 1 PROGRA M UPDATP S 168 PEC O Energy Compan

y f Pag e f v12. 2 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N GROS S SAVING S 16 8

12. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N NL T SAVING S 17 1 12. 4 PROCLS S EVALUATIO N 17 1 12. 5 FINANCIA L RLPORTIN C 17 1 13 DEMAN D RESPONS E AGGREGATOR S 17 3
13. 1 PROGRA M UPDATP S 17 3 13. 2 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N GROS S SAVING S 17 3 13. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N NL T SAVING S 179 13. 4 PROCLS S EVALUATIO N 17 9 13. 5 FINANCIA L RLPORTIN C 17 9 1 4 DISTRIBUTE D ENERG Y RESOURCE S 18 1
14. 1 PROGRA M UPDATH S 18 1 14. 2 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N GROS S SAVING S 18 1 14. 3 IMPAC T EVALUATIO N NL T SAVING S 18 6 14. 4 PROCHS S EVALUATIO N 18 6 14. 5 FINANCIA L RLPORTIN C 18 6 APPENDI X A SELECTIO N O F RESIDENTIA L LIGHTIN G COINCIDENC E FACTO RA- l APPENDI X B RESIDENTIA L CFL/LE D INTERACTIV E EFFECTS/WAST E HEA T FACTO R ANALYSI S B- l
B. l MLTHODOLOC Y B- l
B. 2 ENLRCYPLU S SIMULATIO N B- 2
B. 3 BEOP T MODE L INPUT S AN D CALIBRATIO N PROCLS S B- 2 B. 4 CALCULATIONS/ANALYSI S B- 3 APPENDI X C DEMAN D REDUCTIO N FRO M SMAR T LIGHTIN G DISCOUN T LAMP S INSTALLE D I N NON-RESIDENTIA L FACILITIE S C- l
PEC O Energy Compan

y | Page vC. l MAGNITUDI

- orPI-:RCI:NTOI-

- INSTAI.I.A-HO N C- l

C. 2 OVJKRMININ C C& l EFL H ANDC FC- 2 C. 3 Vi-Riiiiii D DHMAN D RI;DUCTION S C- 3

PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pagcv i

## Acronym s

AM Y Actua l Meteorologica l Yea r BA S Buildin g Automatio n Syste m BEop t Buildin g Energ y Optimizatio n C& I Commercia l an dIndustria l CAT I Computer-Aide dTelephon e Intervie w C F Coincidenc e Factor CF L Compac t Fluorescen t

Lam p CH P Combine dHeat an dPowe r CPIT D Cumulativ e Program/Portfoli o Inceptio n t o Dat e CPITD- Q Cumulativ e Program/Portfoli o Inceptio n throug h Curren t Quarte r CS P Conservatio n Servic e Provide r o r Curtailmen t

Servic e Provide r CV R Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n CVR f Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n facto r DC U Digita l Cyclin g Unit s DEE R Databas e fo r Energy-Efficien t

Resource s DE R Distribute dEnerg y Resource s DL C Direc t Loa dContro l D R Deman dRespons e DR A Deman dRespons e Aggregato r ED C Electri c Distributio n Compan y EE& C Energ y Efficienc y an dConservation EFL H Effectiv e Full-Loa dHour s EIS A Energ y Independenc e an dSecurity Ac t EM& V Evaluation , Measurement , an dVerificatio n EM S Energ y Managemen t Syste m ET O Energ y Trus t o f Orego n FC M Forwar dCapacit y Marke t FP L Federa

l Povert y Leve l GN I Government , Nonprofit , Institutiona l GN I N C GN I Ne w Constructio n HO U Hour s o f Us e
PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pagevi iHVA C

IE F IM P I Q k W kW h LE D LEE D LEE P LIUR P M& V M W MW h NER C NT G PA PU C PCT PE G PL R PO P PY 1 PY2 PY 3 PY 4 PY X Q X PYT D SA A SAE SA R SEE R SC I SE I SH R SL D SSMVP Heating , Ventilating , an dAi r Conditionin g Interactiv e Effect s Facto r Interi mMeasur e Protoco l Incrementa l Quarte r Kilowat t Kilowatt-hou r Light-Emittin g Diod e Leadershi p i n Energ y an dEnvironmenta l Desig n Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m Low-Incom e Usag e Reductio n Progra m Measuremen t

an dVerificatio n Megawat t Megawatt-hou r Nort h America n Electri c Reliabilit y Corporatio n Net-to-Gros s Pennsylvani aPubli c Utilit y Commissio n Programmabl e Communicatin g Thermostat s Progra mEvaluatio n Grou p Permanen t

Loa dReductio n Poin t o f Purchas e Progra mYea

r 2009 , fro mJune 1 , 200

9 t o Ma y 31 , 201 0 Progra mYea

r 2010 , fro mJune 1,201 0 t o Ma y 31 , 201 1 Progra mYea

r 2011 , fro mJune 1 , 201 1 t o Ma y 31 , 201 2 Progra mYea

r 2012 , fro mJune 1 , 201 2 t o Ma y 31 , 201 3 Progra mYea

r X , Quarte r

X Progra mYea

r t o Dat e Symmetri c Additiv e Adjustmen t Statisticall y Adjuste dEngineerin g Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Seasona l Energ y Efficienc y Ratin g Smar t Constructio n Incentiv e Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s Smar t Hom e Rebate s Smar t Lightin g Discount s Site-Specifi c M& V Pla n PEC O Energ y Compan y | PageviiiSW

E Statewid e Evaluato r T& D Transmissio n an dDistributio n TM Y Typica l Meteorologica l Yea r TR C Tota l Resourc e Cos t TJ^ M Technical Referenc e Manua l WT A Willingnes s t o Accep t

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e i x

## Repor tDefinition s Note: Definitions provided in this section are limited to terms critical

to understanding values presented in this report. REPORTIN G PERIOD S Cumulativ e Progra

m Inceptio n t

o Dat e (CPITD ) Refer s t o th e perio do f

tim e sinc e th e star t

o f th e Ac t 12 9 programs . CPIT D i s calculate db y totalin g al l progra myea r results , includin g th e curren t progra myea

r t o date results
. For example , CPTI D result s fo r PY 4 Q 3 i s th e su mo f

PY1 , PY2 , PY3 , PY

4 Ql , PY 4 Q2 , an dPY

4 Q 3 results
. Incrementa l Quarte r (IQ ) Refer s t o th e curren t

reportin g quarte r

only
. Activitie s occurrin g durin g previou s quarter s ar e no t included
. For

example , I Q result s fo r PY 4 Q 3 wil l onl y includ e result s tha t occurre ddurin g PY 4 Q 3 an dno t

PY 4 Q2
. Progra m Yea r t o Date (PYTD ) Refer s t o th e curren t

reportin g progra myea r only
. Activitie s occurrin g durin g previou s progra myear s ar

e no t included
. For

example , PYT D result s fo r PY 4 Q 3 wil l onl y includ e result s tha t occurre ddurin g PY

4 Ql , PY 4 Q2 , an dPY

4 Q3
. I t wil l no t includ e result s fro mPY1 , PY2 , an dPY3
. SAVING S TYPE S Preliminar y Qualifie r use di n al l report s excep t th e fina l annua l repor t t o signif y tha t evaluation s ar

e stil l i n progres s an dtha t

result s hav e no t

been finalized
. Mos t

ofte n use dwit h "realizatio n rate " o r "verifie dgros s savings"
. Reporte d Gros s Refer s t o result s o f

th e progra mo r

portfoli o determine db y th e progra madministrato r (e.g. , th e ED C o r th e progra mimplementer)
. Als o know n a s e x ante , o r

"befor e th e fact " (usin g th e annua l evaluatio n activitie s a s th e referenc e point)
. Verifie d Gros s Refer s t o result s o f

th e progra mo r

portfoli o determine db y th e evaluatio n activities
. Als o know n a s e x post , o r

"afte r th e fact " (usin g th e annua l evaluatio n activitie s a s th e referenc e point)
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Page x

## 1 Overvie w o f Portfoli o Pennsylvani aAc t

129 , signe do n Octobe r 15 , 2008 , mandate denerg y saving s an dcoinciden t pea k deman dreductio n goal s fo r th e larges t

electri c distributio n companie s (EDCs ) i n Pennsylvania
. Eac

h ED C submitte denerg y efficienc y an dconservatio n (EE&C ) plans—whic h wer e approve db y th e Pennsylvani aPubli c Utilit y Commissio n (PA PUC)—pursuan t t o thes e goals
. Thi s repor t

document s th e progres s an deffectivenes s o f th e EE& C accomplishment s fo r PEC O i n Progra mYea

r fou r (PY4) , define da

s June 1 , 201 2 throug h Ma y 31 , 2013 , a s wel l as th e cumulativ e accomplishment s o f th e program s sinc e inception
. Navigan t

Consulting , Inc
. (Navigant ) ha s evaluate dth e programs , whic h include d measuremen t

an dverificatio n o f

th e savings
. Th e fina l verifie dsaving s fo r PY 4 an dth e cumulativ e verifie dsaving s sinc e inceptio n o f th e program s ar

e include di n thi s fina l annua l report . Th e nex t sectio n o f

thi s repor t

provide s an overvie w o f activitie s fo r

th e entir e portfolio
. Thi s include s summar y informatio n an dportfolio-leve l detail s regardin g th e progres s toward s complianc e goals , energ y an ddeman dimpacts , net-to-gros s (NTG ) ratios , finances , an dcost
effectiveness
. Th e followin g section s includ e program-specifi c details , includin g progra m updates , impac t

evaluatio n findings , an dproces s evaluatio n findings
. Navigan t

ha s followe dth e Technica l Referenc e Manua l (TRM ) i n almos t al l respects . Navigan t applie dtw o type s o f

alternat e parameter s i n estimatin g saving s fro mresidentia l compac t fluorescen t

lamp s (CFLs) , becaus e i t has foun dthes e t o mor e accuratel y reflec t actua l savings
. Throughou t

thi s report , saving s fro mresidentia l CFL s wil l be presente d i n tw o ways . Navigan t ha s calculate d"TR M Verified " saving s fro mresidentia l CFL s precisel y as dictate db y th e TRM
. I n calculatin g "Evaluatio n Verified " saving s fro mresidentia l CFLs , Navigan t ha s use d a

n alternat e coincidenc e facto r an dha s applie dinteractiv e effect s factor s (lEFs ) fo r bot h energ y an d demand , as presente d i n Tabl e 1-1
. Navigan t ha s use d thes e factor s i n calculatin g Evaluatio n Verifie dsaving s fo r

PECO' s Smar

t Lightin g Discount s (SLD ) an dLow-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m(LEEP)
. I n al l cases , Navigan t als o present s TR M Verifie dsaving s fo r thes e programs . Tabl e 1-1 . Alternat e Parameter s Use d i n "Evaluatio n Verified " Saving s Pennsylvani a TR M Evaluatio n Verifie d Coincidenc e Facto r 0.0 5 0.11 7 Interactiv e Effect s Facto rfo rEnerg y (lEFe ) 1.0 0 1.0 2 Interactiv e Effect s Facto rfo rDeman d (lEFd ) 1.0 0 1.1 9 Source: Navigant

analysis PEC O Energ y Compan y [ Pag e 1Th e derivatio n o f th e highe r

coincidenc e facto r

an d justificatio n fo r

it s applicatio n ar

e presente d i n Appendi x A
. Simila r informatio n i s presente d i n Appendi x B fo r th e interactiv e effect s factors
. 

## 1.1 Summar

y o f Progres s Towar d Complianc

e Target s Th e energ y savings 1 complianc e targe t fo r PEC O wa s 1,181,55 0 megawatt-hour s (MWh ) an d wa s require d t o b e achieve d b y Ma y 31 , 201 3 pe r Ac t 129
. Base d o n Cumulativ e Program/Portfoli o Inceptio n t o Date (CPITD ) TR M Verifie dgros s energ y savings, 2PEC O has achieve d 11 8 percen t

o f th e energ y saving s complianc e target . Based o n Evaluatio n Verifie d savings , PEC O achieve d 11 9 percen t o f it s target . Thes e figure s ar e show n i n Figur e 1-1
. Tli e PU C wil l determin e complianc e usin g CPIT D verifie dgros s energ y savings
. Figur e 1-1 . Portfoli o CPIT D Energ y Saving s 140 % 120 % •«- > v 6 0 f a100 % H 

## 5 80 % g 60 % o U * S 40 % JL25%
. JJ.8%
.

1,472,81 1 MWh 1,399,16 6 MW h

20 % 0 % 119 % 1,406,95 7 MW h

Ma y 31,201 3 Complianc e Target : 1,181,550 MW h

CPIT D Reporte

d Gros s CPIT

D TR M Verifie dGros s CPIT

D Evaluatio n Verifie d Gros s Source: Nnvigfinl

mwU/sfc

1 I(erein , energ

y saving s refers t

o annualize

d energ y saving s an

d i s measure

d i n kWh/yea

r o r MWh
. Energ

y saving s ar

e reporte d a t th e meter.
1 Se e th e "Repor t Definitions " sectio

n fo r a n explanatio

n o f ho w CPIT D verifie dgros s saving s ar e calculated
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 2Deman dsaving s ar e reporte da

t th e syste mlevel
. Tabl e 1- 2 show s th e lin e los s adjustmen t factor s tha t

wer e use d t o gros s u p deman dsaving s fro mth e mete r leve l t o th e syste mlevel
. Tabl e 1-2

. Lin e Los s Factors

Lin e Los s Facto r

Use d Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra m 1.192 Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m 1.192 Smar t Hom e Rebates/Progra

m U 9 2 Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m 1.19 2 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Retrofi t 1.11 1 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-Tenan t 1.11 1 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Applianc e Recyclin g 1.11 1 Smar t Constructio n Incentive s 1.11 1 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Retrofi t 1.11 7 Smar t Equipmen t

incentive s - Multi-Tenan t 1.11 7 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Applianct : Recyclin g 1.11 7 Smar l Equipmen t

Incentive s - Ne w Constructio n 1.11 7 Residential Direc t

Loa dContro l 1.192 Commercia l Direc t

Loa dContro l 1.192 Permanent

Loa dReductio n 1.11 1 Deman dRespons e Aggregator s Varie s b y participant : 1.070 t o 1.19 2 Distribute dEnerg y Resource s Varie s b y participant : 1.07 0 t o 1.193 SoHrcc: PECOdaln

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 3Th e syste mpea k deman dreduction 3 complianc e targe t fo r PEC O i s 35 5 M W pe r

Ac t 12 9 an d wa s require dt o be achieve db y Ma y 31.2013
. PEC O ha s achieve d11 9 percen t o f th e deman d reductio n complianc e targe t durin g th e To p 10

0 Hour s o f

201 2 base d onl y o n installation s i n plac e an dgeneratin g deman dreduction s durin g thos e hours, base d o n TR M Verifie ddeman d reduction
. Evaluatio n Verifie ddeman dreductio n durin g PECO' s To p 10 0 Hour s wa s 13 0 percen t o f th e target . Includin g deman dreduction s occurrin g afte r the To p ]0 0 Hours , PEC O achieve d12 4 percen t

an d13 6 percen t

o f th e deman dreductio n complianc e target , respectively , fo r CPIT D TR M Verifie dan dCPfT D Evaluatio n Verifie dgros s deman dreduction " achieve d throug h th e en do f

PY4 , a s show n i n Figur e 1-2
. Th e PU C wil l determin e complianc e usin g CPfT D verifie dgros s deman dreductio n durin g th e To p 30 0 Hours
. Figur e 1-2

. Portfoli o CPIT D Peak Deman d Reductio n 126 % 4471VIW

124

% -439-MW

- -136% — 482M W -1-1-9-%

- 42 3 M W
Ma y 31,201 3 Complianc e Target : 35 5 M W 130 % •461-MW

CPIT D CPIT

D TR M CPIT

D TR

M Verifie dEvaluatio n Reporte dGros s Verifie dGros s Evaluatio n To p 10 0 Hour s Verifie dTo

p Verifie dGros s 10 0 Hour s

^ Herein , deman

dreduction refers t

o (h e liDC' s syste

mpea k deman dreduction i n th

e UDC'sTo

p 10 0 Hour s o f highest demand , a

s define db y th e P A PUC, an

di s measure

di n k W o r MW
.
4Se e th e "Repor t Definitions " sectio

n fo r a n explanation o f

ho w CPIT D verifie dgros s saving s ar e calculated
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 4

### 1.1.1 Performanc e i n th e Low-Incom

e Secto r Ac t 12 9 mandate s tha

t th e numbe r of measures offere dt

o th e low-incom

e secto r b e proportionat

e t o th e low-incom

e sector' s shar

e of tota l energ y usage. 5 

### Ther

e ar e 1 7 measur

e group s targeted to th

e Jow-incom

e sector , an d anothe r 2 7 measur e group s offere db

y othe r program s i n th

e residentia

l secto r (whic h ar

e als o availabl e t

o low-incom

e customers)
. Thes

e 4 4 measur e group s offere dt

o th e low-incom

e secto r therefor e compris e 3

5 percen t of th e tota l o f 12 4 measur e group s offere dacros s PECO' s portfolio
. A s require d by Ac t 129, thi s exceed

s th e fractio n o f

electri c consumptio n of Hi e utility' s low-incom

e household s divide dby th e total electricit y consumptio n i n th

e PEC O servic e are

a(3. 1 percent)
. Thes

e value s ar

e shown i n Tabl

e 1-3
. Tabl e 1-3 . Low-Incom

e Secto r Complianc

e Metric s Low-Incom e Secto r Al l Sector s % Low

Incom e Numbe r o f Measure s Offere d 1 7 12 4 1

4 Electri c Consumplio n (MWh ) 1,215,463 38,644,120 3.1 % Soura:: Navigattt

analysis


### Th e CPIT D reporte d gros s energ

y saving s fo r

low-incom

e secto r program s (excludin g low

incom e participatio n i n non-low-incom e programs ) i s 108,91 6 MWh ; thi s i s 7. 4 percen t of th e CPIT D tota l portfoli o reporte d gros s energ y savings
. Includin g low-incom

e custome

r participatio n i n non-low-incom e programs , th

e CPIT D reporte d gros s energ

y saving s achieved i s 112,07 2 MWh ; thi s i s 7. 6 percen t of th e CPIT D total portfoli o reporte dgros s energy savings
. Th e CPIT D verifie dgros s energy saving s achieve d fo r low-incom

e program s (excludin g low

incom e participatio n i n non-low-incom e programs ) i s 104,55 8 MWh ; thi s i s 7.5 percen t o f th e CPIT D tota l portfoli o TR

M Verifie dgros s energ

y savings. 6

1 5 Ac t 12 9 include s aprovisio n requirin g electric distributio n companies t o offer anumbe r o f energ y conservatio

n measure

s l o low

incom e households tha

i ar e "proportionat

e t o thos e households ' shar

e o f th e tota l energ y usag e i n th e service lerritory. " 6

6 Pa.C.S
. §2806. 1 (b)(i)(C)
. Th

e legislation contain s n

o provision s regarding target s fo r participation , o

r energ y or deman d savings
. ^ Se e th e "Repor t Definitions " sectio

n fo r a n explanatio

n o f ho w CPIT D verifie dgros s saving s ar e calculated
. 

### PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 5Includin g low-incom e custome r participatio n i n non-low-incom e programs , th e CPIT D reporte d verifie denerg y saving s achieve di s 107,665 MWh ; thi s i s 7. 7 percen t o f th e CPIT D tota l portfoli o TR M Verifie denerg y savings. 7 " 1.1. 2 Performanc e i n th e Government , Nonprofit , an d Institutiona l Secto r Ac t 12 9 mandate s tha t

aminimu mo f

1 0 percen t

o f th e require denerg y an ddeman dtarget s be obtaine dfro munit s o f federal , state , an dloca l governments , includin g municipalities , schoo l districts , institution s o f highe r education , an dnonprofi t entities
. Herein , thi s grou p i s referre d t o as th e government , nonprofit , an dinstitutiona l (GNI ) sector . Th e energ y saving s complianc e targe t fo r th e GN I sector

fo r PEC O i s 181,15 5 MWh , whic h wa s require dt o b e obtaine db y Ma y 31 , 2013
. Basedo n CPIT D TR M verifie dgros s energ y savings, 9 PEC O achieve d16

4 percen t o f th e target . Thes e value s ar e show n i n Figur e 1-3
.

7 Low-incom

e participatio n in non-low incom e programs wa

s estimate db y survey s conducte

dfo r PHCO' s Smar t Lightin g Discounts , Smar

t Applianc e Recycling , an dSmar t Hom e Rebate s (SHR ) programs . Lvaluators aske d respondent

s t o provide numbe r o f resident s i n th e household , an

dthe n aske d i f househol dincom e exceede d th e low-incom

e threshol dbase d o n househol

d size
.
6 Th e estimate dcos t o f low-incom

e saving s fro mnon-low-incom e programs i s $568,50

8 i n PY4
. Thi s valu

e wa s calculate

db y applyin g program-specific iow-incom e participatio n percentages t o PY 4 Tota l LD C Cost s fo r eac h program .
9 Se e th e "Repor t Definitions " sectio

n fo r a n explanation o f

ho w CPIT D verifie dgros s saving s ar e calculated
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 6Figur e 1-3. GN I CPIT D Energ y Saving s

200 % 180 %

_160 % O J S 140 % H g 120 % c i aioo % | 80 % U 60 %

5 5 ' 40 % 20 % 0 % 183 %

215,98 4 MWh 464%

- 193,95 7 MWh

Ma y 31 , 201 3 Complianc e Target : 118,15 5 MW h

CPIT D ReportedGros s CPIT D TR M Verifie dGros s
Th e pea k deman dreductio n complianc e targe t fo r th e GN I secto r

fo r PEC O i s 35. 5 MW
. Based o n CPIT D TR M verifie dgros s deman dreduction," 1 PEC O achieve d16 7 percen t o f th e target . Thes e value s ar

e show n i n Figur e 1-4
. Not e tha t th e value s show n includ e GN I participatio n i n th e DR A an dDE

Rprograms .

1 0Se e th e "Repor t Definitions " sectio

n fo r a n explanation o f

ho w CPIT D verifie dgros s saving s ar e calculated
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 7Figur e 1-4 . GN I CPIT D Pea k Deman d Reductio n

E X B o ( J 200 % 180 % 160 % 140 % H 120 % - 100 % • 80 % - 60 % - 40 % - 20 % - 0 % - -174%
.

61. 9 M W —167% —

.59.2.MW

149

% -52r7-MW

May 31 , 201 3 Complianc e Target : 35. 5 M W

CPIT D ReportedGros s CPIT D TR M Verifie d Gros s To

p 10 0 Hour s M

W Achieve d
1.1. 3 Carry-Ove r Saving s Accordin g t o th e Phas e I I Implementatio n Order , PEC O i s ai lowe db y th e PU C t o "carr y over " MW h saving s int o Phas e I I o f Ac t 129
. Tabl e 1-

4 belo w show s ho w muc h saving s fro mPY 4 PEC O wil l be carryin g ove r int o Phas e II
. Value s i n th e "CPIT D Unverifie dSavings " colum n ar e th e gros s reporte d saving s fro mthre e combine d hea t an dpowe r

project s tha t

receive drebate s fro mth e Smar

t Equipmen t

Incentive s progra m(on e i n th e C& I sector , tw o i n th e GN I sector)
. Thes e thre e project s hav e a"commercia l date o f operation " (CDO ) prio r t o June 1 , 2013 , bu t the y were complete dto o lat e i n th e progra myea r t o b e full y verifie db y Navigan t prio r t o thi s report . Pe

r th e SWE' s September 13 , 201 3 guidanc e mem o o n reportin g unverifie dsavings , PEC O i s presentin g reporte d saving s fo r thes e project s i n thi s report , an dwil l presen t thei r fina l verifie dsaving s i n th e PY 5 Q 2 report. 1 1 Al l verifie dsaving s value s presente di n thi s repor t exclud e saving s fro mthes e thre e projects
.

1 1 Statewid

e Evaluator , Guidance Mem o GM-021 , Reportin

g Unverifie

dEnerg y nn dPea k Deman dSaving s fo r Phas e I Project s i n th e Act 72 9 Phas e I Fina l Repor t (Septembe

r 13 , 2013)
. PEC

O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 8

### Tabl e 1-4 . Saving s fro m PY 4 Carried int

o Phas e I I
CPIT D Verifie d Saving s (MWh ) CPIT D Unverifie d Saving s (MWh ) Saving s Carrie d

int o Phas e 1 1 (MWh ) TR M Verifie dSaving s 217,61 6 27,06 3 244,67 9 Evaluatio n Verifie dSaving s 225,407 27,06 3 252,47 0 Source: Nnvigant

mwh/sis

PEC O Energ y Compan

y J Pag e 9

## 1.

2 Summar

y o f Energ y Impact s A summar

y of th e reported , verified , andunverifie denergy saving s b y progra mfo r PY 4 i s presente di n Figur

e 1-5
. Th e "Unverifie dGros s Savings " value s refe r t o project s tha

t wer e reporte di n PY4

, bu t hav e no t bee n verifie da

t th e time o f thi s report . Figur e 1-5 . PYT D Gross Energ

y Saving s b y Progra m

Distribute dEnerg y Resource s Deman dRespons e Aggregator s Permanen t

Loa dReductio n Commercia l Direc t

Loa dContro l Residentia l Direc t

Loa dContro l Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n Smar t Constructio n Incentive s Smart Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - C& J Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m

Smar t Hom e Rebate s Smar t Applianc e Rebate s Smar t Lightin g Discount s 20,00 0 40,00

0 60,00

0 80,00

0 100,00

0 120,00

0 MWh/y r

• Unverifie dGros s Saving s

• TR M Verifie dGros s Saving s • Evaluatio n Verifie dGros s Saving s E l Reporte dGros s Saving s

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 1 0A summar y o f th e cumulativ e reported , verified , an dunverifie denerg y saving s b y progra mi s presente di n Figur e 1-6
.

Figur e 1-6

. CPIT D Gros s Energ y Saving s b y Progra m Distribute dEnerg y Resource s Deman dRespons e Aggregator s Permanent

Loa dReductio n Commercia l Direc t

LoadContro l Residentia l Direc t

Loa dContro l Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n Smar t Constructio n Incentive s Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - C& I Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Program

Smar t Hom e Rebate s Smar t Applianc e Rebate s Smar t Lightin g Discount s 100,00 0 200,00 0 300,00 0 400,00 0 500,00 0 600,00 0 MWh/y r

• Unverifie dGros s Saving s

• TR M Verifie dGros s Saving s • Evaluatio n Verifie dGros s Saving s

• Reporte dGros s Saving s A summar y o f

energ y impact s b y progra mthroug h th e fourt h quarte r o f PY 4 i s presente di n Tabl e 1- 5 throug h Tabl e 1-7
. Not e tha t Tabl e 1- 6 applie s a

n lEFe o f 1.0 2 t o lightin g measure s installe di n the SLD an dLEE P programs . Tabl e 1-

7 present s th e sam

e information , bu t

adhere s strictl y t o th e TR M algorith mfo r residentia l lighting
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 1 1Tabl e 1-5. ED C Reporte d Participatio n an d Gros s Energ y Saving s b y Program Participants Reporte d Cros s Impac t (MWh/Year ) Progra m I Q PYT D CFU' D I Q PYT D CPIT D Residentia l 3,24 2 12,34

4 322,50 1 6,89 9 26,20

2 563,856 Smar t Lightin g Discount s Program 1 61,48 5 259,18 7 7,675,72 6 2,994 12,440 363,48 0 Reductio n du e t o Non-residentia l Participatio n -4,73 4 -19,95 7 -591,03 1 -23 1 -95 8 -27,98 8 Smart Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m 51 7 2,83 0 30,57 3 75 6 4,13 8 47,43 1 Smar t Hom e Rebate s Program 2 2,72 5 9,51 4 291,92 8 3,37 9 10,58 2 75,21 0 Residentia l Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n N/ A N/ A N/ A 0 0 105,72 3 Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Program Total 3 2,84 4 10,10

6 32,24

0 5,63

2 29,54

8 108,91 6 Low-Incom e Energ y Effidenc v Progra m 2,84 4 10,10 6 32,240 5,63 2 29,54 8 83,28 6 Low-Incom e Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n N/ A N/ A N/ A 0 0 25,63 0 Non-Residentia l 71 6 1,09 9 5,19

3 97,39

0 197,79

3 799,83 9 Commercia l an d Industria l Tota l 57 1 77 4 4,06

4 68,82

9 112,93

8 583,85 5 Smart Equipmen t

Incentive s - Retrofi t 49 9 65 9 ' 3,53 3 60,60 3 98,74 6 264,53 9 Smart Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenant 4 1 6 4 4 405 21 9 50 6 645 Smart Equipmen t

Incentive s -Applianc e Recyclin g 6 1 4 23 1 3 7 7 9 3 Smart Constructio n Incentive s 5 0 5 7 10 3 6,72 1 8,32 3 13,55 4 C& I Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n N/ A N/ A N/ A 0 0 150,57 5 Non-Residentia l Participatio n i n Smar t Lightin g Discount s 4,73 4 19,95 7 591,03 1 1,27 2 5,28 6 154,44 9 Governmen t

/ Nonprofi t

Tota l 14 5 325 1,12 9 28,56 1 84,85 5 215,98 4 Smart Equipmen t

Incentive s - Retrofi t 12 4 27 3 97 5 24,92 1 74,04 1 157,58 2 Smart Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenant 4 1 8 8 2 1 0 1 1 15 5 Smart Equipmen t

Incentive s -Applianc e Recyclin g 0 0 5 0 0 3 3 PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 1 2Participant s Reporte d Gros s Impac t (MWh/Year ) Progra m I Q PYT D CPIT D I Q PYT D CP11 U Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Ne w Constructio n 20 4 4 67 3,629 10,80 3 19,769 GI N Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n N/ A N/ A N/ A 0 0 38,44 5 Deman d Reductio

n -1,13 4 -1,75 6 79,34 1 0 20 1 20 1 Residentia l Smart

A/ C Save

r -1,09 7 -1,67 5 76,97 6 0 0 0 Commercia l Smart

A/ C Save

r -3 7 -27 7 2,169 0 0 0 Permanen t

Loa dReductio n 0 1 1 0 20 1 20 1 Deman dRespons e Aggregator s 0 19 3 19 3 0 0 0 Distribute dEnerg y Resource s 0 2 2 0 0 0 Tota l Portfoli o 5,66 8 21,79 3 439,27

5 109,92

2 253,74 5 1,472,81 1 NOTES : 'Participatio n numbers shown ar e th e number s o f discounted lamp s sold
. Thes e ar e exclude d fro mtota

l portfoli o participatio n numbers
. Th e CPIT D participan

t valu e reported her

e include s 17,856 lamp s tha t wer e inadvertently remove

d fro mPY

2 cumulativ e participatio n values , although their cost s an d saving s wer

e reporte d correctl y i n al l previou s reports . Participan t

value s exclud

e sale s o f EnergySta

r lightin g fixture s an

dLE D lamps , fo r

whic h upstrea

mrebates ar

e provided
. 3 Ac t 12 9 include s aprovisio n requirin g electri c distributio n companies t o offer anumbe r o f energ y efficienc y measure

s t o low-incom

e household s tha

t ar e "proportionat

e t o thos e households ' shar

e o f th e tota l energ y usag e i n th e servic e territory. " 6

6 Pa.C.S
. §2806.1(b)(i)(G)
. Th e legislatio n contain s n o provision s regardin g target s fo r participation , or

energ y o r deman d savings
. Participatio n include s onl y those receiving th

e VVeatherizatio

n Audit
. ''Th e participatio n value s shown her e reflec t th e numbe r o f project ID s reported i n th

e trackin g data , rathe

r tha n th e numbe r o f billin g accoun

t IDs
. Th e value s reported her

e bette r reflec t th e numbe r o f participatin g households , rathe r tha n th e numbe r o f multi-famil y building s i n whic h th e participant s live
. Source: Navigant analysis

PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 1 3Tabl e 1-6 . Evaluatio n Verifie d Gros s Energ y Saving s b y Program
Progra m PYT D Reporte d Gros s Energy Saving s (MWh/Year ) PYT D

Energy Realizatio n Rat e PYT D

Verifie d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh/Year ) PYT D

Unverifie d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh/Year ) PYT D

Achieve d Precisio n a t 90 % Confidenc e CPIT D

Verifie d Gros s Energy Saving s (MWh/Year ) cpi i 0

Achieve d Predsio n a t 90 % Confidenc e Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra m 16,99 7 0.9 6 16,25 7 0 0.0 % 494,640 0.0 % Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m 4,13 8 0.94 3,87 3 0 0.6 % 46,62 8 0.9 % Smar t Hom e Rebate s Progra m 10,58 2 1.0 0 10,584 0 0.0 % 74,11 9 0.0 % Residentia l Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0 N/ A 0 0 N/ A 105,72 3 0.0 % Low-Incom e Energ y Effidenc v Progra m 29,54 8 0.9 2 27,27 0 0 0.7 % 79,89 2 3.7 % Low-incom e Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0 N/ A 0 0 N/ A 25,63 0 0.0 % Smar t Equipmen t

Incentives-C& I 99,329 0.8 6 64,53 0 24,38 6 11.9 % 222,36 6 4.5 % Smar t Constructio n Incentive s 8,32 3 1.0 2 8,49

4 0 6.5 % 13,34 1 3.9 % C& l Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0 N/ A 0 0 N/ A 150,57 5 0.0 % " Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I 84,85 5 0.9 5 77,81 7 2,67 7 11.7 % 155,51 2 7.8 % GN I Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0 N/ A 0 0 N/ A 38,44 5 0.0 % Residentia l Smart

A/ C Save

r 0 N/ A 0 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Commerda l Smar

t A/ C Save

r 0 N/ A 0 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Permanen t

Loa dReductio n 20 1 0.4 4 8 8 0 0.0 % 8 8 0.0 % Deman dRespons e Aggregator s 0 N/ A 0 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Distribute dEnerg y Resource s 0 N/ A 0 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %

TOTA L PORTFOLI O 253,97 3 0.8 2 208,91 2 27,06 3 5.6 % 1,406,95 7 1.1 % Source: Nnvigant

analysis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 1 4

### Tabl e 1-7 . TR M Verifie d Gros s Energ y Saving s b y Progra m
Progra m PYT D Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) PYT D

Energ y Realizatio n Rat e PYT D

Verifie d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) PYT D

Unverifie d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) PYT D

Achieve d Precisio n at90 % Confidenc e CP11 D

Verifie d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) CPIT D

Achieve d Precision at90 % Confidenc e Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra m 16,76 8 0.9 6 16,02 8 0 0.0 % 487,81 3 0.0 % Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m 4,13 8 0.9 4 3,87 3 0 0.6 % 46,62 8 0.9% Smar t Hom e Rebate s Progra m 10,58 2 1.0 0 10,58 4 0 0.0 % 74,11 9 0.0% Residentia l Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0 N/A 0 0 N/ A 105,723 ' 0.0 % Low-Incom e Energ y Effidenc v Progra m 29,54 8 0.9 1 26,87 6 0 0.7 % 78,92 8 3.7 % Low-Incom e Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0 N/ A 0 0 N/A 25,63 0 • 0.0 % Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - C& l 99,32 9 0.8 6 64,53 0 24,38 6 11.9% 222,36 6 4.5 % Smar t Constructio n Incentive s 8,32 3 1.0 2 8,49

4 0 6.5% 13,34 1 3.9 % C& I Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0 N/A 0 0 N/ A 150,57 5 0.0% Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I 84,85 5 1 77,81 7 2,67 7 11.7 % 155,51 2 7.8 % GN I Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0 N/ A 0 0 N/A 38,445 0.0 % Residentia l Direc t

Loa dContro l 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Commerda l Direc t

Loa dContro l 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Permanen t

Loa dReductio n 20 1 0.4 4 8 8 0 0.0 % 8 8 0.0 % Deman dRespons e Aggregator s 0 N/ A 0 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Distribute dEnerg y Resource s 0 N/ A 0 0 0.0 % 0 0.0% TOTA L PORTPOLI O 253,74 4 0.8

2 208,28

9 27,06

3 5.6 % 1,399,16 6 1.1 % Source: Navigant

analysis

PEC O Energ y Compan

y | Pag e 1 5

## 1.

3 Summar

y o f Fuel Switchin g Impact s PEC O customers conducte d asmal l numbe r of project s i n PY

4 i n whic h service s originall y provide db y electricit

y wer e converte dto ru n on natural gas . Tabl e 1- 8 summarize s th

e number s andelectricit

y saving s resultin g fro mthes e projects
. Th

e onl y fue l switchin g projects i n PY 4 wer e conversion s t

o ga s furnace s an

d ga s wate r heaters
. Thes

e wer e conductedi n PECO' s SH

Rprogram . Tabl e 1-8

. Fue l Switching Projec

tSummar

y
Progra mNam e Technology Numbe r o f Projects Electri c

Consumptio n Saving s (kWh ) Rebates

Pai d

SH R High-Efficienc y Ga s Furnace s 39 1,132,89 9 $24,15

0 SH R ENERG Y STA RGa s Storag e Tan k Wate r Heater s 1

0 41,04

0 $2,50

0 SoHrce: Navigant

analysis

PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 1 6

### 1.

4 Summary o

f Deman d Impacts A summar y o f

th e reporte dan dverifie ddeman dreductio n b y progra mwithi n th e To p 10 0 Hour s fo r

th e progra myea

r i s presente d i n Figur e 1-7
. Figur e 1-7

. PYT D Deman d Reductio n b y Progra m (To p 10

0 Hours )
Distribute dEnerg y Resource s Deman dRespons e Aggregator s Permanent

Loa dReductio n Commercia l Direc t

Loa dContro l Residentia l Direc t

Loa dContro l Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n Smar t Constructio n Incentive s Smar t Hquipmen t

Incentive s - GN I Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - C& l Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m

Smar t Hom e Rebate s Smar t Applianc e Rebate s Smar t Lightin g Discount s 2 0 4 0 60 M W 8 0 100 12 0

• Evaluatio n Verifie dGros s Saving s • TR M Verifie dGros s Saving s • Reporte dGros s Saving s

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 1 7A summar y o f th e reported , verified , an dunverifie ddeman dreductio n b y progra mincludin g al l M W saving s fo r

th e progra myea

r i s presente d i n Figur e 1-8
. Th e impact s belo w reflec t th e lin e los s factor s presente d i n Tabl e 1-2
.

Figur e 1-8

. PYT D Deman d Reductio n b y Progra m (Al l M W Savings )
Distribute dEnerg y Resource s Deman dRespons e Aggregator s Permanent

LoadReductio n Commercia l Direc t

Loa dContro l Residentia l Direc t

Loa dContro l Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n Smar t Constructio n Incentive s Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - C& I Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m

Smart Hom e Rebate s Smar t Applianc e Rebate s Smar t Lightin g Discount s p



# 2

0 2 0 4 0 6 0 M W 8 0 10 0 12 0

• Unverifie dGros s Saving s • Evaluatio n Verifie dGros s Saving s D TR M Verifie dGros s Saving s G J Reporte dGros s Saving s

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 1 8A summar y o f th e cumulativ e reporte dan dverifie ddeman dreductio n b y progra mwithi n th e To p 10 0 Hour s i s presente d i n Figur e 1-9
. Figur e 1-9

. CPIT D Deman d Reductio n b y Progra m (To p 10

0 Hours ) Distribute dEnerg y Resource

s Deman dRespons e Aggregator

s Permanent

Loa dReductio n Commercia l Direc t

Loa dContro l Residentia l Direc t

Loa dContro l Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n Smar t Constructio n Incentive s Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - C& I Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Program

Smar t Hom e Rebate s Smar t Applianc e Rebate s Smar t Lightin g Discount s 20 4 0 6

0 M W 8

0 10

0 12

0

• Evaluatio n Verifie dGros s Saving s • TR M Verifie dGros s Saving s • Reporte dGros s Saving s
A summar y o f

th e cumulativ e reported , verified , an dunverifie ddeman dreductio n b y progra m includin g al l M W saving s fo r th e progra myea

r i s presente d i n Figur e 1-10
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 1 9

### Figur e 1-10 . CPIT D Deman

d Reductio

n b y Progra m (Al l M W Savings )
Distribute dEnerg y Resource s Deman dRespons e Aggregator s Permanent

Loa dReductio n Commercia l Direc t

Loa dContro l Residentia l Direc t

Loa dContro l Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n Smar t Constructio n Incentive s Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - C& I Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m

Smart Hom e Rebate s Smar t Applianc e Rebate s Smar t Lightin g Discount s W...
- .TWiT.'Jl^.J- l l !t--. r Jl,

-

!UIL.!m;tJ'.lM7l"l- l .L Y Jl

- U

20 40 6 0

M W 8 0 70 0 12 0

• Unverifie dGros s Saving s

• TR M Verifie dGros s Saving s • Evaluatio n Verifie dGros s Saving s B Reporte dGros s Saving s


### Tabl e 1- 9 presents participatio n andreporte dgros s demandreductio n i n PY 4 an dthroughou t Phas e I
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 2 0

### Tabl e 1-9
. ED C Reporte dParticipatio n an dGros s Deman dReductio n b y Progra m
Progra m Participant s Reporte dGros s Impac t (MW ) Progra m I Q PYT D CFU D I Q PVT D CPU U Residential 3,242 12,34 4 322,50 1
_ 1.4 4.3 53.0 Smar t Lightin g Discount s Program 1 61,48 5 259,18 7 7,675,72 6 0. 2 0. 7 23. 3 Reductio n du e t o Non-residentia l Participatio n -4,73 4 -19,95 7 -591,03 1 0. 0 -0. 1 -1. 8 Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m 51 7 2,83 0 30,57 3 0. 1 0. 6 9. 7 Smar t Hom e Rebate s Program 2 2,725 9,51 4 291,92 8 1. 1 3. 6 21. 8 Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra mTotal 3 2,84 4 10,10 6 32,240
_ 0. 3 1. 6 6. 7 Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m 2,84 4 10,10 6 32,240 0. 3 1. 6 6. 7 Non-Residentia l 71 6 1,099 5,19 3 14. 8 31. 4 115. 7 Commercia l an dIndustria l Tota l 57 1 774 4,06 4 12. 0 20. 1 90. 3 Smart Equipmen t

Incentive s - Retrofi t 49 9 65 9 3,53 3 10. 5 17. 3 45. 6 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenant 4 1 6 4 4 40 5 0. 0 0. 1 0. 2 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s -Applianc e Recyclin g 6 1 4 2 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Smar t Constructio n Incentive s 5 0 5 7 10 3 1. 2 1. 5 2. 4 Non-Residentia l Participatio n i n SL D 4,73 4 19,95 7 591,03 1 0. 3 1. 2 42. 1 Governmen t

/ Nonprofi t

Tota l 145 325 1,12 9 2. 8 11. 3 25. 4 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Retrofi t 12 4 27 3 97 5 2. 0 9. 4 22. 3 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenant 4 1 8 8 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Smart Equipmen t

Incentive s -Applianc e Recyclin g 0 0 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Ne w Constructio n 20 4 4 67 0. 8 1. 9 3. 1 Deman dReductio n -1,13 4 -1,75 6 79,34 1 0. 0 182. 8 272. 1 „ Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0 0 9 3 0. 0 0. 0 89. 3
PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 2 1Program Particjpaiii s Reporte d Gros s Impac t (MW ) Program I Q PYT D CPIT D I Q PY1 U CPIT D Residentia l Smar

t A/ C Saver 5 -1,09 7 -1,67 5 76,97 6 0. 0 51. 3 51. 3 Commercia ] Smart

A/ C Saver * -3 7 -27 7 2,169 0.0 1. 6 1. 6 Permanen t

Loa dReductio n 0 1 1 0. 0 0. 1 0. 1 Deman dRespons e Aggregator s 0 19 3 19 3 0. 0 113. 4 113. 4 Distribute dEnergy ' Resource s 0 2 2 0.0 16. 4 16. 4 Tota l Portfoli o 5,66 8 21,79

3 .439,27

5 16.

4 220.6 . 447 3
_ NOTES : 'Participatio n numbers show n ar e the numbers o

f discounte dlamp s sold
. Thes

e ar e exclude dfro mtota

l portfoli o participatio n numbers
. Th e CPUU participant

value reportedher

e include s 17,85 6 lamp s tha t wer e inadvertentl y remove

dfro mPY 2 cumulativ e participatio n values , although their cost s an dsaving s wer

e reportedcorrectl

y i n al l previou s reports . Participan t

value s exclud

e sale s o f EnergySta

r lightin g fixture s an

dLE D lamps , fo r

whic h upstrea

mrebates ar

e provided
. 3 Ac t 12 9 include s aprovisio n requirin g electric distributio n companie s t o offer anumbe r o f energ y efficienc y measure

s t o low-incom

e households tha

t ar e "proportionat

e t o those households ' shar

e o f th e tota l energ y usag e i n th e servic e territory. " 6

6 Pa.C.S
. §2806. 1 (b)(i)(G)
. Th e legislatio n contain s n o provision s regardin g targets fo r participation , o

r energ y o r deman dsavings
. Participatio n include s only those receiving th e VVeatherizatio

n Audi t
4 Th e participatio n value s show n her e reflec t th e numbe r o f project ID s reportedi n th

e trackin g data , rathe

r tha n th e numbe r o f billin g accoun

t IDs
. Th e value s reportedher

e bette r reflec t th e numbe r o f participatin g households , rathe r tha n th e numbe r o f multi-famil y building s i n whic h th e participant s live
. TTie negative I Q an

dPYT D participatio n value s sho^v n fo r th e Residentia

l an dCommercia

l Direc t Loa dContro l programs reflec t participant s tha

t hav e lef t th e programs .

PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 2 2Tabl e 1-1 0 present s PY 4 an dPhas e I Evaluatio n Verifie ddeman d reductio n durin g th e To p 10 0 Hour s fo r

eac h progra man dfo r th e portfolio
. Tabl e 1-1 1 present s th e sam e information , bu t

use s th e coincidenc e facto r specifie di n th e TR M fo r residentia l lighting , an d doe s no t appl y th e lEF dt o residentia l lighting
. Tabl e 1-10

. PYT D Evaluatio n Verifie d Gros s Deman d Reductio n i n th e To p 10 0 Hour s b y Progra

m
Progra m PYT D Reporte d Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW ) PYT D

Deman d Reatizatio n Rate PYT D

Verifie d Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW ) PYT D

Achieve d Precisio n a t 90 % Confidenc e CPFT D Verifie d Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW/Year ) CP11 D

Achieve d Predsio n at 90 % Confidenc e Smart Lightin g Discount s Progra m 0. 4 92 % 0. 3 0.0 % 99. 3 0.0 % Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m 0. 1 94 % 0. 1 0.5 % 9. 1 0.9 % Smart Hom e Rebate s Program 0. 9 100 % 0. 9 0.0 % 18. 9 0.0 % Low-Incom e Energ y Effidenc v Progra m 0. 4 202 % 0. 9 0.6 % 8. 0 3.9 % Smar t Equipmen t

Incentives-C& l 6. 3 80 % 5. 0 18.7 % 34. 4 7.8 % Smart Constructio n incentive s 0. 7 120 % 0. 8 1.8 % 2. 7 30.6 % Smart Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I 4. 9 106 % 5. 2 4.2 % 16. 2 9.6 % Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0. 0 0% 0. 0 0.0 % 89. 3 0.0 % Residentia l Smart

A/ C Save

r 51. 3 100 % 51. 3 9.7 % 51. 3 9.7 % Commerda l Smart

A/ C Save

r 1. 6 100 % 1. 6 3.5 % 1. 6 3.5 % Permanen t

Loa dReductio n 0. 1 167 % 0. 2 0.0 % 0. 2 0.0 % Deman dRespons e Aggregator s 113. 4 100 % 113. 4 0.0 % 113. 4 0.0 %
. Distribute dEnerg y Resource s 16. 4 100 % 16. 4 0.0 % 16. 4 0.0 %

TOTA L PORTFOLI O 196. 5 100 % 196. 2 2.7 % 461. 0 1.3 % Source: Navigant analysis
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 2 3

### Tabl e 1-11. PYT D TR M Verifie d Gros s Deman d Reductio

n i n th e To p 10 0 Hour s b y Progra m
Program PY1 D Reporte d Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW ) PYT D

Deman d Realizatio n Rate PYT D

Verifie d Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW ) PYT D

Achieve d Precisio n a

t 90 % Confidenc e CPIT D

Verifie d Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW/Year ) CPIT D

Achieve d Predsio n at 90 % Confidenc e Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra m 0. 2 87

% 0. 2 0.0 % 62. 0 0.0 % Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m 0. 1 94 % 0. 1 0.5 % 9. 1 0.9 % Smar t Hom e Rebate s Progra m 0. 9 100% 0. 9 0.0 % 18. 9 0.0 % Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m 0. 4 84 % 0. 4 1.5 % 7. 5 4.2% Smar t Equipmen t

ihcentives-C& I 6. 3 80 % 5. 0 18.7 % 34. 4 7.8 % Smar t Constructio n Incentive s 0. 7 120 % 0. 8 1.8 % 2. 7 30.6 % Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I 4.9 106 % 5. 2 4.2 % 16. 2 9.6 % Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0. 0 0 % 0. 0 0.0 % 89. 3 0.0 % Residentia l Smar

t A/ C Save

r 51.3 100 % 51. 3 9.7 % 51. 3 9.7 % Commercia l Smart

A/ C Save

r 1. 6 100 % 1. 6 3.5 % 1. 6 3.5% Permanen t

Loa dReductio n 0. 1 167 % 0. 2 0.0 % 0. 2 0.0 % Deman dRespons e Aggregator s 113. 4 100 % 113. 4 0.0 % 113. 4 0.0 % Distribute dEnerg y Resource s 16. 4 100 % 16. 4 0.0 % 16. 4 0.0 % TOTA L PORTTOLI O 196. 4 100% 195. 5 2.7 % 423. 1 1.4 % Source: Navigant

analysis

PEC O Energ y Compan

y | Pag e 2 4

### Tabl

e 1-1 2 andTable 1-1 3 presen t gros s andverifie ddemandreductio n throug h the endof PY 4 andthroughou t

Phas e I (i.e. , no t

jus t the To p 10 0 Hours)
. Tabl e 1-12
. PYT D Tota l Evaluatio n Verifie dGros s Deman dReductio n b y Progra m
PY1 D PYT D PYT D PY1 D Achieve d Predsio n a t 90 % Confidenc e CPll D CPttD Achieve d Predsio n a t 90 % Confidenc e Progra m Reporte d Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW ) PYT D

Deman d Realizatio n Rate Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW ) Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW ) PY1 D

Achieve d Predsio n a t 90 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW ) CPttD

Achieve d Predsio n a t 90 % Confidenc e
Smart Lightin g Discount s Progra m 2. 9 92 % 2. 7 0. 0 0.0 % 101. 8 0.0 % Smart Applianc e Recyclin g Program 0. 6 94 % 0. 6 0. 0 0.5 % 9. 6 0.9 % Smar t Hom e Rebate s Progra m 3. 6 100 % 3. 6 0. 0 0.0 % 21. 6 0.0 % Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m 1. 6 202 % 3. 3 0. 0 0.6 % 10. 4 2.8 % Smart Equipmen t

Incentives-C& I 17. 4 80 % 11. 0 3. 6 18.7 % 40. 4 6.6 % Smart Constructio n Incentive s 1. 5 120 % 1. 8 0. 0 1.8 % 3. 7 22.7 % Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I 11. 3 106 % 11. 7 0. 3 4.2 % 22. 7 6.9 % Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0. 0 0 % 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 % 89. 3 0.0 % Residentia l Smar

t A/ C Save

r 51. 3 100 % 51. 3 0. 0 9.7 % 51. 3 9.7 % Commercia l Smar

t A/ C Save

r 1. 6 100 % 1- 6 0. 0 3.5 % 1.6 3.5 % Permanen t

Loa dReductio n 0. 1 167 % 0. 2 0. 0 0.0 % 0. 2 0.0 % Deman dRespons e Aggregator s 113. 4 100 % 113. 4 0. 0 0.0 % 113. 4 0.0 % Distribute dEnerg y Resource s 16. 4 100 % 16. 4 0. 0 0.0 % 16. 4 0.0 %

TOTA L PORTFOU O 221. 7 98 % 217. 5 3. 9 2.5 % 482. 3 1.2 % Source: Navigant

analysis
PEC O Energ y Compan

y | Pag e 2 5Tabl e 1-13.:PYT P Tota l TR M Verifie d Gros s Deman d Reductio n b y Progra m

Program

Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra m Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m Smar t Hom e Rebate s Progra m Low-incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m Smar t Equipmen t

Incentives-C& l Smar t Constructio n Incentive s Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n Residentia l Smart

A/ C Save

r Commercia l Smar

t A/ C Save

r Permanen t

Loa dReductio n Deman dRespons e Aggregator s Distribute dEnerg y Resource s

TOTA L PORTFOLI O Sonrce: Navigant

analysis PYT D Reporte d Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW )
1. 8 0. 6 3. 6 1. 6 17. 4 1. 5 11. 3 0. 0 51. 3 1. 6 0. 1 113. 4 16. 4 220.6 PYT D

Deman d Realizatio n Rat e

87 % 94 % 100 % 84 % 80 % 120 % 106 % 0 % 100 % 100 % 167 % 100 % 100 % 97 % PYT D

Verifie d Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW )
1- 6 0. 6 3. 6 1. 4 11. 0 1- 8 11. 7 0. 0 51. 3 1- 6 0. 2 113. 4 16. 4 214. 4 PYT D Unverifie d Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW )
0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 3. 6 0. 0 0. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 3. 9 PYT D

Achieve d Precisio n at 90 % Confidenc e
0.0 % 0.5 % 0.0 % 1.5 % 18.7% 1.8 % 4.2 % 0.0 % 9.7 % 3.5% 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 2.5 % CPIT D

Verifie d Gros s Deman d Saving s (MW )
63. 4 9. 6 21. 6 5. 4 40. 4 3. 7 22. 7 89. 3 51. 3 1. 6 0. 2 113. 4 16. 4 439.0 CPIT D

Achieve d Precision at 90 % Confidenc e
0.0 % 0.9 % 0.0 % 5.8 % 6.6 % 22.7 % 6.9 % 0.0 % 9.7 % 3.5 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 % 1.3 %

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 2 6

## 1.

5 Reconciliation wit

h Prio r Annual Report

s Tabl e 1-1 4 an dTabl e 1-1 5 presen t gros s Reporte dan dVerifie denerg y savings , respectively, , a s presente d i n th e fina l annua l report s fo r PY 1 throug h PY3
. Th e CPIT D Reporte dan dVerifie d Gros s energ y saving s value s presente d i n thi s repor t us e th e value s i n thes e table s wit h th e followin g exceptions :

• Reporte dan dVerifie denerg y saving s fro mth e SL D progra mreflec t

non-residentia l participatio n i n tha t

progra mi n al l fou r

year s o f Phas e I
. Tli e cumulativ e increas e i n TR M Verifie denerg y saving s fo r PY 1 throug h PY 3 i s 120,862 MWh
. PEC O firs t presente d detail s o n th e justificatio n fo r thi s adjustmen t

i n it s preliminar y deman d respons e filing
. Th e justificatio n an dmethodolog y ar e presente d i n Appendi x C o f thi s report . • Whe n th e PY 1 repor t wa s submitted , ther e wa s n o approve dprotoco l fo r evaluatio n o f saving s fro mth e LEE

P program , s o althoug h ther e wer e Reporte dsaving s fo r tha t progra mi n PY1 , th e progra mwa s no t credite dwit h Verifie dsaving s fo r PY 1 unti l th e PY 2 repor t wa s submitted
. Th e verifie dsaving s fo r th e PY l LEE

P progra mhav e been include di n th e program' s CPIT D verifie dsaving s i n al l PEC O annua l report s sinc e PY2
. TR M Verifie denerg y saving s fro mth e PY l LEE P progra mamoun t

t o 3,40 7 MWh
. • Th e SC I progra mbega n operatio n late i n PY2
. A s ther e wer e onl y fou r complete d project s (tw o i n the C& I sector an dtw o i n th e GN I sector) a s o f th e clos e o f

PY2 , n o impac t evaluatio n wa s conducte dfo r th e progra mi n tha t

year , an dn o Verifie dsaving s wer e reported
. Instead , th e realizatio n rate s develope dthroug h th e PY3 evaluatio n o f SC I wer e applie dt o th e fou r PY 2 projects , an dth e resultin g saving s wer e adde dt o th e CPIT D Verifie dsaving s presente d i n bot h th e PY3 annua l repor t an dthi s report . Th e CPIT D Verifie dsaving s presente d i n thi s repor t an dth e PY 3 repor t

includ e 46 3 MW h i n th e C& I sector

(reporte dunde r

th e SC I program ) an d74 5 MW h i n th e GN I sector (whic h i s include di n Verifie dsaving s fo r th e SE I GN I program ) resultin g fro mne w constructio n project s complete di n PY2
. • A s note dpreviously , th e Evaluatio n Verifie d(as oppose dt o TR M Verified ) saving s presente d i n thi s repor t reflec t th e applicatio n o f

a n interactiv e effect s facto r o f 1.0 2 to saving s fro mth e SLD progra man dth e component s o f th e LEE P progra mtha t

provid e CFLs
. Appendi x B present s th e justificatio n fo r an dmethodolog y fo r

calculatin g th e IEF fo r energy .

PEC O Energ y Compan y j Pag e 2 7Tabl e 1-14 . Gros s Reporte d Energ y Saving s fro m PY l throug h PY 3 Annua l Reports

Progra m Gros s Reporte d Saving s (MWh ) Progra m PY l PY 2 PY 3 Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra m 133,21 2 189,24 8 28,58 0 Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Program 4,53 8 25,90 8 12,84 8 Smar t Hom e Rebate s Progra m 2,97 1 40,70 1 20,94 8 Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m 3,40 7 24,66

4 25,667 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Retrofi t 11,44 6 88,24 4 66,094 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenan t 0 0 13 9 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s -Applianc e Recyclin g 0 0 1 6 Smar t Constructio n Incentive s 0 1,03 1 4,68 8 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Retrofi t 1,38 3 42,05 8 39,440 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenan t 0 0 14 4 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s -Applianc e Recyclin g 0 0 3 3 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Ne w Constructio n 0 0 8,47 9 Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 20,8T9 320,37 2 0 Residentia l Direc t

Loa dContro l 0 0 0 Commercia l Direc t

Loa d Contro l 0 0 0 Permanent

Loa dReductio n 0 0 0 Deman dRespons e Aggregator s 0 0 0 Distribute dEnerg y Resource s 0 0 0 Tota l 177,77 6 732,22 6 207,07 6 Source: Navigant

analysis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 2 8Tabl e 1-15. Gros s TR M Verifie d Saving s fro m PY l through PY 3 Annua l Reports Progra m Gros s Verifie dSaving s (MWh ) Progra m PY l PY 2 PY

3 Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra m 133,21 2 189,24 8 28,58 0 Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m 4,48 7 25,90 8 12,309 Smar t Hom e Rebate s Progra m 2,96 3 40,70 1 20,81 9 Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m n/ a 24,54 3 24,65 2 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Retrofi t 14,44 4 76,022 68,25 5 Smart Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenan t 0 0 13 9 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentives-Applianc e Recyclin g 0 0 1 5 Smar t Constructio n Incentive s 0 0 4,38 5 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Retrofi t 1,70 8 36,51 9 29,73 7 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenan t 0 0 14 4 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s -Applianc e Recyclin g 0 0 3 2 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Ne w Constructio n 0 0 9,242 Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0 320,37 2 0 Residentia l Direc t

Loa dContro l 0 0 0 Commercia l Direc t

Loa dContro l 0 0 0 Permanent

Loa dReductio n 0 0 0 Deman dRespons e Aggregator s 0 0 0 Distribute dEnerg y Resource s 0 0 0 Tota l 156,81 4 713,31 3 198,309 Source: Nnviganl

nmti/sis Tabl e 1-1 6 an dTabl e 1-1 7 presen t Reporte dan dVerifie dGros s deman dreductio n a s presente d i n th e fina l annua l report s fo r PY l throug h PY3
. Th e CPIT D Reporte dan dVerifie dGros s energ y saving s value s presente d i n thi s repor t us e th e value s i n thes e table s wit h th e followin g exceptions :

• Reporte dan dVerifie ddeman dreductio n fro mth e SLD progra mreflec t non-residentia l participatio n i n tha t

progra mi n al l fou r

year s o f Phas e I
. Th e cumulativ e increas e i n TR M Verifie ddeman dreductio n fo r PY l throug h PY3 i s 39. 2 MW
. PEC O firs t presente d detail s o n th e justificatio n fo r thi s adjustmen t

i n it s preliminar y deman drespons e filing
. Th e justificatio n an dmethodolog y ar e presente d i n Appendi x C o f thi s report . © Whe n th e PY l repor t wa s submitted , ther e wa s n o approve dprotoco l fo r evaluatio n o f saving s fro mth e LEE

P program , s o althoug h there wa s aReporte ddeman dreductio n fo r tha t progra mi n PYl , th e progra mwa s no t credite dwit h Verifie ddeman dreductio n fo r PY l unti l th e PY

2 repor t wa s submitted
. Th e 0. 2 M W o f Verifie ddeman dreductio n
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 2 9fo r th e PY l LEE

P progra mhav e been include di n th e program' s CPIT D verifie dsaving s i n al l PEC O annua l report s sinc e PY2
. Th e SC I progra mbegan operatio n late i n PY2
. A s ther e wer e onl y fou r complete d project s (tw o i n th e C& I secto r an dtw o i n th e GN I sector) as o f th e clos e o f

PY2 , n o impac t evaluatio n wa s conducte dfo r th e progra mi n tha t

year , an dn o Verifie ddeman d reduction s wer e reported
. Instead , th e realizatio n rate s develope dthroug h th e PY 3 evaluatio n o f

SC I wer e applie dt o th e fou r PY 2 projects , an dth e resultin g deman d reduction s wer e adde dt o th e CPIT D Verifie dsaving s presente d i n bot h th e PY3 annua l repor t an dthi s report . Th e CPIT D Verifie ddeman dreductio n presente d i n thi s repor t an dth e PY 3 repor t

includ e les s tha n 0. 1 M W i n bot h th e C& I an dGN I sector s resultin g fro mne w constructio n project s complete di n PY2
. Adjustment s fo r

lin e losse s change dove r th e cours e o f

Phas e I
. I n th e PY l annua l report , PEC O mad e n o lin e los s adjustment s t o deman dreductio n values
. I n th e PY 2 report , PEC O applie dan averag e lin e los s facto r o f 1.07 6 t o al l deman dreductio n values
. Beginnin g wit h th e PY 3 annua l report , PEC O applie dprogram-specifi c lin e los s factor s reflectin g th e rate clas s o f participatin g customers . Thes e value s ar e presente d i n Tabl e 1-2
. I n thi s report , th e CPIT D deman dreductio n value s reflec t th e applicatio n o f program-leve l lin e los s factor s t o deman dreductio n throughou t al l fou r year s o f Phas e I
. A s note dpreviously , th e Evaluatio n Verifie d(a s oppose dt o TR M Verified ) deman d reduction s presente d i n thi s repor t reflec t th e applicatio n o f

acoincidenc e facto r

o f 0.11 7 to deman dreduction s fro mth e SL D progra man dth e component s o f th e LEE P progra m tha t provid e CFLs
. Appendi x A present s th e justificatio n an dmethodolog y fo r calculatin g thi s alternat e CF
. A s note dpreviously , th e Evaluatio n Verifie d(a s oppose dt o TR M Verified ) deman d reduction s presente d i n thi s repor t reflec t th e applicatio n o f

ademan dinteractiv e effect s facto r o f 1.1 9 t o deman dreduction s fro mth e SLD progra man dth e component s o f th e LEE P progra mtha t

provid e CFLs
. Appendi x B present s th e justificatio n fo r an d methodolog y fo r

calculatin g th e IE

F fo r energy .

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 3 0Tabl e 1-16 . Gros s Reporte d Deman d Reductio n fro m PY l throug h PY 3 Annua l Report s Progra m Gros s Reporte d Saving s (MW ) Progra m PY l PY 2 PY 3 Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra m 7. 3 11. 2 1.7 Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m 0. 9 5. 1 2. 2 Smar t Hom e Rebate s Progra m 0. 7 10. 5 5. 7 Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m 0. 3 2. 1 7. 5 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentives-C& I 2. 3 13. 2 13. 0 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenan t 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s -Applianc e Recyclin g 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Smar t Constructio n Incentive s 0. 0 0. 1 1.9 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I 0. 2 7. 1 4. 3 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenan t 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s -Applianc e Recyclin g 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Ne w Constructio n 0. 0 0. 0 1. 3 Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0. 0 89. 3 0. 0 Residentia l Direc t

Loa dContro l 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Commercia l Direc t

Loa dContro l 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Permanent

Loa dReductio n 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Deman dRespons e Aggregator s 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Distribute dEnerg y Resource s 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Tota l 11. 7 138. 6 31. 7 Source: Nnvigant

analysis

PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 3 1Tabl e 1-17 . Gros s TR M Verifie d Deman d Reductio n fro m PY l through PY 3 Annua l Reports

Progra m Cros s Verifie d Saving s (MW ) Progra m PY l PY 2 PY 3 Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra m 7. 3 11. 2 1. 7 Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m 0. 9 5. 1 2. 2 Smar t Hom e Rebate s Progra m 0. 7 10. 5 5. 7 Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m 0. 0 2. 1 1. 5 Smar t Equipmen t

fncentive s - Retrofi t 2. 2 13. 4 13. 0 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenan t 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentives,-Applianc e Recyclin g 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Smar t Constructio n Incentive s 0. 0 0. 0 1.9 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Retrofi t 0. 2 5. 1 3. 7 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Multi-tenan t 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s -Applianc e Recyclin g 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - Ne w Constructio n 0. 0 0. 0 7. 9 Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n 0. 0 89. 3 0. 0 Residentia l Direc t

LoadContro l 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Commercia l Direc t

Loa dContro l 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Permanen t

Loa dReductio n 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Deman dRespons e Aggregator s 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Distribute dEnerg y Resource s 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 Tota l 11. 3 136. 7 31.7 Source: Nnviganl

nnaiysis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 3 2

## 1.

6 Summar

y o f PY 4 Net-to-Gross Ratios Pe r th e 201 1 TR C Order , EDC s ar e require dt o conduc t NT G research
. NT G ratio s ar e no t applie dto gros s saving s an dar e no t use dfo r

complianc e purposes , bu t ar e use dfo r

futur e progra mplannin g purposes . Tabl e 1-1 8 present s asummar y o f NT G ratio s b y program . Tabl e 1-18

. PY 4 NT G Ratio s b y Progra m Progra mNam e ! NT G Rati o , PY 4 NT G Categorie s Include d Smar l Lightin g Discount s Progra m 38 % Fre e riders , spillove r Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g progra m 56 % Free rider s Smart-Mome Rebate s Progra m 49 % Free riders , spillove r

Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Program 1 100 % Assumed
. Low-incom e customer s typicall y d o no t

hav e th e resource s t o instal l energ y efficienc y measures . Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s C& I 78 % Free riders , spillove r Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s GI N 64 % Free riders , spillove r Smar t Constructio n Incentive s 44 % Fre e rider s

PORTFOLI O 69 % Source: Navigant

analysis 

## 1. 7 Summar

y o f Portfolio Finances an

d Cost-Effectivenes s Tabl e 1-1 9 present s portfolio-leve l cost s an dbenefit s fo r PY 4 an dcumulativel y fo r Phas e I
. I n thi s table , benefit s ar

e calculate dusin g TR M Verifie dsavings , meanin g tha t al l energ y saving s an ddeman dreductio n value s wer e calculate di n stric t accordanc e wit h th e TRM
. Not e tha t th e portfoli o wa s cos t

effectiv e i n bot h PY

4 an dthroughou t

Phas e I
. Tabl e 1-2

0 present s th e sam

e informatio n a

s Tabl e 1-19 , excep t

tha t i n thi s table , Navigan t calculate dlifetim e benefit s assumin g Evaluatio n Verifie dsavings
. A s describe dpreviously , i n calculatin g Evaluatio n Verifie dsavings , Navigan t mad e us e o f

th e alternat e parameter s presente di n Tabl e 1- 1 fo r residentia l lightin g savings
. Doin g s o increase dth e energ y an d deman dsaving s fro mlightin g measure s i n th e SLD an dLEE P programs , increasin g lifetim e benefit s an dresultin g i n th e highe r TR C ratio s presente di n Tabl e 1-20
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 3 3Tabl e 1-19 . Summar y o f Portfoli o Finance s Usin g TR M Verifie d Saving s IQ19 I ($1,000 ) PY 4

($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 10,21 4 20,41 6 62,33 7 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s -36 8 1 4 8,33 4 Subtota l ED C Incentiv e Cost s 9,84 6 20,43 0 70,67 1 Desig n & Developmen

t 0 0 Administration" ' 4,040 21,542 67,27 9 Management' 2 ' 1,31 6 4,54 4 27,65 1 Marketing 1 3 1 1,434 14,869 33,18 5 Technica l Assistanc e 71 2 3,37 7 13,30 4 Subtota l ED C Implementatio n Cost s 7,50 2 44,33

2 141,42

0
ED C Evaluatio

n Cost s 1,98 7 3,67 8 9,01 5 SW E Audi t

Cost s 0 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs" ' 19,33 5 68,44 0 221,10 6 Participant

Costs' 5 ' N/A 109,11 2 297,002 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 1 N/ A 157,12

3 447,43

8

Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/A 185;79 1 1,183,070 Tota l Lifetim e Capacit y Benefit s N/ A 30,04 1 154,24 1 Tota l TR C Benefits' 7 ' N/ A 217,32

0 1,287,48

5 TR C Ratio' 8 ' N/ A 1.3

8 2.8

8 NOTE S Per PUC liireclioii, TRC

inputs and

calculations are required in the Annua! Report

only and should compiif with the 201! Total

Resource Cost Test Order approved \ul\j28, 2011. Please see the "Report Definitions"

section of

this report

for more details. \1 ] Include s th e administrativ e CS P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system , an dgeneral administratio n an dclerica l cost . [2 ] Include s HO

C progra mmanagement , CS P progra mmanagement , general managemen t oversight , an dmajo r

accounts . |3 1 Include s th e marketin g CS P an dmarketin g cost s b y progra mCSPs
. |4 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota l ResourceCos t Tes t Order , th e Tota l I:D C Cost s refe r t o ED C incurre dexpense s only
. |5 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota l ResourceCos t Tes t Order , th e ne

t Participan t

Cost s are th e cost s fo r

th e end-us e custome r

o r progra mcost s that ar c proxie s fo r

participan t

costs . Thes e includ e incentive s pai dl o applianc e recyclin g an dDeman dRespons e participants
. |6 | Tola l TR C Cost s include s HD C Lvalualio n Costs , HO C Implementatio n Costs , an dParticipan t Costs
. Ther e may b e residua l evaluatio n cost s incurre dfro mtransitiona l Phase I evaluatio n activity , thos e cost s wil l b e identifie dan dfootnote di n th e PY5Q2 report . [7 ] Tota l TR C henefit s equal s th e su mo t Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Henefit s an dTota l LifetimeCapacit y Henefit s plu s an y benefi t associate d wit h avoide dincandescent purchase s mad e du e t o th e longe r usefu l life o f

energy-efficien t

lightin g as compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Base

dupo n verifie dgros s kW h an dk W savings
. Henefit s include : avoide dsuppl y costs , includin g th e reductio n i n cost s o f

electri c energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s value da l margina l cos t fo r period s whe n ther e i s aloa dreduction
. [8 1 TR C Rati o equal s Tota l TR C Henefit s divide db y Tota l TR C Costs
. 19 ] Pos t PY 4 cost s an dbenefit s are include di n IQ , PY4 , an dCPIT D numbers
. [10 1 i^ 1 ' Phase roll-up , ni l value s are discounte dbac k t o th e beginnin g o f

PY l usin g th e PY

4 discoun t

rat e o f 7.60%
. Source: Navigant

analysis PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 3 4Tabl e 1-20 . Summary o

f Portfoli o Finance s Usin g Evaluatio n Verifie d Saving s IQI9 1 ($1,000 ) PY 4

($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 10,21 4 20,41 6 62,33 7 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s -36 8 1 4 8,33 4 Subtotal ED C Incentiv e Cost s 9,84 6 20,43 0 70,67 1 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration 1 " 4,04 0 21,54 2 67,27 9 Management 12 1 1,31 6 4,54 4 27,65 1 Marketing 13 1 1,43 4 14,86 9 33,18 5 Technical Assistanc e 71 2 3,37 7 13,30 4 Subtotal ED C Implementatio n Cost s 7,50 2 44,33 2 141,42 0
ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 1,98 7 3,67 8 9,01 5 SW E Audi tCost s 0 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs' 4 " 19,33 5 68,44 0 221,10 6 Participan tCosts' 5 ' N/ A 109,11 2 297,00 2 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 ' N/ A 157,12 3 447,43 8
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N / A 186,24 1 1,188,05 7 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N/ A 31,05 8 168,27 2 Tota l TR C Benefits' 7 ' N/ A 218,78 8 1,385,31 9 TR C Ratio' 8 1 N/ A 1.3 9 3.1 0 NOTE S Per PUC tiirt'ctbn, TRC

inpafs and cakulathms are required in the Annual Report only and should

comply with the ZOl

STotal Resource Cost Test Order approved Inly 28. 2011. Please sec the "Report Definitions"

section of

this report

for more details. |1 1 Include s theadministrnliviiCS P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system, an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost. |2 | Include s LD

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . |3 | Include s th

e marketing CS

P an dmarketing cost

s b y progra mCSPs
. |4 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resource * Cos t Tes t Order , th e Tota l ED C Cost s refe r t o ED C incurredexpense

s only
. |5 | Pe r th e 20 ! 1 Tota

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order , th e ne t Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us e custome r o r progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t costs . Thes

e include incentive s pai

dt o applianc e recyclin

g and'Deman

dRespons

e participants
. |6 | Tota l TR C Cost s include s liD C livaluatio n Costs , LD C Implementation Costs , an dParticipan

t Costs
. |7 ] Tota l TR C Henefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tota l Lifetim e linergy Henefit

s an dTola l Lifetim e Capacit y Henefit s plu s an y benefi t associate d wit h avoidedincandescen

t purchases mad

e du e t o th e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a

s compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Hase

dupo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoide

dsuppl y costs , includin g Ih

e reduction i n cost s o f electric energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s value da t margina l cos l fo r period s whe n ther e i s aloa dreduclion
. |8 | TR C Rati o equal s Tola

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tota l TR C Costs
. |9 | Pos t PY 4 cost s an dbenefits ar

e includedi n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. 110 | Po r Phas e roll-up , all value s ar

e discounte

dbac k l o th e beginnin

g o f PY l using th e PY 4 discoun t rat e o f 7.60%
. Source: Nnvignnt

analysis PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 3 5

## 1.

8 Summar

y o f Cost-Effectivenes s b

y Progra m TRC ratio s are calculate db y comparin g th e tota l TR C benefit s an dth e tota l TR C costs . Pe r th e 200 9 Order , TR C benefit s ar e th e avoide d energ y an dcapacity costs . TR C cost s ar e ne t participan t

cost s an dED C progra mcosts . Participan t incentive s ar

e no t include di n th e TRC tes t excep t per th e 201 1 TRC Order , i n th e cas e o f deman drespons e (DR ) programs . Tabl e 1-2 1 show s th e TR C ratio s b y progra man d othe r factor s use di n th e TR C rati o calculation
. For th e entiret y o f

Phas e 1 , th e TRC rati o base d o n CPIT D value s wa s 2.88
. Th e TRC rati o fo r th e portfoli o i n PY

4 wa s 1.38
. Th e PY

4 rati o i s lowe r

tha n i n th e previou s year s i n Phas e I
. On e primar y reaso n fo r

thi s decreas e i s tha t

multipl e program s reduce dthei r leve l o f activit y i n PY

4 a s Phas e I saving s goal s wer e approache do r exceeded
. Thi s resulte di n lowe r saving s an d therefor e lowe r

TR C benefits
. A t

th e sam e time , fixe dcost s o r

a n explici t

marke t maintenanc e strateg y ofte n prevente d TR C cost s fro mfallin g a t acomparabl e rate . Th e discoun t

rat e use di n th e PY

4 cost-effectivenes s calculation s wa s 7.6 0 percent . Thi s i s equivalen t

t o th e rat e use di n PY3 , bu t slightl y highe r

tha n th e rate o f

7.4 5 percen t

use di n PY l an dPY2
. Fo r

program s tha t

achieve dTR C benefit s du e t o th e valu e o f avoide dreplacemen t incandescen t

ligh t bulbs , thes e benefit s wer e assigne da t th e measure leve l base d o n primar y marke t researc h performe ddurin g th e middl e o f PY4
. Th e annua l cos t

o f avoide denerg y wa s calculate dseparatel y fo r eac h o f fou r period s durin g whic h energ y saving s wer e achieved : summe r on-peak , summe r

off-peak , winte r

on-peak , an dwinte r

off-peak
. A singl e valu e wa s calculate dfo r

th e annua l valu e o f

avoide d demand
. Separat e residentia l an dcommercia l an d industria l (C&I ) value s wer e use dfo r th e annua l valu e o f

avoide dtransmissio n an ddistributio n (T&D ) an dlin e los s factors
. Fo r C& I lin e los s factors , th e valu e range dfro m1.076 0 t o 1.117 2 dependin g o n th e estimate dmi x o f saving s fro msmal l C& I an dlarg e C& I participants
. Multipl e program s tha t ha dth e primar y ai mo f achievin g deman dsaving s (rathe r tha n energ y savings ) ha dn o T& D benefit s include d i n th e tota l resourc e cos t (TRC ) calculations , includin g th e Deman dRespons e Aggregato r (DRA) , Distribute dEnerg y Resource s (DER) , an dDirec t Loa dContro l (DLC ) programs . Thi s i s because , i n Phas e I , T& D benefit s wer e calculate dusin g avoide dcost s expresse di n dollar s pe r kilowatt-hou r

(kWh)
. Thes e program s di dno t clai man y kW h savings
. I n Phas e II , T& D benefit s fo r program s wit h th e primar y ai mo f achievin g deman dsaving s wil l b e calculate dusin g avoide d cost s expresse di n dollar s per kW , a s use di n PECO' s Revise dPhas e I I EE& C Plan an d discusse d i n PEC O direc t testimon y i n Docke t

P-2012

-

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 3 62320344'!. nThe TR C calculation s fo r

thes e program s woul dhav e bee n significantl y improve d ha dthi s methodolog y been utilize di n th e Phas e ITRC calculations
.

Tabl e 1-21
. PYT D TR C Ratio s b y Progra mUsin g TR M Verifie dSaving s Tota l TR C Benefit s Tota l Progra m Tota l TR C Benefit s TR C

Cost s ($1,000 ) TR C

Rati o Discoun t

Rat e Lin e Los s Facto r ($1,000 ) TR C

Cost s ($1,000 ) TR C

Rati o Discoun t

Rat e Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra m $13,14 7 $2,89 7 4.5 4 7.6 0 1.1 9 Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Program $2,81 0 $82 3 3.4 1 7.6 0 1.1 9 Smar t Hom e Rebate s Progra m $15,29 2 $20,23 6 0.7 6 7.60 1.1 9 Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Progra m $20,09 9 $5,32 3 3.7 8 7.6 0 1.1 9 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - C& I $75,909 $42,18 1 1.8 0 7.6

0 1.1 1 Smar t Constructio n Incentive s $9,16 5 $4,67 0 1.9 6 7.6

0 1.1 1 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I $71,78 0 $52,145 1.3 8 7.6 0 1.1 2 Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n $ 0 $31 0 0.0 0 7.60 1.0 0 Residentia l Direc t

Loa d Contro l $2,61 8 $15,294 0.1 7 7.6 0 1.1 9 Commercia l Direct-Loa dContro l $8 2 $1,47 0 0.0 6 7.60 1.1 9 Permanent

Loa dReductio n $22 1 $2,06 7 0.1 1 7.60 1.1 1

Deman dRespons e Aggregator s $5,409 $7,79 1 0.69 7.6 0 Varie s b y participant : 1.07

0 t o 1.192

Distribute dEnerg y Resource s $78 8 $1,91 5 0.4 1 7.6 0 Varie s b y participant : 1.07

0 t o 1.192 TOTA L PORTFOLI O $217,32 0 $157,122 1.3 8 7.6 0 Source: Nnvignnt

nmh/sts
Tabl e 1-2

2 present s th e sam

e informatio n a

s Tabl e 1-21 , bu t

reflect s th e highe r

Evaluatio n Verifie dsaving s i n th e SL D an d LEE

P programs .

1 Direc t testimony , Fran

k Jimska
. Septembe

r 5 , 2012
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 3 7Tabl e 1-22 . PYT D TR C Ratio s b y Progra m Usin g Evaluatio n Verifie d saving s Progra m Tota l TR C Benefit s ($1,000 ) Total TR C Cost s ($1,000 ) TR C Rati o Discoun t

Rat e Lin e Los s Facto r
Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra m $13,75 3 $2,89 7 4.7 5 7.60 1.1 9 Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra m $2,81 0 $82 3 3.41 7.6 0 1.1 9 Smar t Hom e Rebate s Progra m $15,29 2 $20,23 6 0.7 6 7.6 0 1.1 9 Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Program $20,96 1 $5,32 3 3.9 4 7.60 1.1 9 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentives-C& l $75,909 $42,18 1 1.8 0 7.60 1.1 1 Smar t Construction.Incentive s $9,16 5 $4,67 0 ' 1.9 6 7.6

0 1.1 1 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s - GN I $71,78 0 $52,145 1.3 8 7.6 0 1.1 2 Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n $ 0 $31 0 0.0 0 7.6

0 1.0

0 Residentia l Direc t

Loa d Contro l $2,61 8 $15,294 0.1 7 7.6 0 1.1 9 Commercia l Direc t

Loa dContro l $8 2 $1,47 0 0.0 6 7.6 0 1.1 9 Permanent

Loa dReductio n $22 1 $2,06 7 0.1 1 7.60 i. n

Deman dRespons e Aggregator s $5,409 $7,79 1 0.69 7.6 0 Varie s b y participant : 1.070 t o 1.192

Distribute dEnerg y Resource s $78 8 $1,91 5 0.4 1 7.6 0 Varie s b y participant : 1.07

0 t o 1.192 TOTA L PORTFOLI O $218,78 8 $157,12

2 1.3 9 7.6

0 Source: Nnvigant analysis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 3 8

## 2 SmartLightin g Discount s

Th e PEC O SL D Progra mi s a n upstream-incentiv e progra mstarte d i n Octobe

r 200 9 tha t encourage s an

d facilitate s th

e adoptio n o f

CFL s an d help s PECO' s residentia l customer

s becom e consciou s abou

t their energ y use . Th

e progra machieve s thi s goa

l b y providin g incentive s t o manufacturer s t

o increase th

e marke t shar e of ENERG Y STAR-qualifie dCFL

s sol d throug h retai l sale

s channels , a

s wel l a s by distributin g educationa l material s tha

t increase custome

r awareness , acceptance , an d understandin g of

energy-efficient

lightin g technology
. 

## 2. 1 Progra

m Update

s I n th e firs t tw o year

s of Phas e I , th e SL D Progra mwas responsible fo r

th e larges t proportio n o

f tota l PEC O portfoli o saving s amon g al l of th e Ac t 12 9 PEC O programs . I n th

e early month s o

f PY3 , PEC O reduced th

e SL D Progra mi n siz e by approximately 9

5 percen t t o alig n overal l Phas

e Isaving s wit h th

e previousl y established EE& C Pla n targets . PEC

O als o shifte dth

e focu s o f

th e progra mfro mstandar

d spiral CFL

s t o a n almos t exclusive focu s o

n specialt y CFLs
. PEC

O maintaine dth

e progra ma t approximatel y th

e sam e reduced siz

e fo r PY4, Averag e monthl y bul b sale s wer e approximately 22,00

0 i n PY4
. Simila

r t o PY3 , th e focu s of

the progra

mi n PY 4 was o n th e sal e of specialt y CFLs
. Ther e wer e modest changes t

o progra moffering , sales channels , and marketin g approach i n PY4
. Severa

l additional specialt

y CF L model s wer

e added t o th e program , whic h increase d th e offering s fo r

reflecto r lamps , candelabras , an d dimmabi e CFLs
. Progra msale s too k plac e almos t exclusively throug h Hom e Improvemen

t stores , wherea

s i n past progra myear s ther e wa s asignificant

minority of

sale s takin g plac

e throug h warehous e store s an d big-box stores . Progra mmessagin

g shifte d i n PY

4 fro memphasizin g th

e incentive s t

o emphasizin g th

e mor e significan t

saving s tha

t on e ca n achiev e ove r th e lifetim e of

abul b by switchin g t

o energy efficien t lighting
. 

## 2. 2 Impac t

Evaluatio n Gros s Saving s 2.2. 1 Methodolog y Th e PY 4 SL D Progra mevaluatio n draw s upo n severa l evaluatio n method s designed i n ligh t o f th e significant

reductio n i n th

e program' s siz

e an d th e specifi c focu s on specialt y CFLs
. Th

e primary dat

asource s fo r

PY 4 include dPEC

O PY 4 trackin g dat

aanalysis , shelf-stockin g survey s a t asampl e of participatin g retailers , and in-dept h phon e interview s wit h PEC

O progra mstaf f andth e Ecov aprogra mimplementers
. Additiona l researc h activitie s tha

t spanne d th e PY 4 SL D PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 3 9evaluatio n a s wel l a s informe dupdate s t o th e 201 3 PA TR M include dderivin g update dsaving s paramete r

value s fo r

Pea k Loa dCoincidenc e Facto r an dLighting-Heating , Ventilating , an d Ai r Conditionin g (HVAC ) Interactiv e Effect s Factor s fo r energ y an ddemand
. Detail s o n th e method s an dresult s o f thes e paramete r

valu e update s ar

e provide di n separate memo s sent t o PECO
. f n additio n to tli e abov e activities , th e evaluatio n tea mundertoo k

an effor t

t o conduc t

survey s wit h PY 4 SLD Progra mparticipant s an d non-participan t lightin g purchaser s regardin g thei r lightin g choices , throug h th e us e o f in-stor e tear-of

f sheet s displaye di n th e lightin g aisl e o f participatin g stores . Thes e business-card-size d tear-of f sheets , whic h invite dshopper s to participat e i n th e surve y an d b e entere d fo r achanc e t o wi n a$50 0 gif t card , presente dth e shoppe r wit h thre e way s o f

accessin g th e survey : aphon e number , unifor mresourc e locator , an dquic k

respons e code fo r

acel l phon e scanner . Unfortunately , th e respons e rate wa s extremel y low , wit h onl y 2 0 tota l survey s complete dove r th e six-wee k

perio di n whic h th e tear
off sheet s wer e i n th e stores . Eightee n o f th e respondent s di dth e onlin e versio n o f the survey , an d2 respondent s di dth e phone-base dversio n o f th e survey . O f

thes e 2 0 surve y respondents , onl y 3 were purchasin g progra mbulbs
. Thi s respons e rate i s to o lo w t o b e use dfo r meaningfu l analysi s o f

th e PY 4 SLD Program
. A s aresult , paramete r value s fo r

cross-sector

installatio n o f progra mbulb s an dNT G rati o wer e develope d fro mth e PY2 intercepts
. 2.2. 2 Reporte d Saving s Th e numbe r

o f bulb s distribute dthroug h th e progra mi s derive dfro mth e Residentia l Lightin g trackin g databas e provide d t o th e evaluatio n teamas par t o f th e PEC O Smart

Dat aSystem extract . I n th e case o f th e Smar

t Lightin g Discount s Program , th e calculatio n o f gros s energ y an ddeman dsaving s consist s o f tw o steps : 1 ) verifyin g progra mtrackin g dat aagains t scanne d manufacture r

invoice s fo r

progra mbul b sales , an d 2 ) calculatin g gros s energ y an ddeman d saving s b y applyin g th e saving s paramete r value s describe dabov e to eac h recor di n th e trackin g dat aan d summin g acros s al l records
. A tota l o f

248,54 8 CFL s wer e sol d a s par t o f th e PY 4 program . The product s include di n thi s progra mar

e al l partiall y deeme dmeasure s i n th e 201 2 TRM 1 3 fo r PY4
. Program-reporte d

13 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. 2012. Technical Refcrcuce Manual

for Pennsylvania Act

129Energy Efficiency and Conservation Program and Act 213 Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 4 0saving s ar e base d o n deeme d value s fo r al l saving s parameter s wit h the , exceptio n o f Displace d Watt s (o r

Delt aWatts) , whic h i s derive d o n aper-bul b basi s a s th e differenc e betwee n th e CFL wattag e an dth e incandescen t replacemen t

wattage . Th e evaluatio n tea mverifie dal l progra m bul b sale s an ddeeme dsaving s calculation s i n th e PY 4 complianc e reportin g process , an dth e verifie dprogram-reporte dgros s energ y an d deman dsaving s ar e show n a

s th e Program

Reporte dsaving s i n Tabl e 2- 1 below
. Bul b sale s wer e highes t i n Q 2 an dQ3 , bu t

di dno t sho w remarkabl e variatio n acros s quarters . Gros s deman d reductio n i n th e To p 10 0 Hour s wa s 0. 1 MW , an dal l too k

plac e durin g Ql
. Gros s summe r pea k deman dreductio n attribute dt o bulb s sol dthroughou t

th e yea r wa s 0. 6 MW
. O n th e incentive s side , i t i s importan t

t o not e tha t

i n PY 4 Q4 , ther e wer e $75,00 0 pai di n incentives , bu t

i n tha t sam e quarte r $624,000 i n incentiv e cost s wer e move dfro mSLD t o th e Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s (SEI ) progra mi n recognitio n tha t aportio n o f

overal l portfoli o incentiv e dollar s wer e goin g t o customer s tha t wer e installin g SLD progra mbulb s i n non residentia l sockets
. Th e resul t wa s -$549k

i n SL D incentive s fo r

PY 4 Q4 , an d-$265 k

i n SLD incentive s fo r

PY 4 overall
. Tabl e 2-1 . PY 4 SL D Reporte d Result s b y Quarte r

Reportin g Perio d Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh/yr ) To p 10 0

Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 )

PY 4 Q l 53,32 4 2,51 8 0. 1 0. 1 7 9 PY 4 Q2 69,27 4 3,30 5 0. 0 0. 2 9 7 PY4Q 3 75,10 4 3,62 3 0. 0 0. 2 10 7 PY4Q 4 61,48 5 2,99 4 0. 0 0. 2 -53 3 PY4 Tota l 259,18 7 12,44 0 0. 1 0. 7 -25 0 CPIT D Tota l 7,675,72 6 363,38 9 22. 7 23. 3 7,85 6 Source: Navigant

analysis Althoug h th e in-stor e tear-of f shee t surve y conducte di n PY 4 include dquestion s designe dt o infor ma n estimat e o f

low-incom e participatio n i n Smar t Lightin g Discount s an dcross-sector installatio n o f

progra mbulb s i n non-residentia l sockets , there wa s no t asufficien t

numbe r o f complete dsurvey s t o enabl e thi s analysi s base d o n PY 4 primar y data
. A s wa s specifie di n th e PY 4 evaluatio n pla n i n anticipatio n o f thi s possibl e outcome , th e low-incom e participatio n rate fro mSmar

t Hom e Rebate s (12% ) i s use d a s aprox y fo r

low-incom e participatio n i n SLD
. Th e estimat e o f

cross-sector

installatio n o f

progra mbulb s derive dfro mth e PY 2 in-stor e intercept s PEC O Energ y Compan

y | Pag e 4 1(7.7% ) i s use dt o calculat e commercia l an d industria l participatio n an dsavings
. Result s are

show n i n Tabl e 2- 2 below
. Appendi x C present s detaile dinformatio n o n th e estimatio n o f non residentia l participatio n i n th e SLD Program
. Tabl e 2-2 . PY 4 SL D Reporte d Result s b y Secto r

Secto r Participant s ; Reporte d Gros s Energ y ; Saving s (MWh/yr ) To p 10 0

Hours Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 )

Residentia l 210,52 2 13,619 0. 2 1. 5 ($220 ) Low-incom e 28,708 1,85 7 0. 0 0. 2 ($30 ) Commercia l an d Industria l 19,95 7 1,29 1 0. 0 0. 1 $62 4 Governmen t an d Nonprofi t 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 $ 0

PY 4 Tota l 259,18 7 16,768 0. 2 1. 8 $37 4 CPIT D Tota l 7,675,72 6 489,94 1 62. 0 63. 6 $7,85 6 Source : Nnvignn tnnnli/si s 2.2. 3 Verifie d Saving s Becaus e th e verificatio n proces s consist s o f checkin g th e progra mtrackin g dat aagains t manufacture r

invoices , rathe r

tha n performin g saving s measuremen t an dverificatio n activitie s fo r asubset

o f participants , there ar e n o samplin g methodolog y o r strat adesignation s associate dwit h th e Smar t Lightin g Discount s Progra msaving s verification
. There i s als o n o coefficien t

o f variation
. Consequently , Tabl e 2- 3 show s tha t bot h th e targe t

sampl e siz e an d th e achieve dsampl e siz e ar e th e whol e populatio n siz e o f progra mbulb s fo r

th e year .

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 4 2Tabl e 2-3 . SL D Samplin g Strategy fo r PY 4

Stratu m i

Strat a Boundarie s Populatio n

Siz e Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activit y Smar t Lightin g Discount s Al l

progra m bulb s 259,18 7 N/ A 90%/+0.00 % 259,18 7 259,18 7 Verify progra m bul b sale s agains t manufacture r invoices , appl y deeme d saving s parameter s t o calculat e savings
. Progra m Tota l 259,18 7 N/ A 90%/±0.00 % 259,18 7 259,18 7 Source: Navigant

analysis I n additio n t o th e program-reporte denerg y an ddeman dsavings , whic h wer e base d strictl y o n saving s parameter s fro mth e TRM , th e evaluatio n teamcalculate dsaving s b y tw o othe r methods : 1
. TRM-Verifie dsaving s an d Evaluatio n Verifie dsavings
. Thes e calculatio n method s differe dfro mth e Program-Reporte d energ y an d deman dsavings
. Th e TRM-Verifie d approac h t o saving s calculation s use dth e sam e saving s parameter s fro mth e TR M a s program-r e porte dsavings , bu t wa s modifie dt o reflec t th e fac t tha t 7. 7 percen t

o f progra mbulb s ar

e goin g int o commercia l installations
. 2
. The Evaluatio n Verifie dsaving s incorporate dth e 7. 7 percen t cross-sector

installations , a n update dpea

k loa dcoincidenc e facto r o f 11. 7 percen t

base d o n literatur e review , an d lighting-HVA C interactiv e effect s factor s fo r energ y (1.02 ) an ddeman d(1.19 ) base d o n buildin g energ y simulatio n modeling
. Coincidence Factor Prio r t o th e PY

4 Q 3 report , deman d reductio n impact s fo r residentia l lightin g measure s ha d bee n calculate dusin g th e Pea k Loa d Coincidenc e Factor (CF) o f

5 percen t

i n th e 201 2 Pennsylvani aTRM
. Thi s valu e come s fro ma200 7 repor t b y RLW Analytics , entitle d "Developmen t

o f Commo n Deman d Impact s fo r Energ y Efficienc y Measures/Program s fo r th e

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 4 3IS O Forwar dCapacity Marke t (FCM)." 1 4A s th e 5 percen t C F ha s been acknowledge db y bot h tli e statewid e evaluato r (SWE) an dth e technica l utilit y staf f o f th e PU C t o b e erroneous, 1 5 Navigan t

ha s use d aresidentia l lightin g loa dshap e develope dthroug h th e 200 9 Northeas t residentia l lightin g logge r stud y conducte db y Nexu s Marke t Research , RLW Analytics , an d GD S Associate s (th e NM R200 9 study ) t o calculat e arevise dC F o f 11. 7 percen t

ove r PECO' s To p 10 0 Hour s durin g th e summe r o f 2012. , 6 Detail s o n th e derivatio n o f thi s C F ar e presente d i n Appendi x A
. Lighting Interactive Effects Factor Navigan t

constructe dbuildin g energ y compute r simulatio n model s t o determin e th e HVA C impact s fro mefficien t

lightin g installation s i n th e PEC O servic e territory
. Navigan t use d thes e model s t o calculat e energ y an ddeman dlEFs , whic h are use d t o adjus t th e progra mlightin g saving s t o accoun t

fo r th e additiona l impact s o n HVA C energ y an ddemand
. Navigan t ha s no t applie denerg y an ddeman dinteractiv e effect s i n previou s evaluation s o f PECO' s residentia l program s becaus e thes e wer e no t include di n th e TRM
. However , th e evaluatio n teambelieve s tha t b y no t includin g thi s factor , th e TR M i s significantl y underestimatin g deman dsaving s fro m efficien t lightin g installations
. Detail s o n th e derivatio n o f th e lEF s ar

e presente d i n Appendi x B
. Reporte dPY

4 gros s energ y saving s tha t reflecte dth e 7. 7 percen t commercia l installatio n o f progra mbulb s wer e 16,76 8 MWh , a s show n i n Tabl e 2-4
. However , i n tha t calculation , th e evaluatio n tea

mdi dno t

appl y th e PY

4 realizatio n rate fo r

non-residentia l progra mbulbs , 0.86 , calculate di n th e SE

I evaluation
. Whe n thi s facto r i s applied , TRM-verifie dgros s energ y saving s ar e 16,02 8 MWh , an dth e resultin g energ y realizatio n rate fo r SLD i s 95. 6 percent .

MRL W Analytics , 2007
. "Developmen t o f Commo n Deman

dImpacts fo r

Energ y Efficienc y Measures/Program

s fo r th e IS O Forwar

dCapacit y Market (FCM)" , preparedfo r

th e Ne w Englan dStat e Progra mWorkin g Grou

p (SPWG) , Marc

h 25 , 2007 , p . IV
.
1 5 Se e th e minute s o

f th e Progra mEvaluatio n Grou

p meeting fro mMarch 20, 201 3 (forwarde dt o al l EDC s an devaluator s o

n Marc h 29 , 2013)
.
1 6 Nexu s Marke

t Research , Inc. , RL W Analytics , Inc. , an

dGD S Associates , 2009
. Residentia l Lightin g Markdow n Impact

Evaluation
. Prepare

d fo r Markdow n an

dBuydow n Progra

mSponsor

s i n Connecticut , Massachusetts , Rhod

e Island , an

dVermont
. Januar

y 20, 2009
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 4 4Tabl e 2-4 . PY 4 SL D TRM-Verifie d Summar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y

Stratu m

Smar t Lightin g Discount s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 16,76 8 Energ y

Realizatio n Rat e
96 % Observe d

Coefficien t

i o f Variatio n (Cv)o r _Pr o portio n 0 Relativ e

Precisio n at85 % Confidenc e 0 Verifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 16,02 8 Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 0 Progra mTota l 16,76 8 96 % 0 0 16,02 8 0 Source: Nnvignnt

nnnh/sis Usin g th e calculation s tha t includ e th e 7. 7 percen t cross-sector

installations , th e update dpea k loa dcoincidenc e facto r o f 11. 7 percent , an dth e lighting-HVA C interactiv e effect s factor s fo r energ y an ddemand , reporte dPY 4 gros s energ y saving s wer e 16,99 7 MWh , a s show n i n Tabl e 2- 5
. However , simila r t o th e TRM-base dcalculation s above , th e evaluatio n teamdi dno t appl y th e PY 4 realizatio n rat

e fo r non-residentia l progra mbulbs , 0.86 , calculate di n th e Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s evaluation
. Whe n thi s facto r i s applied , TRM-verifie dgros s energ y saving s ar

e 16,25 7 MWh , an dth e resultin g energ y realizatio n rat e fo r SLD i s 95. 6 percent . Tabl e 2-5 . PY 4 SL D Evaluation-Verifie d Summary o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y

Stratu m Reporte d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Energ y

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Smar t Lightin g Discount s 16,99 7 96 % 0 0 16,25 7 0 Progra mTota l 16,99 7 96 % 0 0 16,25 7 0 Source: Nnvignnt

nnnh/sfc Tabl e 2- 6 an dTabl e 2- 7 sho w th e pea k deman dsaving s calculation s usin g th e TR M approac h an dth e Navigan t

approac h describe dabov e fo r energy . A s discusse dfo r energ y saving s above , non-residentia l saving s parameter s wer e applie dt o th e 7. 7 percen t o f progra mbulb s tha t

wer e installe di n non-residentia l sockets
. Reporte dPY 4 gros s energ y saving s usin g thi s metho dwere 1. 8 MW , an dwhe n adjuste dt o incorporat e th e SE I deman drealizatio n rate yielde dverifie d gros s deman dsaving s o f 1. 6 MW
. The deman drealizatio n rate i s 8 7 percent .

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 4 5Tabl e 2-6
. PY 4 SL D TRM-Verifie dSummar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d

Stratu m Reporte d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Deman d

Realizatio n Rate Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (C ) o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Smart Lightin g Discount s 1. 8 87 % 0 0 1. 6 0 Progra mTota l 1. 8 87 % 0 0 1. 6 0 Source: Navigant

analysis Reporte dPY

4 gros s energ y saving s wer e 2. 9 M W whe n applyin g th e 7. 7 percen t cross-sector installations , th e 11. 7 percen t pea k coincidenc e factor , an dth e lighting-HVA C deman d interactiv e effect s facto r o f 1.19
. Afte r

adjustin g t o incorporat e th e SE I deman drealizatio n rate , Navigan t

verifie dgros s deman dsaving s ar e 2. 7 MW
. Th e deman drealizatio n rat e i s 9 2 percent . Tabl e 2-7
. PY

4 SL D Eva i uation-Verifie dSummar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d

Stratu m Reporte d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Deman d

Realizatio n Rate Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (O ) o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Smar t Lightin g Discount s 2. 9 92 % 0 0 2. 7 0 Progra mTota l 2. 9 92 % 0 0 2. 7 t l Source: Navigant

analysis 

## 2. 3 Impac tEvaluation Ne

tSaving s Du e t o th e insufficien t numbe r o f in-stor e tear-of

f surve y completes , i t

wa s no t

feasibl e t o develo p an estimate dNT G rati o base d specificall y o n PY 4 sales
. Instead , th e PY 2 sales

weighte dNT G rati o wa s use d t o calculat e PY 4 ne t savings
. The PY

2 NT G rati o wa s calculate d as th e simpl e averag e o f th e value s arisin g fro mfou r NT G methods : General populatio n telephon e surve y (NT G 0.4 4 fo r standar dCFLs , 0.4

0 fo r specialty CFLs) , in-stor e intercep t surve y (NT G 0.3 5 fo r al l CFLs) , trad e all y survey s (NT G 0.4 0 fo r standar dCFLs , 0.3 5 fo r specialty CFLs) , an dreveale dpreferenc e purchas e modelin g (NT G 0.3 5 fo r al l CFLs)
. O f th e fou r

NT G estimatio n method s employe di n PY2 , th e onl y metho dtha t specificall y capture s spillove r

i s th e general populatio n telephon e survey . Tw o type s o f spillove r

wer e estimate dfo r

th e PY 2 general populatio n self-repor t method : participan t

an dnon-participan t PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 4 6spillover
. Spillove r fo r bot h participant s an dnon-participant s include s al l adoption s o f energy efficien t lightin g measure s tha t ar e influence db y th e program , bu t ar e no t don e throug h th e progra m(i.e. , ar

e no t rebated)
. Th e PY 2 participan t

spillove r

rat e wa s calculate db y summin g th e spillove r adoption s ove r

al l progra mparticipant s an dthe n dividin g i t b y th e tota l numbe r

o f purchase s mad e throug h th e program . Th e PY

2 non-participan t

spillove r

rate wa s calculate di n asimila r manne r a s participan t

spillove r

excep t th e spillove r

adoption s wer e divide db y th e numbe r o f surveye d customers . Thi s valu e the n wa s applie dt o th e appropriat e populatio n o f non-participatin g customer s t o estimat e th e numbe r o f spillove r

adoption s occurrin g i n tha t population
. T o generate th e PY

4 overal l NT G estimate , th e evaluatio n tea mapplie deac h o f

th e PY 2 NT G estimate s b y bul b typ e t o th e PY 4 distributio n o f

standar dan dspecialty CF L sales
. Th e sales

weighte dNT G rati o fo r PY 4 arisin g fro mthes e value s i s 0.38 , th e sam e as th e sales-weighte d valu e fro mPY2
. 2. 4 Proces s Evaluatio n Th e proces s evaluatio n use dinformatio n fro mth e in-dept h progra mmanage r an dimplemente r interview s an dshel f

survey s t o asses s process-relate daspect s o f th e SLD Program
. Th e in-dept h interview s provide dinformatio n abou t th e progra mstrateg y an dfocu s i n compariso n wit h prio r progra myears . Th e shel f survey s gav e th e evaluatio n tea minsigh t

int o th e curren t

stat e o f th e lightin g marke t

throug h a

n inventor y o f

th e type s o f

bulb s availabl e i n store s fo r purchase
. Tw o in-dept h progra mmanage r an dimplemente r

interview s wer e conducte da s par t o f th e PY 4 evaluation
. Th e intervie w wit h progra mmanager s feature dthre e senior-leve l PEC O staf f wit h decision-makin g powe r ove r th e progra man dwh o kno w th e histor y o f th e program' s implementation , operation , successes , an dfailures
. Thes e interview s wer e complete dove r the phon e i n Januar

y an dFebruary o f

2013
. Interviewee s verifie dtha t th e progra mdesig n ha s been generall y consisten t fro mPY3 int o PY4
. Discoun t level s fo r

each typ e o f

bul b feature di n th e progra mwer e no t change dsignificantl y fro mprio r

progra myears . A smal l numbe r o f additiona l specialty CFL model s wer e adde dt o th e progra man dresulte di n increasin g th e progra moffering s fo r reflecto r lamps , candelabras , an ddimmabi e CFLs
. I n PY 4 th e progra mfocuse dalmos t completel y i n Hom e Improvement/DI Y store s wit h aminima l presenc e i n smal l hardwar e stores , wherea s i n PY l an dPY 2 i t als o feature dprominentl y i n big-bo x store s an dwarehouse/clu b stores . Whil e th e signag e an dothe r

point-of-purchas e (POP ) material s i n participatin g store s hav e no t been PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 4 7

### substantially modified , th e genera l messagin

g of th e progra mha s shifte dfro memphasizing th e incentive s o

n CFL s a s asource o f

saving s t o emphasizing th

e mor e significan t

saving s tha

t on e ca n achiev e ove r th e lifetim e of

abulb by switchin g t

o energy-efficient

lighting
. Stor

e visit s and lightin g demonstration s wer e conducted b y tw o fiel dstaf f tha t helped answe

r customers ' question s abou

t th e specifi c lightin g type s tha t woul dmee

t thei r needs
. Th

e PEC O website , bil l inserts , an

dradi o advertisement s remain th e primary marketin g tool s fo r th e program . Th e evaluatio n tea

mconducted shel

f survey s a

t asampl e of eigh t store s acros s tw o retailer s tha t wer e participant s i n th

e PY 4 program . A s apoin t

of comparison , th

e evaluatio n tea

mcompare

d th e Pennsylvani ashel

f surve y dat aagains t shel f surve y dat afro msevera

l store s a t those sam

e retailer s i n California
. Becaus e Californi aha

s a n accelerate

d schedul e of adoptio n of

Energ y Independence and Securit y Ac t (EISA ) legislatio n by on

e yea r compared wit h th

e rest of th e country , thi s compariso n offer s aloo k on e yea r ahea d i n terms of

th e sell-throug h of

traditiona l incandescen

t bulb s of certai n wattage s whos e manufactur e an d impor t ar e no longe

r permitte d unde r EISA, and th

e resultin g influenc e on th e availabilit

y of product s on th

e shelves
. Th e shelf survey s documented th e presenc e of avariet y of informatio n material s relate d t o energy-efficient

lightin g i n th

e lightin g aisle s of

participatin g stores . Overall , th

e shel f survey s revealed alightin g marke t i n transition , a

s retailers , manufacturers , andPEC O al l focu s o n th

e increasing arra

y o f energy-efficient

lightin g option s available
. Th e focu s o f SL D on specialt

y CFL s i n PY 4 i s evident

fro mth e shel f surve y data
. Traditional incandescen

t bulb s affecte d by EISA ar e on a n expecte d tren d o

f reduced presenc

e on stor e shelves , thoug h a

t asomewha

t slowe r tim e trajector

y tha n expected
. PEC

O incentive s on progra mbulb s ar

e typicall y $1.50 pe

r bulb acros s most

bulb type s and represen t adiscoun

t o f 1 7 t o 3 8 percent . Proces s recommendation s liste di n Tabl e 2- 8 ar e largely carrie d forwar dfro mth e PY 3 evaluation , reinforce d b y th e finding s fro mth

e PY 4 progra mmanage

r and implemente

r interview s andshelf

surveys .

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 4 8Tabl e 2-8. Statu s Reportfo r SL D Proces s Evaluation s

Recommendation s ED C Statu s Repor t fo r Proces s Evaluation s (Implemented , Bein g Considered , Rejecte d AN D Explanatio n o f

Actio n Take n b y EDC )

Prioritiz e in-store intercep t survey s usin g fiel dstaf f i n th e aisle s o f participatin g store s t o collec t informatio n fo r

ke y evaluatio n parameter s Implemented
. ED C i s workin g wit h progra m implemente r

t o facilitat e logistic s an d permissio n fo r thes e i n PY

5 participatin g stores . Us e aSegmente dMarketin g Approac h fo r PEC O Customer s Base

do n Socke

t Saturatio n Bein g considered
. PEC O manager s an d th e evaluatio n tea mar e schedulin g acal l t o discus s options
. Eocu s educatio n an dmarketin g effort s o n th e wid e variet y o f

specialty CFL s that

ar e availabl e Bein g considered
. PEC O manager s an d th e evaluatio n tea mar e schedulin g acal l t o discus s options
. Us e th e phase-out

unde r EIS A o f traditiona l incandescent 60- W an d 40- W bulb s a s o f Januar y 201 4 a

s a n opportunit y t o emphasiz e growin g diversit y an d excellen t performanc e o f

energy-efficien t

lightin g option s Bein g considered
. PEC O manager s an d th e evaluatio n

tea mar e schedulin g acal l t o discus s options
.

Expec t th e educatio n proces s aroun dlume n awarenes s t o tak e alon g time , an d sustai n educatio n effort s Bein g considered
. PEC O manager s an dth e evaluatio n teamar e schedulin g acal l t o discus s options
. Increas e th e Coordinatio n o f Communit y Outreac h an d In-Store Tab I in g Eve

n ts Acros s PECO' s Portf o l io o f Energ y Efficienc y Program s Bein g considered
. PEC O manager s an dth e evaluatio n teamar e schedulin g acal l t o discus s options
. Source: Navigant

analysis 

## 2. 5 Financia

l Reportin

g Tabl e 2- 9 an dTabl e 2-1 0 presen t progra mfinances
. Th e cost s ar e th e sam

e i n bot h tables ; however , Tabl e 2- 9 present s benefit s base d o n TR M Verifie dsavings , wherea s Tabl e 2-1 0 present s benefit s base d o n Evaluatio n Verifie dsavings
. Th e progra mwa s highl y cos t effectiv e durin g bot h PY

4 an dal l o f

Phas e I i n bot h scenarios
. I n PY 4 Q4 , there wer e $75,00 0 pai di n incentive s however , i n tha t sam e quarter , $624,00

0 i n incentiv e cost s wer e move dfro mSL D t o th e Smart

Equipmen t

Incentive s Progra mi n recognitio n tha t aportio n o f

overal l portfoli o incentiv e dollar s wer e goin g t o customer s tha t wer e installin g SLD Progra mbulb s i n non residentia l sockets
. Th e CPIT D TR C fo r th e duratio n o f

Phas e I wa s 11.7 7 (15.4 5 usin g PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 4 9

### Evaluatio n Verifie dsavings) , due to th e large r progra msize i n PY1-PY3 , whic h generated large r saving s benefit s se

t agains t th e relativel y fixe dnatur

e o f som e progra mcosts . Tabl e 2-9
. Summar

y o f SL D Finance s Usin g TR M Verifie dSaving s

IQ' 9 ' ($1,000 ) PY 4 ($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 0 0 0 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s -53 3 -249 7,85 7 Subtota l ED C Incentiv e Cost s -53 3 -249 7,85 7 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration 11 1 13 5 48 5 2,59 9 Management 12 1 13 1 360 1,14 2 Marketing 13 1 47 6 88 2 4,11 6 Technica l Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Implementatio n Cost s 74 2 1,72 7 7,85 7
ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 21 7 41 6 1,11 0 SWE Audi t

Cost s 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs

W 42 6 1,893 16,82 3 Participan t

Costs 15 ' N/ A 75 5 17,37 9 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 ' N/ A 2,89 7 26,34 6
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/ A 11,67 5 339,33 0 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N/ A 60 9 22,38 2 Tota l TR C Benefits' 7 " N/ A 13,147 310,00 1 TR C Ratio' 1 " N/ A 4.5 4 11.7 7 NOTE S Per PUC direction, TRC

inputs and calculations are required in the Annual

Report only and should

compl]/ with the ZOUTolal Resource Cost Test Order approved'luly 28, 2011. Please sec the "Report Definitions"

section of

this report

far more delails. j 1 1 Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system , an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost. |2 | include s LD

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . 13 | Include s th

e marketing CS

P an dmarketin g cost

s b y progra mCSPs
. |4 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order, th e Tota l HO C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurredexpense

s only
. 15 1 Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order , th e ne t Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us e custome r o r progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t costs . Thes

e include incentive s pai dt o applianc e recyclin

g an dDeman dRespons

e participants
. |6 | Tota l TR C Cost s include s LD

C Lvalualio n Costs , ED

C Implementation Costs , an dParticipan

t Costs
. |7 | Tota l TR C Henefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tota l Lifetime linergy Henefit s an dTota l Litetim e Capacit y Henefit s plu s an y benefi t associate d wit h avoidedincandescen

t purchases mad

e due t o th e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a

s compare dt o th e

. baselin e measure . Hase

dupo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoidedsuppl

y costs , includin g th

e reduction i n cost s o f eleclri c energy , generation , Iransmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s value da t margina l cos l fo r period s whe n ther e is aloa dreduction
. J8 ] TR C Rati o equal s Tota

l TR C Henefi W divide db

y Tota l TR C Costs
. |9 | Pos t PY 4 cost s an dbenefits ar

e include din IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Navigant

anah/sis PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 5 0Tabl e 2-10 . Summary o

f SL D Finance s Usin g Evaluatio n Verifie d Saving s 1 IQ

M ($1,000 ) PY 4

($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 0 0 0 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s -53 3 -24 9 7,85 7 Subtotal ED C Incentiv e Cost s -53 3 -24 9 7,85 7 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration" 1 13 5 48 5 2,59 9 Management 12 1 13 1 36 0 1,14 2 Marketing 13 1 47 6 88 2 4,11 6 Technica l Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtotal ED C Implementatio n Cost s 74 2 1,727 7,85 7
ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 21 7 41 6 1,11 0 SW E Audi tCosts 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs

W 42 6 1,89 3 16,82 3 Participan tCosts 15 1 N/ A 75 5 17,37 9 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 ! N/ A 2,89 7 26,34 6
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/ A 11,85 8 344,05 1 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N/ A 1,03 2 35,81 9 Tota l TR C Benefitsi " N/ A 13,75 3 406,97 3 TR C Ratio 18 ' N/ A 4.7 5 15.4 5 NOTE S Per PUC direct hit, TRC inputs and

calculations arc required in the Annual Report onlt/ and should comphf with the 201 ITotal Resource Cosl Test Order approved fulif 28, 2011. Please see Ihe "Report Definitions"

section of

this report

for more details. | 1 ] Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system , an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost. [2 | Include s LD

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . [3 1 Include s th

e marketing CS

P an dmarketing cost

s b y progra mCSPs
. |4 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order, th e Tota l LD C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurre dexpense

s only
. |5 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order , th e ne t Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us o custome r o r progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t costs . Thes

e include incentive s pai dt o applianc e recycling an

dDeman dRespons

e participants
. |6 | Tota l TR C Cost s include s LD

C Evaluatio

n Costs , LD

C Implementation Costs , an dParticipan

t Costs
. |7 | Tota l TR C henefit s equal s Ih

e su mo f Tola l Lifetime Energ

y Henefit s an dTola l Lifetime Capacit

y Henefit s plu s an y benefi t associate d wit h avoidedincandescen

t purchases mad

e du e t o th e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a

s compare dl o th e baselin e measure . Hase

dupo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoidedsuppl

y costs , includin g th

e reductio n i n cost s o f electri c energy , generation , Iransmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s value da t margina l cos t fo r periods whe n ther e i s aloa dreduclion
. 18 ] TR C Rati o equal s Tota

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tota l TR C Costs
. |9 ] Pos t PY 4 cost s an dbenefits ar

e includedi n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Nnvignnt

nnnli/sis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 5 1

## 3 SmartApplianc e Recyclin g

Th e Smar t Applianc e Recyclin

g (SAR ) progra moffer s fre e pickup an

drecyclin g service s fo r older , workin g refrigerator s an dfreezers tha

t household s no longe

r want . Progra

msaving s ar

e base d o n th e accelerate

d removal , dismantling , an drecyclin g o f

thes e older , inefficien t

units
. I n exchang e fo r participatin g i n th

e program , PEC

O pay s participant s a

n incentiv e fo r

eac h remove duni t (u p t o amaximumof

tw o recycledrefrigerator s o r freezers)
. Th e progra mha s tw o components , JACO recyclin g andretaile r pickups
. Th

e JACO recyclin g componen

t concentrate s on remova l of existin g secondar

y unit s fro mhome s andapartments . Th e retaile r componen

t o f th e progra mfocuse s o

n preventin g forme

r primar y refrigerator s and freezers fro mbein g retainedan duse d a s secondar

y unit s when customers purchas e new units
. Throug h th

e program , unit s ar

e removedfro mcustomers ' home s an dretailers ' facilitie s to a collectio n facility an

ddisassemble

d fo r environmentall y responsible disposa l andrecycling
. Ther e i s no charge t

o th e custome r fo r th e applianc e picku p an

drecycling
. 

## 3. 1 Progra

m Update

s Th e design o f

th e Smar t Applianc e Recyclin

g progra mha s remainedlargely th

e sam e a s i n previou s progra

myears , wit h th

e exception of

th e progra mincentiv e level an

deliminatio n o

f th e roo mai

r conditione

r measure . O n Novembe r 1 , 2011 , th

e incentiv e was reducedfro m $35/unit t o $15/unit

andth e roo mai r

conditioner

measur e wa s eliminate dfro mth

e program . Thi s wa s par t of abroade r strategy by PEC

O to reduce incentive s acros s most of it s programs . Th e lowe r incentiv e level ha

s resulte di n asignifican t dro p i n participatio n levels , whic h ar e no w les s tha

n one-thirdof

th e level s see

n prio r to thi s incentiv e reduction
. 

## 3. 2 Impac tEvaluation Gros s Saving s 3.2. 1 Methodolog

y Th e impac t evaluatio n of

th e Applianc e Recycling progra mi s base d o n a n in-dept h revie w and analysi s o f

trackin g data , applicatio n o f th e deeme d saving s factor s approve db y th e SW E and publishe di n th

e TR M o r arelate dwork

paper , an daseparat

e verificatio n o

f unit s bein g picke d up by th e progra mvi aatelephon

e survey . Th

e verificatio n wa

s base d on ascreenin

g question i n tli e telephon

e surve y t o verif y th e appliance s wer

e picke du

p a s reporte di n th

e progra m trackin g database
. Th

e firs t an dsecon d wave s of

participant

telephon e surveys , fo r

al l PY 4 participants , wer

e completedi n early March an dJul y 2013 , respectively
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 5 2Th e energ y an ddeman dsaving s fo r thi s progra mar

e straightforward
. Al l value s i n th e calculatio n ar

e deemed , wit h th e exceptio n o f th e verificatio n factor , whic h i s derive dfro mth e telephon e survey . Pe

r th e TRM , separat

e saving s factor s ar

e applie dfo r

replace dunit s {reflectin g somewha t

lowe r savings ) an dnon-replace dunit s (incorporatin g somewha t highe r savings)
. I n addition , replace dunit s ar e differentiate db y whethe r th e uni t

i s ENERG

Y STAR certifie do r

non-ENERG Y STARcertified
. ENERG Y STAR-certifie dunit s hav e asomewhat highe r deeme d saving s valu e tha n non-ENERG Y STARcertifie dunits
. Verifie dsaving s ar e equa l t o th e numbe r

o f recycle dunit s time s th e TR M saving s pe r uni t time s th e verificatio n factor
. 3.2. 2 Reporte dSaving s Tabl e 3- 1 present s progra mparticipation , savings , an dincentive s o n aquarterl y basis
. Tabl e 3- 2 indicate s ho w progra mparticipation , savings , an dincentive s throug h th e en do f PY 4 ar e distribute dacros s custome r sectors . Low-incom e saving s wa s calculate db y applyin g a percentag e o f

low-incom e participant s time s overal l progra mMW h an dM W savings
. Th e percentag e o f

low-incom e participant s wa s base d o n surve y finding s t o aquestio n regardin g famil y incom e levels
. Thes e incom e level s wer e tailore dt o each responden t base d o n th e numbe r o f person s the y indicate di n thei r household
. Th e threshol duse d t o defin e lo w incom e wa s 20 0 percen t

o f Federal Poverty Level s (FPLs)
. Base do n thes e findings , 18. 6 percen t o f participant s i n th e progra mar e define da

s lo w income
. Tabl e 3-1 . PY 4 SmartApplianc e Recyclin g Progra m Reporte d Result s b y Quarte r

Reportin g Perio d Participant s Reporte dGros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 100 Hour s

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Cros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) PY 4 Q l 1,070 1,55 0 0. 1 0. 2 1 7 PY 4 Q 2 73 2 1,05 1 0 0. 2 1 2 PY 4 Q 3 51 1 78 1 0 0. 1 8 PY 4 Q 4 51 7 75 6 0 0. 1 8 PY 4 Tota l 2,83 0 4,13 8 0. 1 0. 6 4 5 CPIT D Tota l 30,57 3 47,43 1 9. 2 9. 7 1,077 Source: Program tracking data, reviewed in/ Navigant team
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 5 3Tabl e 3-2 . PY 4 SmartApplianc e Recyclin g Progra m Reporte d Result s b y Secto r

Secto r Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10 0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) Residentia l 2,30 4 3,36 8 0. 1 0. 5 3 6 Low-I n com

e 52 6 77 0 0. 0 0. 1 8
Commercia l an d Industria l 0 0 0 0 0
Governmen t

an d Nonprofi t 0 0 0 0 0 PY 4 Tota l 2,83 0 4,13 8 0. 1 0. 6 4 5 CPIT D Tota l 30,57 3 47,43 1 9. 2 9. 7 1,077 Source: Nnvignnt

anali/sis Th e sampl e fo r

th e telephon e surve y o f progra mparticipant s wa s draw n t o achiev e 90/1 0 confidence/precisio n level s o n an annua l basis
. A s show n i n Tabl e 3-3 , th e targe t sampl e siz e fo r th e telephon e surve y i n PY 4 wa s 25 0 complete dsurveys . I n total , 25 6 survey s wer e completed , slightl y highe r tha n th e target . I n addition , survey s wer e conducte dwit h th e thre e larges t retailer s associate d wit h unit s replace db y participant s afte r th e progra mha dremove d thei r units
. Thes e retaile r

surve y result s are factore dint o th e NT G rati o calculation
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 54Tabl e 3-3
. Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra mSamplin g Strateg y fo r PY 4

Stratu m Strat a

Boundarie s Populatio n

Siz e Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activit y Populatio n N/ A 2,97 2 0.3 5 85/1 5 25 0 25 6 Participan t survey : Part-us e factor , NTG , Proces s Attempte d censu s o f larges t firm s N/ A 3 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Retaile r survey . NT G

Progra m Tota l N/ A 2,97 2 0.3 5 85/1 5 25 0 25 6 Participan t survey : Part-us e factor , NTG , Proces s Source : Nnvigan l nnaiysi s 3.2. 3 Verifie dSaving s Tabl e 3- 4 an dTabl e 3-5 presen t evaluatio n result s fo r

energ y an ddemand , respectively
. Result s ar e significantl y dow n fro mprio r years, 1 7 reflectin g th e result s o f th e significan t

drop-of f i n participatio n levels
. I n addition , th e energ y an ddeman drealizatio n rate s o f 94 percent , resultin g fro mth e phon e surve y conducted , reflect s th e fac t tha t no t al l customer s wer e abl e t o verify tha t

PECO' s progra mhad , i n fact , collecte dthei r unit
. Som

e 6 percen t

di dnot .

1 7 Fo r example , PY

3 saving s wer

e 12,30 9 MW h an di n PY 2 the y wer e 16,74 9 MWh
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 5 5Tabl e 3-4 . PY 4 SmartApplianc e Recyclin g Program Summar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y

Stratu m Reporte d

Cros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Energ y

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Populatio n 4/13 8 94.0 % 0.184 0.49 % 3,87 3 0 Progra mTota l 4,13 8 94.0 % 0.184 0.49 % 3,87 3 0 Source: Navigant team anah/sis Tabl e 3-5
. PY

4 Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra mSummar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d

Stratu m
Populatio n Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW )

" 0. 6 Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e 94 % Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (C ) o r Proportio n 0.25 3 Relativ e

Precisio n a t 85 % Confidenc e 0.14 % Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) 0.56 4 Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0 Progra mTota l 0. 6 94 % 0.25 3 0.14 % 0.56 4 0 Source: Nnvignnt team analysis 

## 3. 3 Impac tEvaluation Ne

tSaving s The NT G assessmen

t o f retailer-so u ree dunit s ha s been expande d i n PY 4 t o asses s progra m influenc e i n al l case s wher e a n existin g uni t

ha s been replaced
. Suc h an inquir y involve s investigatin g th e use d applianc e disposa l practice s o f mos t o f th e majo r

retailer s associate d wit h uni t replacements.
. Navigan t use d response s fro mth e participatin g custome r surve y to determin e th e analytica l approac h fo r th e retaile r

associate d units , as wel l as th e non-replace d unit s picke du p b y JAC O a t customers ' homes
. Th e NT G rati o ha s been calculate dusin g atwo
ste p process : first , t o th e participan t surve y fo r

informatio n o n uni t

disposa l absent

PECO' s program ; second , fo r

thos e participant s tha t replace dexistin g unit s an dtha t indicate dthe y woul dhav e ha dthei r

uni t remove db y th e deale r tha t the y go t thei r replacemen t

uni t from
. Th e result s fro mth e retaile r interview s ar

e use d directl y t o calculat e th e NT G ratio
. Th e NT G rati o thu s encompasse s fre e ridershi p fro meac h o f thes e segment s i n term s o f th e following :

» Retailer s associate d wit h ne w uni t purchase s wh o indicate dthe y woul dhav e otherwise : PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 5 6o Deconstructe dth e uni t (includin g re-sellin g and/o r recyclin g it s componen t parts ) o Takin g th e uni t

t o alandfill/dump/scra p deale r

» Participatin g customer s wh o indicate dthe y woul dhav e otherwise : o Sen t th e uni t t o arecyclin g facility , o r o Take n th e uni t

t o alandfill/dump/scra p dealer Becaus e th e progra mapproac h doe s no t suppor t atheor y fo r

ho w meaningfu l spillove r migh t occur , an dbecaus e i t

doe s see munlikel y t o b e significant , Navigan t di dno t estimat e spillover
. Th e progra mNT G rati o fo r PY 4 i s thu s aweighte daverag e base d o n response s fro meac h participatin g retaile r

interviewe dan deach participatin g custome r surveye dfo r

unit s source d fro meac h source , respectively
. O f thos e surve y respondent s tha t replace dthei r

units , som

e 5 4 percen t

(9 4 o f 174) indicate dthe y woul dhav e ha dthei r

uni t remove db y th e dealer
. Th e remainin g 4 6 percen t (8 0 o f 174) woul d hav e use d variou s othe r method s suc h a

s donatin g i t

t o acharity , haulin g i t t o th e dum p an d recyclin g center , hirin g someon e t o hau l i t away , an dkeepin g i t

stored , unplugged
. Participatin g Custome r Findings
. I n total , 6 3 ou t o f 22 4 refrigerato r

respondent s (28% ) an d1 4 o f 3 8 freeze r

respondent s (3 7 % ) reveale dthe y woul dhav e use d ametho dto dispos e o f thei r uni t tha t woul dhav e permanentl y destroye dit , indicatin g the y ar e fre e riders
. Not e tha t th e tota l numbe r o f refrigerato r

an dfreeze r

respondent s o f

26 2 exceed s th e tota l numbe r o f surve y complete s ( N = 256)
. Thi s i s becaus e asmal l numbe r o f respondents , si x i n total , ha dbot h type s o f units
. Resultin g NT G ratio s fo r non-replace r

recyclin g customer s an dthos e tha t replace da uni t ar e 0.7 2 fo r

refrigerators , an d0.6 3 fo r freezers
. Thes e value s wer e applie dt o bot h non replace dunits , an dthos e wh o woul dhav e use d ametho dno t involvin g th e retaile r

fro mwho m the y bough t

th e replacemen t

uni t i n calculatin g th e NT G ratio
. Program-Induce dReplacements
. Th e NT G rati o als o reflect s th e impac t o f program-induce d replacements
. Thi s account s fo r th e rol e playe db y PECO' s SA Rprogra man dincentiv e i n inducin g acustome r

t o replac e thei r

uni t afte r th e ol duni t

wa s remove db y th e progra man d recycled
. Suc

h inducemen t

coul dresul t

fro mth e progra mincentive , th e convenienc e o f th e hom e pickup , o r

som e othe r facto r name db y th e respondent
. Th e program-induce d replacemen t

effec t o n th e NT G rati o i s extremel y small—+0.0 1 i n magnitude—an di s adde d t o th e fina l NT G rati o afte r al l othe r calculation s ar

e done
.

PEC

O Energ y Compan y J Pag e 5 7

### Retailer

Findings
. A tota

l o f three retailer s tha

t provide dreplacemen

t unit s to participatin g customers wer

e interviewe dthoroughl y t o lear n of their applianc e disposa

l practice s i n th

e absenc e o f PECO' s program . Retailers wer e aske d aserie s of

question s regardin g th

e following :

» Picku p an ddisposa l service s fo r

replacedunit s o Charges , i f

an y fo r suc h service s o Percentag

e of customer s tha t receiv e suc h service s

» Recyclin

g and/or deconstruct!on of

unit s picke du p by th

e retaile r o Approac h fo r

unit s outside o f

PECO' s progra

m- percentage o f

unit s affecte d o Approac h prio r

t o th e start-u p of PECO' s progra

m- percentage of

unit s affecte d

» Othe r dispositio n of

unit s o Percentag

e tha t ar e pickedup by ahauler/thir dpart y andresold(i.e. , remain gri dconnected

) Eac h retaile r provide dspecifi c answers to eac h of thes e topi c areas . I n general , ahig h percentage of

unit s turne dove

r to retailer s ar

e bein g disposedo

f vi aametho dtha

t permanently remove s the

mfro mth

e grid
. Onl y small percentages—th e newest unit s i n th

e bes t conditio n — ar e resoldandtherefore , remai n gri dconnected
. Fro mthi s information , w

e wer e abl e t o construc t

aretailer-specifi c NTG ratio , representing 1 minu s th e percentag

e o f unit s tha t woul dotherwis e hav

e bee n recycledo

r deconstructedi n th

e absenc e of PECO' s program . Th

e results , by retailer , ar

e shown i n Tabl

e 3-6
. Tabl e 3-6 . PY 4 Net-to-Gros

s Ratio s by Retailer Retaile r Retaile r ffl - nationa l chai n Free Ride r %* * NT G rati o Percentag e o f Respondent s Retaile r Retaile r ffl - nationa l chai n 59 % 0.4 1 25 % Retaile r # 2 - regiona l chai n 79% 0.2 1 4 % Retaile r # 3 - nationa l chai n 70% 0.3 0 1 %
**Self-reported

percentage of

units that

are recycled

or deconstructed

in the absence of

PECO's program. These are based on each retailer's direct responses. Source; Navigant

ami if sis 

### Response s fro mth e participatin g custome

r surve y wer e use d i n al l case

s t o determine the basi s fo r th e NTG ratio
. Th

e NTG rati o was calculatedusin g atwo-ste p process . Firs t

th e participant survey provide dinformatio n on uni t disposa l absen t PECO' s program . Second, fo r those participant s tha

t replacedexistin g unit s an dtha t indicate dthe

y woul dhav

e ha dtheir uni t
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 5 8remove db y th e deale r tha t the y go t

thei r replacemen t

uni t from , th e result s fro mth e retaile r interview s wer e use d directl y t o calculat e th e NT G ratio
. Som e 3 0 percent

o f respondent s fel l int o thi s category . Th e remainin g 7 0 percen t o f respondent s provide danswer s no t relate dt o retaile r disposal
. Thei r

NT G ratio s are base d o n answer s suc h a s givin g th e uni t

t o afrien do r neighbor , resellin g it , givin g i t t o acharity , takin g i t

t o alandfill , o r

havin g arecycler

hau l i t away . Th e latte r

tw o respons e categorie s ar e considere dfre e riders
. Thus , th e NT G rati o i s aweighte daverag e o f retailer-associate dresponse s an dnon-retailer

associate d responses 1
. Onc e thi s weighte daverag e wa s computed , th e impac t o f th e program induce dreplacemen t

facto r o f +0.0 1 wa s the n incorporated
. Base do n thi s weighte daverage , th e verifie dNT G ratio s fo r PY 4 o f 0.5 8 fo r refrigerator s an d 0.4 3 fo r freezer s (o r

0.5 6 acros s th e entir e program) , ar e somewha t

lowe r tha n the verifie dNT G value s i n PY3 o f

0.6 4 fo r refrigerator s an d0.6

5 fo r freezers
. A primar y caus e o f thi s reductio n i s th e hig h percentag e o f units , som

e 7 0 percen t

i n th e program , tha t

wer e recentl y replaced , triggerin g th e retaile r

NT G result s i n man y cases . I n general , th e retaile r NT G rati o value s ar

e significantl y lowe r

tha n th e value s obtaine dfro mtraditiona l phon e surve y respons e categorie s (e.g. , takin g th e uni t

t o alandfill , givin g t o afrien do r neighbor)
. Retaile r

value s ar

e lo w becaus e th e retailers ' existin g disposa l practice s alread y remov e th e vas t majorit y o f

unit s fro m th e gri dusin g method s suc h as recyclin g unit s o r permanentl y deconstructin g them
. 3. 4 Proces s Evaluatio n 3.4. 1 Methodology Th e proces s evaluatio n componen t o f th e SA

Revaluatio n focuse s o n progra m awareness/marketing , reason s fo r participation , an dsatisfactio n wit h progra mprocesses , includin g sign-up , applianc e pickup , incentiv e levels , an dreceip t o f th e refun dcheck
. Dat a source s fo r

th e proces s evaluatio n includ e th e telephon e surve y o f progra mparticipant s ( N = 256 ) an ddiscussion s wit h progra mstaff
. 3.4. 2 Proces s Finding s Proces s findings , based o n surve y results , ar e below
. Source s o f

infonnatio n abou t

th e Program
. Whe n asked , unprompted , wher e the y ha dhear do f th e program , slightl y les s tha n hal f o f th e participant s (44% ) recalle dseein g th e progra m mentione di n abil l insert wit h jus t

ove r one-thir d(35% ) sayin g tha t wa s wher e the y firs t PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 59learne do f th e program . Othe r

source s wher e participant s hear do f th e progra minclud e wor do f mout h (32%) , th e retaile r tha t the y purchase d ane w uni t fro m(11%) , an dth e PEC O websit e (9%) , amon g others
. Th e retaile r an d PEC O websit e source s hav e increase di n influenc e relativ e t o previou s years . Reason s fo r

participating
. Participant s wer e asked , unprompted , wh y the y chos e th e PEC O SA RProgra mt o dispos e o f thei r applianc e instea do f som e othe r disposa l method
. Th e convenienc e o f

th e hom e picku p wa s th e mai n sellin g poin t o f th e progra mfo r

more participant s (36% ) tha n an y othe r reason . A n additiona l 1 0 percent cite di t as asecondar

y reaso n fo r wh y the y participated
. Thi s wa s somewhat o f acontras t

t o previou s years ' evaluation s wher e th e cas h incentiv e wa s th e mos t compellin g reason . Mor e tha n likely , th e reductio n i n th e incentiv e amoun t

i s leadin g t o i t

bein g o f lesse r importance
. Th e secon dmos t frequentl y give n reaso n wa s th e cas h incentiv e provide db y th e program , whic h wa s cite db y 3 0 percen t a s a mai n reaso n fo r

participating , an d anothe r 2 3 percen t

a s asecondar

y reason . Th e thir dmos t popula r reaso n wa s th e environmentall y responsibl e disposa l optio n provide db y the program , wit h 1 6 percen t

sayin g i t

wa s th e mai n reaso n an d an additiona l 1 3 percen t asecondar

y reason . Finally , som

e wer e jus t

happ y the y di dno t

hav e t o pa y fo r

th e picku p ( 5 % main , 6 % secondary)
. Satisfactio n wit h th e Program
. Overall , 9 0 percen t o f customer s wer e satisfie dwit h thei r experienc e wit h th e Smart Applianc e Recyclin g Program , as indicate db y score s o f 8 , 9 , o r 1 0 o n a0 t o 10-poin t

satisfactio n scale
. Nearl y two-third s (60% ) score dth e progra maperfec t 10 , indicatin g the y wer e highl y satisfie dwit h it
. Thi s i s dow n somewha t fro mpreviou s years , mor e tha n likel y reflectin g th e effect s o f th e incentiv e reduction , an dgenera l scalin g bac k o f th e program . Custome r

satisfactio n wit h th e sign-u p proces s i s ver y high , wit h 9 5 percen t o f participant s ratin g thei r

satisfactio n a

s an 8 , 9 o r

1 0 o n a0 t o 10-poin t

scale , wher e 0 i s ver y dissatisfie dan d 1 0 i s ver y satisfied
. Onl y 6 o f 20 9 customer s surveye d(3% ) rate dthei r experienc e lowe r

tha n a6 o n th e 0 t o 10-poin t

satisfactio n scale
. Participant s wh o signe du p vi ath e phon e sai dtha t th e representativ e wa s polit e an dcourteou s (100% ) answere dal l o f thei r question s abou t

th e progra m(98%) , an d tha t the y onl y neede dt o cal l onc e t o successfull y sig n u p fo r th e progra m (91%)
. Participant s wh o signe du p onlin e reporte d tha t th e sign-up screen wa s eas y t o fin d(9 9 %) , an dtha t

the y receive dconfirmatio n tha t th e sign-u p ha dbeen successfu l (99%)
. Progra mrecord s indicate dtha t applianc e picku p wai t tim e durin g PY

4 average djus t

les s tha n 1 2 days , a

s mos t customer s wer e abl e t o schedul e apicku p date tha t wa s withi n tw o week s o f th e initia l contac t

(95% ) an dwer e generall y ver y satisfie dwit h th e amoun t o f tim e betwee n th e PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 6 0tim e the y mad e th e appointmen t an dth e picku p date
. (85 % gav e score s o f 8 , 9 o r 1 0 o n a0 t o 10

- poin t satisfactio n scale. ) Mos t importantly , 9 7 percen t o f participant s sai dthe y wer e abl e t o schedul e apicku p date tha t wa s convenien t

fo r them
. Overall , 9 1 percen t

o f participant s wer e satisfie dwit h th e collectio n tea mwh o cam e t o pic k u p th e appliance , as indicate db y score s o f 8 , 9 , o r 1 0 o n a0 t o 10-poin t

satisfactio n scale
. Onl y tw o respondent s sai dthe y wer e dissatisfied , citin g tha t th e collectio n teamwa s rude
. Whil e dow n fro mpreviou s progra myears , amajorit y o f participant s stil l reporte dth e incentiv e paymen t t o b e ake y reaso n wh y the y participate di n the program . Furthermore , les s than two
third s o f participant s (61% ) sai dtha t the y wer e very satisfie dwit h th e payment , a s indicate d b y satisfactio n score s o f 8 , 9 , o r 1 0 o n a0 t o 10-poin t

satisfactio n scale
. Thi s i s significantl y lowe r tha n i n PY3 , whe n 7 5 percen t o f participant s reporte dhig h satisfactio n wit h th e siz e o f th e incentiv e payment . However , give n th e significan t reductio n i n th e siz e o f th e incentiv e startin g i n Novembe r

2011 , i t i s somewhat

surprisin g tha t

satisfactio n wit h th e incentiv e leve l generall y remain s relativel y high
. Twent y participant s (8% ) reporte dbein g dissatisfie dwit h th e siz e o f th e incentiv e paymen t the y receive das aresul t o f thei r participatio n i n th e program , a s indicate db y thei r

ver y lo w satisfactio n score s o f 1 , 2 , o r 3
. Thi s i s approximatel y tripl e th e leve l i n PY3 ; however , i t

i s stil l aver y smal l percentag e o f participants
. Onl y one-thir do f

participant s (33% ) indicate dthe y hav e notice dareductio n i n thei r energ y bil l sinc e thei r

applianc e wa s removed
. Nearl y 4 percen t o f customer s sai di t

wa s to o soo n t o tell , whil e anothe r

1 5 percen t

sai dthe y wer e no t

sure i f the y ha dsee

n an y savings
. Thes e response s may indicat e tha t

peopl e ar

e no t tha t attentiv e t o change s i n thei r electri c bill
. I t

i s als o possibl e tha t give n seasona

l variation s i n electri c use , customer s hav e adifficul t tim e attributin g change s i n thei r bill s t o thei r

ow n behaviors
. Additiona l action s t o improv e energ y efficiency
. Participant s wer e asked , unaided , whethe r the y ha dtake n additiona l action s t o sav e energ y a t thei r hom e sinc e participatin g i n th e SA R Program
. Wel l ove r

hal f (58% ) o f

th e participant s surveye dsai dthe y had
. Th e mos t commo n change s tha t

peopl e hav e mad e ar e behaviora l i n nature—turnin g of f light s an dappliance s whe n no t

i n us e (83%) , adjustin g thermosta t set-point s fo r

heatin g an dcoolin g (90%) , an dusin g dimme r switche s (93%)
. Tli e percentage s o f participant s undertakin g thes e behavior s i s abou t th e sam e a s i n PY3 , bu t

muc h highe r

tha n i n PY2 , whe n onl y 2 0 t o 3 0 percen t

reporte dtakin g thes e actions
. Tabl e 3- 7 provide s asummar y o f th e recommendation s mad e t o improv e th e progra mdeliver y processe s an dth e curren t statu s o f

thei r implementation
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 6 1

### Tabl e 3-7 . Statu s Repor tfo r Smar tApplianc

e Recycling Progra

m Proces s Evaluation

s

Recommendation s ED C Statu s Repor tfo r Proces s Evaluation s (Implemented , Bein g considered . Rejecte d AN D Explanatio n o

f Actio n Taken b y EDC )
Recommendatio n 1 : Synchroniz e marketin g element s to throttl e progra mparticipatio n u p o r down , a s desire dto meet

goals
. Implemented
. Curren t marketin g strateg y i s expande d fro mPY

4 du e to significantl y increase d progra mgoal s i n PY5
. Recommendatio n 2 : Continu e t o reinforc e th e valu e o f recyclin g olde r

appliances , sinc e there continue s to.b e alarg e stoc k

o f secondar

y unit s out'there
. Implemented
. PECO' s marketin g message s includ e informatio n o n th e annua l cos t o f operatin g a

n ol drefrigerato r

o r freezer
. Recommendatio n 3 : Educat e customer s o n ho w muc h mone y the y coul dsave eac h mont h b y takin g differen t energy-savin g actions , includin g recyclin g a n ol dappliance
. Whe n customer s se e th e monetar y saving s an dare abl e to attribut e the mt o thei r behaviors , the y wil l b

e mor e likel y to mak

e additiona l change s i n th e future
. Implemented
. PECO' s marketin g message s includ e informatio n o n th e annua l cos t o f operatin g an ol drefrigerato r o r freezer
.

Recommendatio n 4 : Continu e to provid e informatio n abou t

PECO' s othe r

residentia l program s whe n th e contractor s come t o pic k u p th e applianc e an do n PECO' s website
. Implemented
. JAC O cre w member s distribut e energ y efficienc y progra mcollatera l whe n the y visi t home s to pic k

u p appliance s fo r

recycling
.

Source: Navigant

analysis 

## 3. 5 Financial Reportin

g Th e Smar t Applianc e Recyclin

g progra mremain s highl y cos

t effective , wit h abenefit-cos t rati o durin g PY

4 of 3.63
. Th e benefit-cos t

rati o fo r th e CPIT D perio di s higher , a

t 6.02
. Durin g PY4, progra mcost s totale d$697,000

, whil e life-cycl e progra

mbenefit s ar

e $2,820,000
. A breakdow n of the progra

mfinance s i s presente

d i n Tabl e 3-8
.

PEC O Energy Compan

y ) Pag e 62Tabl e 3-8
. Summar y o f Smar t Applianc e Recyclin g Progra mFinance s

IQI9 I PY

4 CPIT D ($1,000 ) ($1,000 ) ($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 0 0 0 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Incentiv e Cost s 0 0 0 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration 11 1 4 6 25 3 2,78 8 Management 12 1 4 4 21 7 96 3 Marketing 13 1 11 1 22 7 1,81 8 Technical Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Implementatio n Cost s 20 1 69 7 5,569 ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 6 7 126 30 4 SW E Audi t Cost s 0 0 Tota l ED C CostsH

t 26 8 82 3 5,87 3 Participan t

Costs' 5 1 N/ A 0 1,03 2 Tota l TR C Costs'" ' N/ A 82 3 6,90 5 Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/ A 2,62 6 38,11 9 Tota l LifetimeCapacit y Benefit s N/ A 18 3 3,167 Tota l TR C Benefits' " N/ A 2,81 0 41,28 7 TR C Ratio" " N/ A 3.4 1 5.9 8 NOTE S Per PUC directum, TRC

inputs and

calculalions are required in the Annual Report only and should comply with the 2011 Total Resource Cost Test Order approved July 28, 20/7. Please seethe "Report Dcfmilions" section of

this report

for more details. [ 11 Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system, an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost . [2 | Include s LD

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . [3 1 Include s th

e marketing CS

P an dmarketing cost

s b y progra mCSPs , [4 1 Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cosl Tes

l Order, th

e Tola l LD C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurredexpense

s only
. |5 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cos l Tes

l Order, th

e ne t Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us e cuslome r o r progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t costs . Thes

e include incentive s pai dt o applianc e recycling an

dDeman dRespons

e participants
. |6 | Tola l TR C Cost s include LD

C Evaluatio

n Costs , LD

C Implementatio

n Cosls , an

dParticipan

t Costs
. |7 | Tola l TR C Henefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tota l Lifetime Energ

y Henefit s an dTola l Lifetime Capacit

y Henefit s plu s an y benefi t associate d wit h avoidedincandescen

t purchases mad

e du e t o th e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a s compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Hase

d upo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoide

dsuppl y costs , includin g th

e reduction i n cosl s o f electric energy , generation , Iransmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnalura l ga s value dn l margina l cos t fo r period s whe n ther e i s aloa dreduclion
. JS ] TR C Rati o equal s Tota

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tota l TR C Cosls
. |9 | Pos l PY 4 cosl s an dbenefit s ar

e include di n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Nnvignnt

analysis PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 6 3

## 4 SmartHom e Rebate s

Th e Smar

t Hom e Rebate s Progra moffer s PEC O residentia l customer s rebate s fo r th e purchas e o f qualifyin g energy-efficien t appliances , heatin g an dcoolin g equipment , an dlight-emittin g diod e (LED ) lamp s an dlightin g fixtures
. Th e progra mprovide s promotiona l an dmarketin g material s an dsuppor t

t o participatin g retailer s an dcontractor s t o encourag e thei r promotio n o f rebate dproducts
. For

non-lightin g measures , customer s submi t application s vi awe b o r mail
. Eac h applicatio n include s accompanyin g proof-of-purchas e receipt s o r invoices
. For

qualifyin g lightin g measures , PEC O provide s manufacturer s wit h acos t buy-down , whic h i s passe d o n to th e custome r

as adiscounte dprice
. Progra mmeasure s includ e th e following : high-efficienc y electri c wate r heaters ; LE D lamps ; groun dsourc e hea

t pumps ; roo mai r

conditioners ; centra l ai r conditionin g (>1 5 Seasona l Energ y Efficienc y Ratin g [SEER]) ; refrigerators ; clothe s washers ; hea t pum p wate r

heaters ; high

efficienc y ga

s wate r heater s (fue l switching) ; an dhigh-efficienc y gas furnace s (fue l switchin g fro melectri c resistanc e baseboard o r hea t pump)
. 

## 4. 1 Progra

m Update

s Th e Smar

t Rebate s Progra mremaine dlargel y unchange di n PY4
. Th e primar y focu s o f th e progra mwa s amarke t

maintenanc e strateg y an doveral l ramp-dow n o f activit y i n th e fina l yea r o f Phas e I
. Further , th e progra mdi dno t offe r rebate s fo r

consume r

electronic s a

t al l i n thi s progra myea

r an dcontinue dt o shif t it s focu s t o heating , ventilating , an dai r conditionin g equipment
. 

## 4. 2 Impac tEvaluation Gros s Saving s 4.2. 1 Gros s ImpactMethodology Al l PY 4 saving s fo r

th e Smart

Hom e Rebate s progra mare fro mdeeme do r partiall y deeme d measure s as establishe db y th e 201 2 TRM
. Fo r gros s impacts , Navigan t staf f conducte dan engineerin g revie w i n whic h staf f calculate denerg y saving s an ddeman dreductio n pe r th e algorithm s o f

th e TR M usin g dat afro mth e program' s trackin g syste man dcompare dth e result s wit h PECO' s claime dsavings
. Thi s wa s th e sam e practic e a

s applie db y th e evaluatio n o f PY 2 an dPY 3 savings
. A s an adde dleve l o f rigo r fo r th e evaluatio n o f

PY3 an dPY4 , however , Navigan t

staf f reviewe dasampl e o f projec t file s t o confir mtha t

thi s documentatio n matche d th e dat ai n th e trackin g syste man dmad e follow-u p call s t o thos e participant s t o confir m installatio n an dtyp e o f replacemen t

(replac e o n burnou t

o r earl y replacement)
. Tabl e 4- 1 PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 6 4detail s energ y an ddeman d saving s as wel l a s incentiv e payment s b y quarte r fo r thi s progra m year . Tabl e 4-1 . PY4 SmartHom e Rebate s Reporte d Result s b y Quarte r

Reportin g Perio d Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh/yr ) To p 10 0 Hours Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 )

PY4Q 1 3,47 3 2,54 4 0. 9 1. 0 $63 8 PY4Q 2 1,95 8 2,61 1 0 0. 8 $55 7 PY 4 Q 3 1,35 8 2,04 8 0 0. 6 $40 0 PY4Q 4 2,72 5 3,37 9 0 1. 1 $72 7 PY 4 Tota l 9,51 4 10,58 2 0. 9 3. 6 $2,323 CPIT D Tota l 291,92 8 75,21 0 19. 1 21. 8 $22,73 3 Source: Nnvigant

analysis Fo r ENERG Y STARlightin g measures , th e PY l an dPY2 evaluation s di dno t includ e th e numbe r o f installe dmeasure s i n th e total s fo r participation
. Th e justificatio n fo r thi s exclusio n wa s tha t PEC O pai dthe rebate s "upstream " t o manufacturer s an di t wa s no t possibl e t o ascertai n ho w man y participant s benefite dfro mth e multi-pac k fixture s an dbulbs
. Th e previou s evaluation s di dno t appl y thi s practic e t o Consume r Electronic s measure s becaus e PEC O pai d"mid-stream " rebate s t o retailer s fo r product s tha t

wer e unitar y (i.e. , no t multi-pack ) an dth e previou s evaluation s coul dreasonabl y designate eac h rebate dsal e as on e uni t o f participation
. I n th e evaluatio n o f

gros s saving s fo r

PY 3 an d PY4 , Navigan t ha s continue dthes e practices
. For thes e reasons , th e tota l numbe r o f measure s doe s no t

matc h th e tota l leve l o f participatio n (9,089 ) fo r th e progra myear . A s show n i n Tabl e 4-2 , participation , energ y savings , an ddeman dreductio n are al l residentia l i n nature . Base

do n participan t

telephon e surve y response s t o abatter y o f question s develope d b y th e LEE

P evaluatio n team , Navigan t estimate s tha t

5 percen t

o f SHRparticipant s ar

e belo w 15 0 percen t

o f th e Federa

l Povert y Leve l (FPL)
. Interpolatin g thi s finding , Navigan t provide s a

n estimat e o f

SH Rlow-incom e participation , savings , an dincentiv e spendin g i n Tabl e 4-2 , a s well
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 6 5Tabl e 4-2
. PY 4 Smar t Hom e Rebate s Reporte dResult s b y Secto r

Secto r Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh/yr ) To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte d Gras s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 )

Residentia l (les s Low-Income ) 9,03 8 10,05 3 0. 8 3. 4 $2,20 7 Low-Incom e 47 6 52 9 0. 0 0. 2 $11 6 Commercia l an dIndustria l 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 $ 0 Governmen t

an dNonprofi t 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 $ 0 PY 4 Tota l 9,51 4 10,58 2 0. 9 3. 6 $2,32 3 CPIT D Tota l 291,92 8 75,21 0 19. 1 21. 8 $22,73 3 Source : Navigan t analysi s 4.2. 2 Gros s Impac t

Samplin g Strateg y For th e impac t

evaluation , Navigan t stratifie db y measure typ e as describe di n Tabl e 4-3
. Navigan t

reviewe dth e trackin g dat afo r each measure i n th e databas e an drecalculate dthe saving s base d o n th e TRM
. I n addition , Navigan t randoml y selecte d6

7 projec t file s fo r HVAC , groun dsourc e hea

t pumps , an dappliance s fo r revie w t o confir mequipmen t an dinstallatio n details
. For

HVA C an dgroun dsourc e hea t pumps , Navigan t

als o randoml y selecte dasubset o f th e projec t

file s fo r follow-u p telephon e call s t o revie w installatio n detail s wit h participants
. Sinc e n o custome r

informatio n i s availabl e fo r th e 2,20 3 lightin g measures , Navigan t di dno t sampl e thes e measure s bu t onl y conducte dth e revie w an drecalculatio n o f trackin g data
. Tabl e 4-3
. Smar t

Hom e Rebate s Samplin g Strateg y fo r PY 4

Stratu m

HVA C Strat a

Boundarie s

Measur e category Populatio n

Siz e

5,597 Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (C O o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n 0. 5 Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n
85/1 5 Targe t

Sampl e Siz e

25 Achieve d Sampl e Siz e

8 5 Evaluatio n

Activit y

Process : Participan t

Phon e Surve y Groun dSourc e Heat Pump s Measur e

category 30 6 0. 5 85/1 5 2 4 29 Evaluatio n Activit y

Process : Participan t

Phon e Surve y ENERGY STA

R Appliance s Measur e

category 3,18 6 0. 5 85/1 5 2 5 8 6 Evaluatio n Activit y

Process : Participan t

Phon e Surve y
Activit y Subtota l 9,08 9 85/1 5 7 4 20

0 PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 6 6Assume d,

Stratu m Strat

a Boundarie s Populatio n

Siz e Coefficient !

of Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activit y

HVA C Measure

categor y 5,597 0. 5 85/1 5 1 0 3 1 Groun dSourc e Heat Pump s Measur e

categor y 30 6 0. 5 85/1 5 2 0 1 5 Impact : Fil e Revie w ENERGY STA

R Appliance s Measur e

categor y 3,18 6 0. 5 85/1 5 1 0 2

1 Activit y Subtotal 9,08 9 85/1 5 4 0 6

7 HVA C Measur e

categor y 5,59 7 0. 5 85/1 5 1 0 1

0 Impact : Phon e Surve y (Partiall y Groun dSourc e Hea t Pump s Measur e

categor y 30 6 0. 5 85/1 5 5 5 Deeme d Measures ) Activit y Subtotal 5,90 3 85/1 5 1 5 1 5 Progra m Tota l 24,08 1 85/1 5 12 9 28 2 Source: Nnvigant

nnaiysis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 6 7

### 4.2. 3 Energ y Saving s an dDemandReductio n b y Stratu m Th e difference s betwee

n e x ant e an de x pos t saving s wer

e les s tha n 1 percen

t fo r bot h energ y anddemand
. Thi s minimal differenc e i s du e t o th e deeme d andpartiall y deeme

d natur e of th e program' s measures a

s wel l a s accurat e accounting of

thes e measures . Th

e realizatio n rat

e fo r energ y saving s was 100.0

4 percen t (se e Tabl e 4-4 ) an dth e realizatio n rat

e fo r deman dwa s 100.3 5 percen

t (se e Tabl e 4-5)
. Thi s i s not

a n unexpecte

dresult since th e evaluatio n of

gros s energ

y saving s anddeman

d reduction'i s acomparison of PECO' s calculatio n of

claime dsaving s t

o Navigan f

s computatio n of saving s base

d on th e applicatio n o f

trackin g dat

at o th e 201 2 TR M algorithms
. Thi s revie w foun dn

o significant

differenc e betwee

n trackin g syste

mdat aandfil e dat

afo r th e HVAC , groun dsourc

e hea t pump , andENERG

Y STA Rapplianc e strata . Whil e ENERG Y STA R Lightin g di dhav

e arealizatio n rat

e greate r tha n 1.0 0 (du e t o arecalculatio n of

bas e watt s pe

r TR M requirements) , thes

e measures constitute dles s tha n 1 percen

t of total energy saving s and s o di dno t significantl y affec t

th e program' s overal l realizatio n rate . Tabl e 4-4
. PY

4 Smar t Hom e Rebate s Summar

y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r

Energ y

Stratu m Reporte d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Energ y

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) HVA C 7,71 3 100 % 0 0% 7,71 3 0 Groun dSourc e Hea

t Pump s 1,69 7 100 % 0 0 % 1,69

7 0 ENERG Y STA R Appliance s 1,05 0 100 % 0 0 % 1,05 0 0 ENERGYSTA R LiRhtin g 

## m 102 % 0 0% 12 4 0 Progra mTota l 10,582 100 % 0 0% 10,584 0 Source: Nnvignnt

nmh/sts

PEC O Energ y Compan

y ( Pag e 6 8

### Table 4-5 . PY 4 Smar tHom e Rebate s Summar

y o f Evaluation Result

s for Deman

d

Stratu m Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (C ) o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n a t 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) HVA C 3. 1 100 % 0 0% 3, 1 0 Groun dSourc e Hea

t Pump s 0. 3 100 % 0 0 % 0. 3 0 ENERGY STA

R Appliance s 0. 2 100 % 0 0 % 0. 2 0 ENERG Y STA RLightin g 0. 0 102 % 0 0% 0. 0 0 Progra mTota l 3. 6 100 % 0 0% 3. 6 0 Source: Navigant

analysis 

## 4. 3 Impac tEvaluation Ne

tSaving s A s detaile di n th

e nex t section , th

e evaluatio n tea

mconductedatelephon

e surve y o f 20 0 PY 4 participants
. Tli e surve

y include dabatter

y of NTG questions
. 4.3. 1 Fre e Ridershi p Navigan t use dametho dof

calculatin g fre e ridershi p i n PY 4 simila r to earlie r year s an dals o a mor e detaile dmethod
. Th e single inpu t

metho duse

di n PY 2 andPY

3 identifie dfre e rider s a s respondents t

o th e participant

telephon e surve y wh o statedtha

t the y ha dpurchase

do r ordere drebate

dappliance s or HVA C equipmen

t befor e learnin g abou

t th e rebate
. I n PY4, ou t

o f the 20 0 participant s surveyed , 30 participant s (15% ) reporte dtha t the y ha dpurchasedth

e measur e befor e hearing about th e PEC O Smar t Hom e Rebate
. Another

tw o respondents (1% ) ha dordere dth

e measur e befor e learnin g abou

t th e rebate
. Usin g thi s singl e inpu t metho do

f calculatin g fre e ridershi p a s i n PY3 , thes

e finding s woul dsugges t aPY 4 free-ridershi p rat

e of 0.16, consisten

t wit h th e finding s of

0.1 6 i n PY

3 an d0.1 5 i n PY2
. However , th

e energ y efficienc y industry i s movin g toward s mor e rigorou s approache s t o estimat e fre e ridershi p andth

e SW E ha s provide dguidanc e toward s method s tha t rel y on mor e tha n asingl e inpu t

fo r Phas e II
. Greate

r rigo r tend s t o requir e additional input s fo r

free

ridershi p calculatio n a

s wel l a s provisio n fo r

"partial " fre e rider s pe

r th e scorin g process .
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 6 9Th e SW

E ha s recentl y recommende dth e us e o f th e Energ y Trus t

o f Orego n (ETO's ) metho dt o determin e fre e ridership. 1 8 Th e approac h focuse s o n onl y tw o inputs :

• Inten t

t o purchase/instal l i n th e absenc e o f th e progra m
• Progra minfluenc e Applyin g thi s metho dt o th e PY 4 response s t o th e participan t telephon e survey , yielde darang e o f 0.3 8 t o 0.87 5 wit h amid-poin t o f 0.63
. 4.3. 2 Spillove r Fifty-si x (28% ) o f

th e 20 0 surve y respondent s reporte dinstallin g atota l o f 41 1 additiona l energy-efficien t

measure s withou t

receivin g arebat

e becaus e o f

th e influenc e o f

th e progra m upo n thei r

purchas e decision
. Compare dt o PY3 , wher e 5 8 (29% ) o f surve y respondent s installe d20 6 additiona l measures , PY 4 respondent s installe dnearl y doubl e th e numbe r o f un incente dmeasures . O f th e 41 1 additiona l measure s installe db y PY 4 surve y respondents , 2 7 percen t wer e CFLs , 25 percen t

wer e windows , an d1 8 percen t wer e LEDs
. Navigan t

estimate s aspillove r

rate o f 0.12
. Thi s spillove r

rate , whic h i s nearl y doubl e th e rat e usin g PY3' s methodology , suggest s tha t th e progra mi s havin g influenc e o n participants ' decision s t o purchas e un-incente dmeasures , eve n whe n arebate i s no t involved
. 4.3.3 Net-to-Gros s Althoug h thi s analysi s use d an NT G valu e o f 1.0 fo r complianc e purpose s fo r PY4 , base d o n th e custome r surve y estimate s o f

fre e ridershi p an dapplie dt o th e ET O methodolog y o f 0.6 3 an d self-reporte dspillove r

o f additiona l measure s o f 0.12 , th e Navigan t

tea mestimate s tha t

th e NT G rati o i s 1.0

0 - 0.6 3 (fre e ridership ) + 0.1 2 (spillover ) = 0.49
. 

## 4. 4 Proces s Evaluation Th e dat acollectio n activitie s fo r thi s progra mevaluatio n wer e th e following :

» Program-Trackin g Database : Navigan t relie dupo n quarterl y extract s fro mth e trackin g databas e to bot h conduc t th e revie w o f

trackin g dat afo r

th e impac t

evaluatio n an dt o develo p asampl e fram e fo r th e participan t

surveys .

1 8 Phi l Degen

s an dSara h Castor, Augus t

2013
. Energ

y Trus t Fre e Ridershi p Methodology, Energ

y Trus t o f Oregon
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 7 0» Staf f Interviews : Navigan t

conducte din-dept h interview s wit h th e PEC O progra m manager an dth e Ecov aprogra mmanager . Th e interview s focuse do n marketin g an d outreac h activities , implementatio n strategies , dat atracking , an dprogra mmanagemen t an didentifie darea s fo r progra mimprovement
. » Participan t

Surveys : A subcontracte dtelephon e surve y hous e collecte ddat afro m20 0 Smar t Hom e Rebate s progra mparticipant s t o suppor t th e net impac t an dproces s analyses
. Participant s provide dfeedbac k regardin g progra mdelivery , progra m awareness , overal l satisfaction , fre e ridership , spillover , an darea s fo r improvement
. » Trad e All y (HVAC ) Interviews : Navigan t interviewe d1 1 HVA C contractor s wh o wer e selecte d base d o n thei r

overal l participatio n level s i n th e program . Th e interview s focuse do n progra mmarketin g an dparticipatio n questions , an dadministratio n an d deliver y questions
. » Myster y Shopping : Navigan t conducte dmyster y shoppin g o f 106 retaile r

visit s base d o n store participatio n level s i n th e program . 4.4. 1 Proces s Evaluatio n Finding s I n general , th e proces s evaluatio n foun dth e progra mto b e effectiv e an dwel l run . Specifi c finding s includ e th e following :

» Surve y respondent s learne dabou t th e Smar

t Hom e Rebate s progra mi n avariet y o f ways . O f note , th e percentag e o f PY 4 respondent s mentionin g th e PEC O websit e nearl y double dfro mPY 3 whil e th e percentag e mentionin g store staf f deceased b y hal f

fro m PY3
. » Tli e tren dtowar dfewe r respondent s learnin g abou t th e progra mfro m installers/contractor s wa s eve n mor e dramati c i n PY4 , wit h onl y 5 percen t citin g thi s sourc e vs . 2 8 percen t

i n PY3 an d4 3 percen t

i n PY2
. » Sixty-fiv e percen t

o f PY 4 respondent s wer e no t aware o f

othe r PEC O programs , suggestin g tha t

th e disconnec t

betwee n PECO' s Smar t Hom e Rebate s progra man dothe r offering s need s t o b e addresse d an dovercom e i n futur e marketin g an doutreac h activities
. » Th e telephon e surve y respondent s indicate dthei r overal l satisfactio n wit h PEC O wa s high
. Th e averag e rating , usin g alO-poin t scale , wa s 8.3
. » Th e Smart

Hom e Rebate s progra mappear s t o b e trackin g progra minformatio n adequatel y an dprocessin g rebate s jus t a s rapidl y a

s i n PY3
. Navigant' s revie w o f trackin g dat aan dinterview s wit h progra mstaf f di dno t revea l significan t

error s o r systemi c problems
. » Pe r th e participan t

survey , motivatio n fo r purchase s ha s change d fro mPY3 t o PY 4 wit h replacemen t

o f "ol do r outdate dequipment " declinin g fro m6 7 percen t t o 5 2 percen t whil e respondent s citin g "energ y efficiency " a s thei r primar y motivatio n increase d fro m 8 percen t

t o 2 3 percent .
PEC O Energ y Compan y ] Pag e 7 1Myster y shopper s reporte dtha t retailer s mentione dth e PEC O rebate withou t promptin g i n onl y 1 1 percen t o f thei r visits
. Onl y 1 4 percen t

o f participan t

surve y respondent s fo r PY 4 cite dsale s staf

f influenc e a

s a reaso n fo r

purchase , wherea s 3 0 percen t o f PY3 respondent s cite dthi s reason . HVA C contracto r

satisfactio n wa s hig h fo r al l aspect s o f

th e Smart

Hom e Rebate s program . However , thes e sam e contractor s expresse dth e opinio n tha t the y woul dhav e offere dth e sam

e leve l o f efficienc y t o progra mparticipant s i n th e absenc e o f thei r program . Thes e contractor s furthe r expresse dtha t

th e progra mrebate s an dmaterial s wer e no t th e mos t

significan t

driver s o f

custome r

choice
.

PEC

O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 7 2Tabl e 4- 6 present s Navigant' s recommendation s fo r progra mimprovement , base d o n th e abov e findings , alon g wit h th e implementatio n statu s fo r thes e recommendations
. Tabl e 4-6 . Statu s Reportfo r SmartHome s Rebate s Proces s Evaluation s
Recommendation s ED C Statu s Repor t fo r Proces s Evaluation s (Implemented , Bein g Considered , Rejecte dAN D Explanatio n o f

Actio n Take n b y EDC )

Develo p agreement s wit h HVA C contractor s t o assur e promotiona l effort s identif y PECO' s contributio n t o th e deliver y o f

high-efficienc y equipmen t t o residentia l customers . PEC O i s considerin g th e mos t effectiv e approac h t

o achiev e thi s recommendation
.

Re-engag e retailer s an dHVA C contractor s t o promot e rebate s an dbetter

coordinat e PEC O activitie s wit h trade all y marketin g plan s PEC O plan s t o implemen t thi s recommendatio n i n PY5
.

PEC O shoul dcontinu e t o identif y way s t o lin k

more closel y it s successfu l Smar t Hom e Rebate s progra mwit h othe r PEC O efficienc y activitie s t o encourag e broade r participatio n acros s al l programs: PEC O i s considerin g thi s recommendation
.

Source: Nnvignul

anah/sis 

## 4. 5 Financial Reportin

g Thi s progra machieve daTR C o f 0.8 9 fo r

PY1-PY 2 an d1.5 3 fo r PY3
. Thi s increase dcost
effectivenes s wa s du e t o an emphasi s o n th e mos t efficien t

applianc e an dHVA C measures . However , i n PY4 , th e TR C fel l t o 0.7 5 as th e progra mrampe ddow n activit y whil e maintainin g overhea dcost s as par t

o f it s marke t

maintenanc e strategy . Th e overal l TR C fo r thi s progra mi n Phas e I wa s 0.97
. A breakdow n o f

th e progra mfinance s i s presente d i n Tabl e 4-7
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 73Tabl e 4-7 . Summar y o f Smar tHom e Rebate s Finance s

IQ' " ($1,000 ) PY 4

($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 72 7 2,32 3 22,73 3 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Incentiv e Cost s 72 7 2,32

3 22,73

3 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration 11 1 69 3 1,61 8 8,39 9 Management 12 1 15 0 67

7 2,75 3 Marketing 13 ' 27 3 66 7 3,084 Technica l Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtotal ED C Implementatio n Cost s 1,116 2,96 2 14,23

6
ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 25 7 48 0 1,15 8 SW E Audi tCost s 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs' 4 ) 2,10 1 5,765 38,127 Participan tCostsl 5 ! N/ A 16,79 3 91,21 7 Tota l TR C Costs! 6 ' N/ A 20,23

6 106,61 2
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/ A 12,91 4 90,57 3 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N/ A 2,37 8 12,794 Tota l TR C Benefits' 7 ' N/ A 15,29

2 103,44

3 TR C Ratio'* " N/ A 0.7

6 0.9

7 NOTE S Per PUC (lirvdhn, TRC

iuputa and calculations arc required in the Annual

Rejiort only and should

comply with the KIHTotat Resource Cost Test Order approved fuhfZS, 2011. Please see Ihe "Rcporl Definitions"

section of

this report

for more details. [ I J Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system , an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost. |2 ] Include s LD

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . |3 | Include s th

e marketing CS

P an dmarketing cost

s b y progra mCSPs
. |4 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order, th e Tota l LD C Cost s refe r t o ED C incurredexpense

s only
. |5 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order , th e ne t Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us e custome r or progra mcost s tha t ar c proxie s fo r

participan

t costs . Thes

e include incentive s pai dt o appliance recyclin

g an dDeman dRespons

e por t i dpants . [6 ) Tota l TR C Cost s include LD C Evaluation Costs , ED C Implementation Cost.'; , an dParticipan

t Costs
. |7 | Tola l TR C henefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tota l Lifetime Energ

y henefit s an

dTota l LifetimeCapacit

y Henefit s plu s an y benefi t associate d with avoidedincandescen t purchases mad

e du e l o th e longe r useful lif e o f energy-etficien

t lightin g a s compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Hase

dupon verifie dgros s kW h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoidedsuppl

y costs , includin g th

e reduction i n cosl s o f electric energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s value da t margina l cos t fo r period s whe n ther e i s aloa dreduction
. |8 | TR C Rati o equal s Tota

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tota l TR C Costs
. J9 | Pos t PV 4 cost s an dbenefits ar

e include di n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. SoHrce: Nnvignnt

analysis PEC O Energ y Compan

y | Pag e 7 4

## 5 Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc

y Progra m Th e purpos e o f

th e LEEP i s t o educate an dassis t eligibl e residentia l customer s i n makin g thei r home s mor e energ y efficient
. Th e progra mbuild s upo n th e Low-Incom e Usag e Reductio n Progra m(LIURP ) objective : t o make low-incom e customers ' energ y bill s mor e affordabl e b y helpin g t o reduc e energ y usage . LEE P wa s buil t

o n th e existin g LIUR P infrastructur e fo r outreac h an ddeliver y o f services
. Th e sam

e contracto r

(CM C Energ y Services ) deliver s bot h LIUR P an dLEEP
. Tli e direc t instal l portio n o f

LEE P i s identica l t o LIUR P fro macustome r standpoint , becaus e th e fundin g sourc e i s th e primar y differenc e betwee n th e tw o programs . Additionally , LEE

P distribute s additiona l CFL s t o low-incom e customers . LEE P primaril y target s household s belo w 15 0 percen t o f th e FPL , wit h som

e additiona l targetin g o f household s betwee n 15 0 an d20

0 percen t

o f th e FPL
. Th e progra mconsist s o f fou r primar y components :

» Componen t1 : In-hom e Audits , Education , an d Direc tInstal l Measure s o On-sit e inspection s an dtest s use d t o identify energ y saving s opportunitie s o Educatio n o f

resident s abou t

way s t o reduc e energ y usag e o Direc t

installatio n o f

energ y efficienc y measure s t o addres s saving s opportunitie s identifie d durin g th

e audi t o Installatio n o

f mino r safety-relate d measures , includin g smok e alarm s o Al l service s and measures ar e provide d a

tn o charg e t o participants . » Componen t2 : Direc tInstallatio n o f CFL s fo r LIUR PParticipants o Increas e th

e number o

f directinstallation s o

f CFL s fo r LIUR Pparticipant s » Componen t3 : Distributio n o f CFL s t o Low-Incom e Customer s o Participatio n in low-incom e communit y event s an d distributio n o

f CF L bulb s t

o low-incom e customers » Componen t4 : Direc tInstallatio n o f Refrigerator s an d Freezer s o Remova l o f

old , inefficien t

workin g refrigerator s an dfreezer s o Direc t

installatio n o f

ne w ENERGY STAR ® refrigerator s an dfreezer s o Targe t

low-incom e customer s tha t d o no t mee t th e usag e requiremen t

fo r Componen t

1 participatio n Componen t

1 i s broke n int o fou r

measure groups , define da s follows :

» Electri c Baseloa d- Basi c Measures : includin g measure s suc h as CF L bulbs , fauce t aerators , showerheads , wate r heater pip e insulation , an dwate r heater tan k insulation
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 7 5

### » Electri c Baseloa d - Majo r

Measures : includin g measures suc h a s A C replacement , refrigerato r

replacement, electri c wate r heate r replacement , and wate

r heate r timer s i n additio n t o measures include di n Electri c Baseloa d - Basi c Measures
. » Electri c Hea

t - Basi c Measures : includin g measures suc h a s duct and pip e insulatio n i n additio n to measure s include di n Electric Baseloa d - Basi c Measures
. » Electri c Hea

t - Majo r Measures : includin g measures suc h a s blowe r doo r guide dai r sealing , hea

t pum p installatio n or

replacement , programmabl e thermostats , and insulatio n installatio n i n additio n to measures include di n Electric Baseloa d - Majo r Measures
. 

## 5.1 Progra

m Update

s Ther e wer e n o changes t

o the LEE

P design durin g PY4
. Al l audit s wer e Electric Baseload , wit h n o Electric Hea

t audit s conducte d i n PY4
. Th e majority o f

participant s receive

d basi c measures and CFLs
. Th

e numbe r o f bulb s installe d decrease d fro mPY

3 t o PY4, indicatin g reduce d opportunity fo r

generating saving s fro mth e installatio n o f

standar d CFLs
. 

## 5. 2 Impac tEvaluation Gros s Saving s This sectio

n describe

s th e methodolog

y an d result s o f th e impac tevaluation. 5.2. 1 Evaluation Methodolog y Navigan t employe d abillin g analysi s to quantif y energy saving s fo r

Componen

t 1 measures . Saving s fo r

Components 2 throug h 4 wer e determine d i n accordanc e wit h th e 201 2 TR

M an d th e program-trackin g database
. Th e followin g i s adetaile d descriptio n of th e impact evaluatio n methodolog y fo r

eac h component . Componen

t1 - In-hom

e Audits , Education, an

d Direc tInstall Measure

s Th e impact analysi s fo r

Componen

t 1 consisted o f

a n integrate d billin g analysi s an d engineering analysis , pe r th e LEE P protocol. 1 9 

### Th

e engineerin g analysi s provide d customer
specifi c estimate s o

f energ y saving s and th

e basi s fo r

demand saving s estimates
. Th e engineering estimate s of

energ y saving s wer

e include di n th

e Statistically Adjuste dEngineering (SAE ) billin g analysis , whic h provide d arealizatio n rat e o n th e engineering estimates
.

1 9 Custo mMeasur e Protocol : Low-Incom

e Energ y lifficienc y Progra

m(IJ-liP ) Componen

t I , ApprovedSeptembe

r 2010
. 

### PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 7 6Collectively , thes e approache s provid e significan t improvement s i n accurac y ove r relianc e o n LIUR P estimates
. Th e evaluatio n tea mconducte dsite visit s a t th e home s o f

2 5 participant s fro m Componen t

1
. Th e informatio n gathere ddurin g thes e visit s i s fo r researc h purpose s onl y an d doe s no t affec t verifie dprogra msavings
. Th e billin g analysi s conducte dfo r th e PY 4 evaluatio n include dparticipant s fro mPY2
. Thi s i s i n accordanc e wit h th e custo mmeasure protocol , whic h state s tha t verifie denerg y saving s wil l b e base d o n afour-yea r

rollin g average . Fo

r PY4 , th e four-yea r

rollin g averag e comprise s th e result s o f

th e PY l an dPY

2 LEE P billin g analyse s an dth e 200 8 an d200 9 LIUR P analyses
. Billin g analyse s fo r

weatherizatio n program s suc h a s LEE P perfor mbes t

whe n aful l 1 2 months o f post
installatio n billin g dat aar e available
. Th e billin g analysi s incorporate dusag e dat afo r monthl y billin g cycle s endin g betwee n June 1 , 2009 an dMa y 31 , 2012
. Th e billin g analysi s include d7,27 9 participants : 47 6 electri c hea t participant s an d6,80 3 electri c baseloadparticipants
. Thi s represent s approximatel y 8 3 percen t o f th e PY 2 Componen t

1 participants
. Progra menrollmen t occurre dfairl y steadil y ove r th e cours e o f

th e year . A "rollin g enrollment " o f

thi s typ e provide s th e opportunit y t o examin e th e effec t o f aprogra mvi a regressio n analysis , because , excep t fo r th e firs t an dlas t

months o f

th e stud y period , each mont h involve s ami x o f customer s wh o hav e alread y enrolle di n th e progra man dthos e wh o hav e no t ye t enrolled
. Navigan t

assume d tha t

late participant s an dearl y participant s are , o n average , th e sam

e i n term s o f

thei r energ y consumptio n i n th e absenc e o f th e program . Unde r thi s assumption , the "late " participant s effectivel y serv e a s unbiase dcompariso n household s fo r th e "early " participant s i n th e regressio n analysis
. Navigan t

estimate dafixe deffect s SA E regressio n model
. Th e regressio n equatio n include da uniqu e constan t

ter mfo r

eac h participan t

(th e "fixe deffect" ) t o implicitl y accoun t fo r participant-specifi c characteristic s tha t affec t energ y usag e bu t

ar e constan t

ove r time , suc h a

s th e square footag e o f

tli e residenc e an dindoo r temperatur e preferences
. Averag e dail y usag e (kWh ) i s afunctio n o f

heatin g an dcoolin g degre e days , abinar y variabl e indicatin g th e pos t perio dfo r

participant s wit h basi c measures , abinar y variabl e indicatin g th e pos t perio dfo r participant s wit h majo r measures , interaction s betwee n th e pos t an ddegre e day variables , an d th e participant-specifi c engineerin g estimat e o f saving s interacte dwit h a n indicato r variabl e fo r basi c o r majo r measures . Thi s mode l specificatio n allow s bot h usag e an dprogra msaving s t o var y wit h weathe r

conditions
. Navigan t

estimate dseparate model s fo r electri c hea

t customer s an delectri c baseloadcustomers . Becaus e th e regressio n include s th e participant-specifi c engineerin g estimate s o f savings , thi s typ e o f

regressio n analysi s i s calle dan SA E analysis
. Formally , th e regressio n equatio n i s give n by :
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 7 7Equatio n 5-1 . Regressio n Equatio n

ADUt t = ^ + ft

* HDD t + ft * CDD t

+ ft * Postf

c * fiastCi + ft

* Post i t * Ma/o ^ + ft

* Posti C * BastC i * HDD t

+ ft * Post i t * S«35-f'C i * COZ?,
. + ft * Po^tf t * Wa/or / * HDD t + ft * Posti t * Ma/or , * CDD £+ ft

* Postu * Basic i * EngEst i + ft 0* Post t t * Mayor,

- * EngEst i +G, t wher e / indexe s th e participan t an dt indexe s th e billin g cycl e and : ADUii = Average daily usage (kWh) for participant

/ in billing cycle t HDDi = Average daily heating degree days (base temperature 65 0F) during billing

cycle t CDDi = Average daily cooling degree days (base temperature 65 0F) during billing

cycle t Postii = A binar y variabl e takin g avalu e o f 1 i f participan t

/ ' i s i n the post
installatio n perio ddurin g billin g cycl e t an d0 otherwis e Basi c = A binar y variabl e takin g avalu e o f 1 i f participan t

/ ha s installe dbasi c measure s durin g billin g cycl e t an d0 otherwis e Major ; = A binar y variabl e takin g avalu e o f 1 i f participan t

/ ha s installe dmajo r measure s durin g billin g cycl e t an d0 otherwis e EngEst i = A variabl e takin g avalu e o f 0 i n th e pre-installatio n perio dfo r participan t

i , otherwis e equa l t o th e participant-specifi c engineerin g estimat e o f saving s pe r da y (kWh ) U i = Th e participant-specifi c constan t ter m("fixe deffect") , t o b e estimate di n th e regressio n ft's - Parameter s t o b e estimate di n th e regressio n Gj c = Th e cluster-robus t erro r ter mfo r participan t

/ i n billin g cycl e ^. Z( , Savings , give n i n averag e dail y kWh , are calculate dusin g al l regressio n term s tha t involv e th e pos t variable :

2 0Cluster-robust

error s accoun

t fo r heteroscedasticit

y an dautocorrelation a

t th e custome r level , Ordinar

y Leas t Square s (Ol-S ) regressio n model s assum

e th e dat aar e homoscedasti

c an dno t aut o correlated
. I

f eithe r o f thes e assumption s i s broken , th e resultin g standar d errors o f

th e paramete

r estimate s ar

e likel y underestimated
. A rando mvariabl e i s heteroscedasti

c whe n th e variance i s no

t constant . A rando

mvariable i s aut

o correlatedwhe

n th e error ter min thi s perio di s correlate dwit h th e erro r ter min previou s periods
.
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 7 8Equatio n 5-2. Regressio n Analysi s Saving s Calculatio n - Basi c Measure s Basi c Measure Saving s = -(J3 3 + ft* HD D + ft* CD

D + ft* EngEst Basi c Equatio n 5-3 . Regressio n Analysi s Saving s Calculatio n - Majo r Measure s

Major Measure Savings = -(f t + ft *HDD + ft *CDD + ft 0*EngEst Major wher e HD D an dCD

D ar e long-ter maverag e heatin g an dcoolin g degre e day s pe r day , calculate dfro mtypica l meteorologica l yea r (TMY ) data. 2 1 EngEs t i s th e averag e dail y engineerin g estimat e o f savings. 2 2Th e paramete r estimate s ar

e give n i n Tabl e 5-1
. Tabl e 5-1 . Componen t1 Regressio n Analysi s Paramete r Estimate s Electri c Baseloa d Electri c Heat Estimat e t
statisti c Estimat e t
statisti c HD D 1.92 7 50.0 3 0.43 6 92.02 CD D -0.167 -8.1 1 0.27 6 75.7 8 Post* Basic 0.95 6 0.5 3 -0.560 -3.5 3 Post^Majo r -0.06 1 -0.05 1.58 8 2.1 8 Post'Basic*HD D -0.460 -5.4 1 0.02 4 3.3 1 Pos!*Basic*CDD 0.01 1 0.2 4 0.01 1 3.2 4 Post*Major*HD D 0.04 8 0.9 2 0.05 7 2.8 2 Post*Major*CD D 0.01 6 0.8 2 -0.03 9 -3.5 8 Note: T-stnlistics greater than 1.645in magnitude indicate results arc statistically significantly different from 0at the 90% confidence, level. Source: Navigant

analysis Th e billin g analysi s capture s saving s fro mal l measures , includin g th e extr aCFLs
. Pe r th e protocol , verifie dsaving s ar e determine db y afour-yea r rollin g averag e o f

th e availabl e LEE

P an dLIUR P billin g analysi s saving s estimates
. A n importan t distinctio n betwee n LEE P an d LIUR P i s tha t

th e LEE P include s extr aCFLs
. T o appropriatel y compar e th e LEE P result s t o th e LIUR P results , Navigan t subtracte dsaving s fro mextr aCFL s fro mth e billin g analysi s saving s

2 1 TM Y dat a(1981-2010

) fo r Philadelphi aInternationa l Airpor t obtaine dfro mth

e Nationa

l Oceani c an dAtmospheric Administration' s (NOAA's ) Nationa l Climati c Dat aCente

r (NCDC) , available a t <htlp://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/map/cdo/?thm=themeAnnual>
. TM Y dat aindicatedannua

l CDD o f 1,301 an dannua l HDD o f 4,613
.
7 3 Averag e dail y engineerin

g estimate s o f

saving s ar

e 1.313 5 kW h fo r electric hea

l - basic , 8.742

7 kW h fo r electri c hea t - major, 1.035 9 kW h fo r electric baseloa

d- basic , an

d3.549 9 k W h fo r electric baseloa

d- major
. PEC

O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 7 9estimate s befor e calculatin g th e four-yea r rollin g averag e o f

savings
. Saving s fro mth e extr a CFL s ar e adde d bac k

i n late r fo r eac h customer. 2

- 1 Verifie denerg y an d deman d saving s fo r th e Componen t

1 extr aCFL s wer e calculate d usin g th e TR M protoco l fo r

CFLs , a s describe d belo w fo r

Component s 2 an d 3
. Saving s wer e base d o n th e delt awatt s betwee n th e actua l remove d lam p an d th e installe d CF L a s recorde d i n th e trackin g syste mfo r

each participant
. Al l CFL s were assigne d th e 3. 0 hour s o f us e (HOU ) pe r

th e TR M protocol
. Du e t o th e smal l contributio n o f thes e bulb s t o overal l progra msavings , Navigan t applie dth e deeme d coincidenc e facto r (5% ) an d assume d th e lightin g Interactiv e Effect s Factor to be 1.0 rathe r

tha n applyin g th e highe r C F (11.7% ) an d lEF s applie d t o lightin g saving s i n Component s 2 an d 3
. Navigan t

calculate d deman d saving s estimate s fo r each participan t

base d o n th e actua l measure s installe d a

t each individua l site base d o n program-trackin g data
. Afte r calculatin g site-specifi c deman d saving s estimates , Navigan t average d saving s estimate s acros s th e fou r measure type s an d groups . Th e energ y realizatio n rate o n engineerin g estimate d saving s determine db y th e billin g analysi s wa s applie d t o th e engineerin g estimate d deman d saving s t o determin e verifie ddeman d savings
. Components 2 & 3 - Direc tInstallatio n o f CFL s fo r LIUR PParticipants , Distributio n o f CFL s t o Low-Incom e Customer s Navigan t

verifie dth e numbe r

o f measure s installe d (CFLs ) accordin g t o th e program-trackin g database
. Th e equation s t o calculat e energ y an d deman d saving s fo r ENERGY STARCFL bulb s ar e presente d below
. Equatio n 5-4. Energ y Saving s Calculatio n fo r ENERG Y STA RCF L bulb s AkWh = (Watts base - Watts CFL ) x CFL^^x

365/1000x

ISR CFL x IEF

e Pkase } Equatio n 5-5 . Deman d Saving s Calculatio n fo r ENERG Y STA RCF L bulb s AkW = {Watts base - Watts CFL )/1000x CF X ISR CFL x IBF

d Phase l where : Watts bas e= Wattag e o f baselin e lam p

" Componen

t 1 extr aCFL s accoun t for 920,07 3 kW h an d 4 2 k W o f savings
. Thi s amount

s t o 9 1 kW h an d 0.0041 6 k

W o f saving s pe

r audit
. Thi s amoun

t i s subtracte

d fro mth e SA L regressio

n results prio r

t o calculating th

e 4-yea r rollin g average . PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 8 0Watts C F L= Wattag e o f installe dCFL CFL Hour s - Averag e hour s o f us e pe r da y pe r CFL ; deeme da

t 3. 0
ISRCFL = In-servic e rate per CFL ; deeme da

t 0.8 4
. C F = Deman dcoincidenc e factor , define da s th e fractio n o f

th e tota l technolog y deman dtha t i s coinciden t

wit h th e utilit y syste msumme r peak , as define db y Ac t 129 ; deeme da

t 0.05 ; research-verifie dvalu e o f 0.11 7 lEF e _p hase , = Lightin g Interactiv e Effect s Facto r fo r Energy ; research-verifie dvalu e o f 1.0 2 IEF dpi ias ei= Lightin g Interactiv e Effect s Factor fo r Demand ; research-verifie dvalu e o f 1.1 9 Not e tha t

Navigan t

ha s determine da

n alternativ e coincidenc e facto r valu e o f

11. 7 percent , increase dfro m5 percent . Additionally , Navigan t determine dalightin g Interactiv e Effect s Facto r fo r energ y (1.02 ) an ddeman d(1.19)
. Th e 201 2 TR M ignore s th e IEF , implicitl y assumin g avalu e o f

1.0
. Thes e value s wer e applie dretroactivel y t o al l Componen t 2 an d3 bulb s durin g Phas e I (PY1-PY4)
. Th e derivatio n o f thes e value s i s describe dbelow
. Coincidence Factor Prio r t o th e PY

4 Q 3 report , deman dreductio n impact s fo r residentia l lightin g measure s ha d been calculate dusin g th e Pea k Loa dCoincidenc e Facto r o f 5 percen t

i n th e 201 2 Pennsylvani a TRM
. Thi s valu e come s fro ma200 7 repor t b y RL W Analytics , entitle d"Developmen t o f Commo n Deman dImpact s fo r Energ y Efficienc y Measures/Program s fo r th e IS O Forwar d Capacity Market." 2 4 A s th e 5 percen t C F ha s been acknowledge db y bot h th e SW E an dth e technica l utilit y staf

f o f th e PU C to b e erroneous, 2 5 Navigan t ha s use daresidentia l lightin g loa d shap e develope dthroug h th e 200 9 Northeas t

residentia l lightin g logge r stud y conducte db y Nexu s Marke t

Research , RLW Analytics , an dGD S Associate s (th e NM R200 9 study ) t o calculat e

MRL W Analytics , "Developmen t o t Commo n Deman dImpact s fo r linergy lifficienc y Measures/Program s fo r th e IS O Forwar d Capacit y Marke t (PCM)" , prepare

dfo r th e Ne w Englan dStat e Progra mWorkin g Crou

p (SPWG) , Marc

h 25 , 2007 , p . IV
. ^ Se e th e minute s o

f th e Progra mEvaluation Grou

p meetin g fro mMarc

h 20 , 201 3 (forwarde dt

o all EDC s an devaluators on Marc

h 29, 2013)
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 8 1arevise dC F o f 11. 7 percen t

ove r PECO' s To p 10

0 Hour s durin g th e summe r o f 2012. w Detail s o n th e derivatio n o f

thi s C F ar

e presente d i n Appendi x A
. Lighting Interactive Effects Factor Navigan t

constructe d buildin g energ y compute r simulatio n model s t o determin e th e HVA C impact s fro mefficien t

lightin g installation s i n th e PEC O servic e territory
. Navigan t use dthes e model s t o calculat e energ y an ddeman dlEFs , whic h ar e use dt o adjus t

th e progra mlightin g saving s t o accoun t

fo r th e additiona l impact s o n HVA C energ y an ddemand
. Navigan t ha s no t applie denerg y an d deman d interactiv e effect s i n previou s evaluation s o f PECO' s residentia l program s becaus e thes e wer e no t include di n th e TRM
. However , th e evaluatio n tea mbelieve s tha t b y no t includin g thi s factor , th e TR M i s significantl y underestimatin g deman dsaving s fro m efficien t lightin g installations
. Detail s o n th e derivatio n o f th e lEF s ar

e presente di n Appendi x B
. Componen t4 - Direc tInstallatio n o f Refrigerator s an d Freezer s Navigan t

verifie dth e reporte dnumbe r o f unit s installe daccordin g t o th e program-trackin g database
. Th e installatio n rate wa s verifie dvi aparticipan t self-report s as par t

o f th e participan t phon e survey . Navigan t applie dth e per-uni t

deeme dsaving s valu e provide di n th e 201 2 TRM
. 5.2.2 Reporte d an d Verifie d Saving s Th e Componen t

1 regressio n analysi s indicate s tha t averag e energ y saving s generall y decreased , comparin g participant s fro mPY l t o PY2
. Componen t 1 saving s estimate s ar e generall y lowe r

tha n th e su mo f

deeme dsaving s value s fro mth e TRM , indicatin g tha t behavio r saving s generate db y th e educationa l componen t o f th e progra mar

e likel y smal l an d indistinguishabl e fro mth e nois e i n th e billin g data
. Navigan t analyze dth e typ e an dquantit y o f measure s installe dfo r

Componen t

1 durin g PY l throug h PY 4 an didentifie dseveral trend s tha t corroborat e th e decrease d saving s estimates
. Thes e trend s ar e summarize dbelow :

• Th e averag e numbe r o f Componen t

1 bulb s pe r

custome r

i s decreasing
. I n PY

4 th e averag e numbe r

o f bulb s installe dwa s 5.3 , dow n fro m6. 0 i n PY3 , 6. 1 i n PY2 , an d8. 3 i n PYl
.

2 6 Nexus Marke

t Research , Inc. , RI. W Analytics , Inc. , an

d GD S Associates , 2009
. Residentia l Lightin g Markdow n Impac t Lvaluation
. Prepare dfo r Markdow n an

dHuydow

n Progra mSponsor

s in Connecticut, Massachusetts , Rhod e Island , an

d Vermont
. Januar

y 20, 2009
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 8 2• Th e diversit y o f Componen t

1 measure s installe dha s decreased
. Th e primar y measure s installe di n PY

4 wer e CFLs , aerators/showerheads , refrigerator/freezers , an dwate r heater measures . Installatio n o f ai r conditioners , duc t

sealin g an dinsulation , gas furnace/boilers , hea

t pumps , infiltratio n measures , insulatio n measures , an dthermostat s wa s non-existen t

i n PY 4 o r lowe r tha n i n previou s years . • Occasionally , LEE

P participant s receiv e an audi t bu t th e contracto r

doe s no t

identify an y opportunitie s t o instal l progra mmeasures . Th e numbe r o f participant s wit h n o energy savin g measure s i s increasing
. I n PY 4 approximatel y 1 0 percen t o f Componen t

1 participant s receive dn o energy-savin g measures , u p fro m8 percen t i n PY3 , 6 percen t

i n PY2 , an d2 percen t

i n PYl
. Th e primar y goal o f

th e PY 4 site visit s wa s t o collec t CFL installatio n information
. Navigan t determine daCFL in-servic e rat e o f 97. 3 percen t

fo r Componen t

1 direc t instal l bulbs
. Thi s i s significantl y highe r

tha n th e deeme din-servic e rate o f 84 percen t

i n th e 201 2 TRM
. Navigan t recommend s tha t

th e Pennsylvani aAc t

12 9 Progra mEvaluatio n Grou p (PEG ) includ e i n futur e version s o f

th e TR M CF L in-servic e rate s tha t ar e specifi c t o progra mdeliver y metho d(i.e. , direc t install , mailings , an dgiveaways)
. Th e majorit y o f bulb s wer e installe di n high-usag e locations , includin g bathrooms , dinin g rooms , kitchens , livin g rooms , an dbedrooms
. Th e reporte daverag e HO U wa s 3. 2 hour s an dth e reporte dmedia n HO U wa s 2. 0 hours
. Ninety-si x percen t

o f th e Componen t

4 respondent s ( n = 24 ) verifie dtha t refrigerator s o r freezer s wer e installed
. On e responden t reporte dtha t

ane w uni t

wa s no t installed. 2 7 Pe

r sectio n 1.11. 4 o f th e 201 2 TRM , verifie dmeasur e count s withi n 5 percen t o f reporte dvalue s ar

e considere dwithi n reasonabl e erro r an dd o no t

requir e a

n adjustmen t

t o th e realizatio n rate . Therefore , Navigan t

applie da n installatio n rate o f 1. 0 whe n calculatin g verifie dsaving s fo r Componen t

4 measures . Tabl e 5- 2 an dTabl e 5- 3 i n thi s sectio n summariz e th e PY 4 reporte dsaving s fo r

LEEP
. Tabl e 5-

4 describe s th e samplin g strategy . Tabl e 5- 5 an dTabl e 5- 6 sho w research-verifie denerg y an d deman dsavings
. Tabl e 5-7 an dTabl e 5- 8 sho w stric t TR M verifie dsavings
. Participatio n rate s wer e fairl y steady durin g PY4 , wit h approximatel y 2,50 0 audit s conducte di n each quarter .

Navigan t attempte dt o contac t thi s responden

t b y telephon

e t o obtain additiona

l information , bu

t wa s no t abl e t o reac h th e cuslomer
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 8 3Tabl e 5-2
. PY 4 LEE P Reporte dResult s b y Quarte r

Reportin g Perio d Participant s Reporte dGros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p lOOHour e

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) PY 4 Q l 2,394 9,17 1 0. 4 0. 5 99 6 PY 4 Q 2 2,390 7,53 2 0 0. 4 91 4 PY4Q 3 2,47 8 7,21 3 0 0. 4 75 5 PY 4 Q 4 2,84 4 5,63 2 0 0. 3 71 2 PY 4 Tota l 10,10 6 29,54 8 0. 4 1. 6 3,37 7 CPIT D Tota l 32,240 83,28 6 7. 8 6. 7 133 3 Note: The number

of parlicipnnls is equal

to the number

of Component

3 audits. Source: Navigant analysis of PECO LEEPtracking data Tabl e 5-3
. PY

4 LEE P Reporte dResult s b y Secto r

Secto r Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10 0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) Residentia l Low-Incom e 10,10 6 29,54 8 0. 4 1. 6 3,37 7
Commercia l an d Industria l 0 0 0 0 0
Governmen t

an d Nonprofi t 0 0 0 0 0 PY 4 Tota l 10,10 6 29,54 8 0. 4 1. 6 3,37 7 CPIT D Tota l 32,240 83,28 6 7. 8 6. 7 13,30 3 Note: The number

of participants is equal

to the number

of Component

1 audits. Source: Nnvigant

analysis of

PECO LEEPtracking data Th e billin g analysi s wa s conducte do n acensu s o f PY2 participan t

data , per

th e approve d protocol
. Approximatel y 1 7 percen t o f customer s wer e exclude dfro mth e regressio n mode l du e t o incomplet e o r

incorrec t

data
. I n th e billin g analysi s sectio n o f Tabl e 5-4 , th e Targe t

Sampl e Siz e i s th e numbe r

o f participant s i n each stratu man dth e Achieve dSampl e Size i s th e numbe r o f participant s include di n th e model
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 8 4Th e evaluatio n tea mconducte d2

5 site visit s fo r

Componen t

1 participants
. Th e finding s o f thes e site visit s are fo r

researc h purpose s onl y an dd o no t impac t PY 4 verifie dsavings
. Th e participan t

phon e surve y wa s conducte dfo r asampl e o f

92 participant s draw n fro m Component s 1 , 3 , an d4
. Componen t 2 consist s o f

direc t installatio n o f

additiona l CFL s i n th e home s o f

LIUR P participants
. Give n tha t LEE P an dLIUR P ar

e jointl y implemented , Navigan t expect s n o differenc e betwee n LEE P an dLIUR P participants
. Furthermore , LIUR P participant s woul dno t

be abl e t o distinguis h LEE P an dLIUR P activities
. For thes e reason s Navigan t di dno t surve y Componen t

2 participants
. Componen t

3 consist s o f

distributio n o f

CFL s a t low-incom e communit y events . PEC O track s th e numbe r

o f bulb s distribute dan dasks recipient s t o provid e thei r name an dcontac t informatio n o n asign-i n for ma t each event . Th e custome r informatio n i s no t

converte dt o a

n electroni c forma t

an dtherefor e i t

i s difficul t

t o identify th e numbe r

o f participant s i n Componen t

3
. Therefore , th e Populatio n Siz e i s liste das unknow n i n Tabl e 5-4
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 8 5Tabl e 5-4 . LEE PSamplin g Strateg y fo r PY 4

Stratu m Strat a

Boundarie s Populatio n

Siz e Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activit y C l -'Electri c Baseloa d Heat

Typ e 8,22 1 N/ A 85/1 5 8,22 1 6,80 4 Impact :

Billin g Analysi s o n PY 2 Participant s C l - Electri c Hea t Heat

Typ e 56 8 N/ A 85/1 5 56 8 47 6 Impact : Billin g Analysi s o n PY 2 Participant s Activit y Subtota l 8,78 9 N/ A 85/1 5 8,78 9 7,28 0 Componen t

1 N/ A 10,10 6 0. 5 85/1 5 25 2 5 Impact : Sit

e Visit s Activit y Subtota l 10,10 6 N/ A 85/1 5 25 25 Componen t

1 N/ A 10,10 6 0. 8 85/1 5 3 8 3 8 Process : Phone Surve y Componen t

3 N/ A unknow n 0. 8 85/1 5 3 0 3 0 Process : Phone Surve y Componen t

4 N/ A 53 6 0.9 5 85/1 5 2 4 2

4 Process :

Phone Surve y Activit y Subtota l 10,642 N/ A 85/1 5 9 2 9 2 Progra m Tota l 29,53 7 N/ A 85/1 5 8,90 6 7,397 Source: Navigant

analysis. Th e research-verifie denerg y an ddeman dsaving s includ e th e research-verifie dlightin g IE F an d highe r coincidenc e factor , bot h applie dt o Componen t 2 an d3 bulbs
. Research-verifie denerg y saving s wer e slightl y lowe r tha n reporte dsaving s (27,27 0 MW h verifie dversu s 29,54 8 MW h reported) , resultin g i n arealizatio n rat e o f 9 2 percen t

fo r energ y savings
. Th e lowe r research

verifie denerg y saving s are primaril y du e t o adecreas e i n th e Componen t " 1 savings , as indicate db y th e billin g analysis
. Not e tha t Componen t

3 CFL s accoun t

fo r approximatel y 6

9 percen t o f progra menerg y saving s i n PY4
. Research-verifie ddeman dsaving s wer e significantl y highe r tha n reporte ddeman dsaving s (3. 3 M W verifie dversu s 1.6 M W reported) , resultin g i n arealizatio n rate o f 20 2 percen t fo r deman d savings
. Th e highe r

researc h verifie ddeman dsaving s ar e primaril y du e t o an increase d coincidenc e facto r

an dapplicatio n o f

th e lightin g IE

F t o Componen t

2 an d3 buibs
. Th e lo w PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 86realizatio n rate s fo r Componen t

1 deman dsaving s result s fro mth e billin g analysi s findings
. Not e tha t

Componen t

3 CFL s accoun t

fo r approximatel y 8 5 percen t o f progra mdeman dsaving s i n PY4
. Tabl e 5-5 . PY4 LEE PSummar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y - Researc h Verifie d

Stratu m

Electri c Baseloa

d Basic Reporte d Gros s Energy Saving s (MWh ) 7,63 0 Energ y

Realizatio n Rat e
71 % Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (G O o r Proportio n 0.1 4 Relativ e

Precisio n a t 85 % Confidenc e
3 % Verifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 5,38 7 Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 0 Electri c Baseloa

d Majo r 1,568 73 % 0.3 2 8

% 1,13 9 0 Electri c Mea

t - Basic - 1 100 % N/ A 0 %
- 1 0 Electri c Mea

t - Majo r 1 77 % N/ A 0 % 1 0 Componen t

2 1,12

9 102 % N/ A 0% 1,15 2 0 Componen t

3 18,55 5 102 % N/ A 0% 18,92 6 0 Componen t

4 66 6 100 % 0.9 6 6 % 66 6 0 Progra mTota l 29,54 8 92 % 0.1 4 1 % 27,27 0 0 Note: The program total

CV values for

LEEPreflect

the CV for Compomnt

1 measures only. Navigant did not calculate the program total CVduc to differences in units of measurement. Source: Navigant

analysis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 8 7Tabl e 5-6
. PY 4 LEE P Summar y o f

Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d- Researc h Verifie d

Stratu m

Electri c Baseloa

d- Bas k Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0. 2 Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e
49 % Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportio n 0.0 1 Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e
6 % Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) 0. 1 Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0 Electri c Baseload- Majo r 0. 2 337 , 0.0 4 25 % 0. 1 0 Electri c Heat Basi c 0. 0 100 % 0.0 0 0% 0. 0 0 Electri c Hea t Majo r 0. 0 71 % 0.0 0 0% 0. 0 0 Componen t

2 0. 1 279 % 0.0 0 0% 0. 2 0 Component

3 1.0 278 % 0.0 0 0% 2. 8 0 Component

4 0. 1 100 % 0.9 6 5 % 0. 1 0 Progra mTota l 1. 6 202 % 0.03 1 % 3. 3 0 Note: The program total

CV values for

LEEPreflect

the CV for Component

7 measures only. Navigant did not calculate the program total CVdue to differences in units of measurement. Sowrcc: Navigant

analysis Stric t TR M verifie denerg y saving s wer e slightl y lowe r tha n reporte dsaving s (26,87 6 MW h verifie dversu s 29,54 8 MW h reported) , resultin g i n arealizatio n rate o f 9 1 percen t

fo r energ y savings
. Th e lowe r

stric t TR M verifie denerg y saving s ar e primaril y du e t o adecreas e i n th e Componen t

1 savings , a

s indicate db y th e billin g analysis
. Stric t TR M verifie ddeman dsaving s wer e slightl y lowe r tha n reporte dsaving s (1. 4 M W verifie d versu s 1. 6 M W reported) , resultin g i n arealizatio n rate o f 8 4 percen t fo r deman dsavings
. Th e lowe r stric t TR M verifie ddeman dsaving s ar e primaril y du e t o adecreas e i n th e Componen t 1 savings , a

s indicate db y th e billin g analysis
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 8 8Tabl e 5-7 . PY 4 LEE P Summar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y - Stric tTR M Verifie d

Stratum

Electri c Baseloa

d Basic Reporte d Gros s Energy Saving s <MWh ) 763 0 Energy

Realizatio n Rat e
71 % Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv)o r Proportio n 0.1 4 Relativ e

Precisio n a t85% Confidenc e
3 % Verifie d

Gros s Energy Saving s (MWh ) 5,38 7 Unverifie d

Gros s Energy Saving s (MWh ) 0 Electri c Baseload Majo r 1,56 8 73

% 0.3 2 8 % 1,13 9 0 Electri c Hea

t - Basic - 1 100 % N/ A 0

%
- 1 0 Electri c Hea

t - Majo r 1 77 % N/

A 0

% 1 0 Componen t

2 1,12

9 100 % N/ A 0

% 1,12

9 0 Componen t

3 18,55 5 100 % N/ A 0

% 18,55 5 0 Component4 66 6 100 % 0.9 6 6 % 66 6 0 Progra m Tota l 29;54 8 91 % 0.14 1 % 26,87

6 0 Note: The program total

CV values for LEEPreflect

the CV for Component

1 measures only. Navigant did not calculate, the program total CVdue to differences in units of measurement. Source: Navigant

analysis

PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 8 9Tabl e 5-8
. PY 4 LEE P Summar y o f

Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d- Stric t

TR M Verifie d

Stratu m

Electri c Baseloa

d- Basic Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0. 2 Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e
49% Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportio n 0.0 1 Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e 6% Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) 0. 1 Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0 Electri c Baseload- Majo r 0. 2 33 % 0.0 4 25% 0. 1 0 Electri c Hea t Basic 0. 0 100 % 0.0 0 0% 0. 0 0 Electri c Hea

t Majo r 0. 0 71 % 0.0 0 0% 0. 0 0 Component

2 0. 1 100 % 0.0 0 0% 0. 1 0 Component

3 1.

0 100

% 0.0

0 0

% 1.0 0 Componen t

4 0. 1 100 % 0.9

6 5 % 0. 1 0 Progra mTota l 1. 6 84 % 0;0 3 1 % 1. 4 0 Note: The program tola} CV mines for LEEPreflect

the CV for Component

2 measures only. Navigant did not calculate the program total CV due to differences in units of measurement. Source: Navigant

analysis 

## 5. 3 Impac tEvaluation Ne

tSaving s Navigan t

assume d a

n NT G rati o o f

1.0, as i n prio r

years , becaus e low-incom e customer s typicall y d o no t

hav e th e resource s t o instal l energ y efficienc y measures . An y Componen t 1 participan t

fre e ridershi p o r

spillove r

tha t occur s i s capture di n th e billin g analysis
. T o th e exten t tha t participant s wer e alread y purchasin g progra mmeasure s o r takin g energy-savin g actions , thi s wil l b e capture di n th e usag e prio r t o LEE P participatio n (th e baseline)
. T o th e exten t tha t participant s purchas e additiona l measure s o r take additiona l action s i n respons e to participatio n i n th e program , thi s wil l b e capture din.th e usag e afte r LEE P participation
. Th e billin g analysi s compare s usag e prio r t o an dafte r

LEE P participation , wit h th e differenc e indicatin g progra mimpacts
. Thi s differenc e incorporate s fre e ridershi p an dspillover , bu t doe s no t allo w fo r

separatin g ou t

thes e effects
. 

## 5. 4 Proces s Evaluation Th e proces s evaluatio n include dtw o primar y tasks : in-dept h interview s wit h ke y progra m personne l an dparticipan t telephon e surveys . Th e evaluatio n teamconducte dfou r in-dept h interview s wit h ke y progra mpersonnel , includin g tw o staf f a t PEC O an dtw o staf

f a t th e PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 9 0progra mimplemente r (CM C Energ y Services)
. Th e primar y goal s o f th e interview s wer e t o documen t

change s i n th e progra mdeliver y an dgathe r insigh t fro mstaf

f member s tha t

wor k closel y wit h th e program . Th e interview s too k plac e i n Apri l 2013
. Th e evaluatio n tea m surveye darando msampl e o f 9 2 participant s fro mComponent s 1 , 3 , an d4
. Th e primar y goal s o f th e participan t

survey s wer e t o gaug e satisfactio n wit h th e program , gathe r participan t

an d sit e information , an dresearc h measure installatio n rates . Tli e survey s too k plac e i n Jul y 2013
. 5.4. 1 Custome r Perspective s I n general , participant s ar e ver y satisfie dwit h al l element s o f th e progra mdelivery
. Respondent s reporte dtha t educationa l material s wer e "clea r an dinformative " an dawarde da n averag e satisfactio n ratin g o f 9.3 4 o n a10-poin t

scale
. Respondent s were als o aske d to rate thei r satisfactio n wit h th e contractor , schedulin g process , installatio n process , an dqualit y o f measure s installed
. Respondent s were ver y satisfie dwit h eac h o f thes e elements , awardin g averag e satisfactio n rating s rangin g fro m9.2 9 t o 9.78
. I n general , participant s wer e abl e t o verify measur e installatio n an dwer e ver y satisfie dwit h th e measure s installe d(se e Tabl e 5-9)
. Not e tha t participant-reporte dinstallatio n rate s fo r Component s 1 an d3 ar e fo r researc h purpose s onl y an dd o no t affec t verifie dsavings
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 9 1

### Tabl e 5-9 . Participant-Reporte

d Installation Rate

s an d Satisfaction wit

h Measure

s

Measur e Descriptio n PY 4 Reporte d ( S Participants ) PY

4 Verifie d (I f Participants ) PY

4 % Verifie d (t t Participants ) PY 4 Averag e Satisfacti o n Ratin g (0-1 0 scale ) PY 3

Averag e Satisfactio n Ratin g (0-1 0 scale ) Componctit

1 (n=38) CFL s 3 4 3 0 88 % 9.7 3 9.0 5 ( n = 99 ) Aerato r 6 4 67% 9.5 0 9.1 4 ( n = 7 ) Showerhea d 5 5 100 % 9.6 0 8.8 0 ( n = 15 ) Refrigerato r 4 4 100 % 9.5 0 8.88 * Water Heate r Pip e Insulatio n 2 2 100 % 9.0 0 9.8 0 ( n = 5 ) Thermosta t 1 1 100 % 10.0 0 7.5 0 ( n = 2 ) Wate r Heate r Time r 1 1 100 % 10.0 0

- Al l Measure s 3 8 3 2 84 %

- - Omiponenl

3 (n = 30) CFL s 3 0 2 7 90% 9.1 0

- Component

4 (n = 24) Ref r i gerator/Freeze r 2 4 2 3 96% 8.7 0 8.88 * "No base number

reported in PY3 Source: Navigant

anah/sis 

### Participant s reporte dtakin g energy-saving action s after th e energ y audit
. Mos t

reporte d action s ar e the low-cost/no-cos t

activitie s emphasize

d i n th e program' s educationa

l materials , suc

h a s turnin g of

f light s (35%) , unpluggin g appliance s (22%) , o r reducin g th

e us e o f ai r conditioner s (15% ) andothe

r appliance s (14%)
. Notably , th e proportio n of

respondents reportin g thes e action s generally increase dcompared t

o PY3
. Th e averag e squar e footag e o f

homes reporte d by PY

4 respondents was appreciably smalle r tha n fo r PY3 , decreasin

g fro m2,30

5 squar e fee t i n PY 3 t o 1,25 9 squar e fee t i n PY4
. Decreasin

g squar e footag e i s likel y adrive r of th e lower energ y saving s indicate d b y th e regressio

n analysis
. Th

e large majority of

respondents reporte d househol d income s fallin g below 15 0 percen t o f th e FPL
.

PEC O Energy Compan

y f Pag e 9 2Ninet y percent o f th e Componen t

3 respondent s ( n = 30) reporte dreceip t o f CFLs
. O n average , respondent s reporte dreceivin g 6. 3 bulb s an dreporte dinstallin g 3. 8 bulbs
. Th e averag e installatio n rate wa s 65 percent. 2 8 Respondent s reporte dtha t al l remainin g bulb s wer e i n storag e a t th e tim e o f

th e survey . Thi s suggest s tha t some customer s ar

e keepin g CFL s provide d b y th e progra mi n storag e a s "backups, " bu t

othe r customer s may requir e furthe r educatio n an d encouragemen t

t o instal l th e CFL s provide dt o them
. Th e majorit y (71% ) o f CFL s installe d replace dincandescen t

bulbs ; 1 1 percen t

o f respondent s reporte dtha t th e progra mCFL s replace dexistin g CFLs
. Th e progra mCFL s largel y replace d60-wat t bulb s (31 % o f

respondents ) an d75-watt

bulb s (18 % o f

respondents)
. Consisten t

wit h PY3 findings , PY 4 satisfactio n wit h PEC O eithe r increase d(58% ) o r

staye dth e sam e (36% ) fo r

LEE P participants
. Onl y asmal l minorit y (6% ) indicate dthei r satisfactio n wit h PEC O ha ddecreased
. Man y respondent s ha dpositiv e comment s abou t th e service s provided , rangin g fro mdiscounte dbilling , providin g CFL s an drefrigerator s o r adjustin g thermostat s an d ai r conditioners , to jus t

"takin g a

n interest. " Severa

l respondent s commente dtha t the y fel t

safer du e t o th e installatio n o f smoke alarms
. 5.4. 2 Progra

m Managementan d Implementatio n Staf f Perspective s I n effect , PEC O ha s piggybacke dLEE P ont o th e existin g LIURP
. Whil e the interviewee s note d tha t thi s ha s worke dwel l i n achievin g operationa l efficiencie s an densurin g asmooth implementatio n o f

LEEP , there wa s ofte n confusio n o n bot h th e PEC O an dI C side s a s t o ho w th e program s an dthei r Component s actuall y overlap
. Throughou t

th e courtshi p o f

potentia l participant s an di n th e day-to-da y working s o f th e program , muc h emphasi s wa s place do n makin g sure tha t th e progra mstaf

f addresse s th e customers ' needs
. A s on e responden t pu t it : "There's a lot

of emphasis on respect

- making the customer

feel that they're happy to be part ofthe program. We don't want them to feel

that this is something that's being forced or mandated

on them." Th e telephon e interviewee s reported , "Ther e i s alo t o f poverty " i n th e regio n bein g served , an d suggeste d tha t

Phas e I (an dforthcomin g Phas e II ) qualifyin g criteri amay exclud e a n

2 8 Th e averag e installatio n rat

e wa s calculate

dby : first, calculatin g th

e installatio n rat

e fo r eac h responden

t tha t reporte dbot h th e numbe r o f bulb s receive

dan dth e numbe r o f bulb s installed ; an

dsecond, takin g th

e averag e o f th e customer-leve

l installatio n rates . Alternatively , th

e averag e installatio n rat

e weighte db y th e numbe r o f bulb s receive

di s 58%
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 9 3appreciabl e proportio n o f household s tha t

woul dbenefi t

fro mthes e programs . Al l o f th e respondent s commente d tha t i t woul db e desirabl e fo r Phas e I I to lowe r

th e threshol d energ y usag e criterio n i n orde r t o qualify mor e customer s fo r th e program . Tabl e 5-1 0 contain s Navigant' s recommendation s fo r revisin g th e participan t selectio n criteria
. Whil e LEE

P ha s been quit e successfu l i n distributin g CFLs , as show n i n thi s repor t an d thos e fo r previou s progra myears , respondent s raise d concern s a s t o whethe r

th e LEE

P marke t

fo r standar d CFL s i s nearin g saturation
. Th e respondent s indicate d tha t i n th e pas t

yea r significan t

effor t ha s gon e int o qualit y assuranc e a t th e I C leve l t o ensure tha t th e databas e supplie d to PEC O i s complete , erro r free , syste m compatible , an d eas y t o acces s an d use . On e PEC O staf f responden t

note d tha t

th e databas e has thos e characteristic s an d note d that , eve n thoug h occasional error s occur , the y ar e occurrin g les s frequently
. Whil e al l th e respondent s note d tha t custome r

feedbac k

ha s been positive , tw o ke y area s fo r progra mimprovemen t wer e identified : 1
. Create additiona l material s t o furthe r educat e customer s abou t additiona l way s t o reduc e energ y usag e 2
. Explai n th e interaction s an d difference s betwee n LEE P an d LIUR P an d clarif y th e progra mmetric s o f

succes s Tabl e 5-1 0 contain s th e recommendation s fo r progra mimprovemen t fro mth e proces s evaluation
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 9 4Tabl e 5-10
. Statu s Repor t fo r LEE P Proces s Evaluation s Recommendation s ED C Statu s Repor t fo r Proces s Evaluation s (Implemented , Bein g considered , Rejecte dAN D Explanatio n o f

Actio n Take n b y EDC ) Modif y criteri afo r

selectio n progra mparticipant s t o targe t customer s wit h hig h energ y density instea do f customer s wit h hig h usage . Atl daserie s o f question s abou t energy-efficien t

measure s already installe dt o identif y customer s that

hav e littl e opportunit y fo r energ y savings
. Unde r consideratio n

(For Pennsylvani aAc t

12 9 PEG ) Includ e i n futur e version s of'th e TK M CFL in-servic e rate s that are'specifi c t o progra mdeliver y (i.e. , direc t install , mailings , an d giveaways)
. Unde r consideratio n

Develo p additiona l educationa l material s fo r customers , especiall y focusin g o n consume r electronics
. Unde r consideratio n Explai n t o PEC O an dI C staf f ho w LEE

P an dLIUR P interfac e an dho w they differ
. Unde r consideratio n
Source: Nnviganl

analysis 

## 5. 5 Financia

l Reportin

g LEE P continue s t o b e cos t

effective , wit h aPY

4 evaluation-verifie dcost-benefi t rati o o f 3.9 4 an d aPY 4 stric t TRM-verifie dcost-benefi t rati o o f 3.78
. Th e increase dcost-benefi t rati o i s primaril y drive n b y a

n increas e i n Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s an da1 9 percen t decreas e i n cost s a

s compare dt o PY3
. Th e PY 3 cost-effectivenes s analysi s aggregate dComponen t 1 saving s a

t th e measure level ; wherea s th e PY 4 cost-effectivenes s analysi s aggregate s Componen t 1 saving s a

t th e participan t

level , whic h i s consisten t wit h th e methodolog y fo r reportin g Componen t 1 savings
. Additionally , CFL s make u p an increasin g proportio n o f progra menerg y saving s (63 % i n PY 4 compare dt o 46 % i n PY3 ) an dar e generall y cost-effectiv e measures . A breakdow n o f th e progra mfinance s unde r each scenari o i s presente di n Tabl e 5- 1 lan dTabl e 5-12
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 9 5Tabl e 5-11 . Summar y o f LEE PFinance s - TR M Verifie d

1QI9 I ($1,000 ) PY 4

($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 0 0 0 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 0 0 0 Subtotal ED C Incentiv e Cost s 0 0 0 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration' 1 1 21 5 87 3 2,85 4 Management 12 ' 7 6 28 5 1,27 6 Marketing' 3 ' 17 8 55 0 922 Technica l Assistanc e 71 2 3,37 7 13,30 4 Subtotal ED C Implementatio n Cost s 1,18 1 5,08 4 18,35

5
ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 13 2 23 9 59 4 SW E Audi tCost s 0 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs' 1 ' 1,31 3 5,32 3 18,94 9 Participan tCosts' 5 ' 0 0 0 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 1 N/ A 5,32

3 18,94

9
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/ A 19,10 7 53,78 8 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N/ A 420 2,12 2 Tota l TR C Benefits' " N/ A 20,09

9 57,83

5 TR C Ratio' 8 ' N/ A 3.7

8 3.0

5 NOTE S Per PUC direction, TRC

J'JIJIK/S and calcuiations are required in the Annual Report only and should

comphf with the lOTlTotal

Resource Cosl Tesl Order approved July 28, 2011. Please see the "Report Definitions"

section of

this rcporl

for more details. [ 1 1 Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system , an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost. J2 ) Include s ED

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . |3 | Include s th

e marketin g CS

P an dmarketing cost

s b y progra mCSPs
. |4 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order, th e Tota l ED C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurre dexpense

s only
. J5 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order, th e ne t Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us e cuslome r or progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t costs . Thes

e include incentive s pai dt o applianc e recycling an

dDeman dRespons

e participants
. I6 | Tota l TR C Cost s include ED

C Evaluation Costs , LD

C Implementation Costs , an dParticipan

t Costs
. [7 [ Tota l TR C Henefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tota l Lifetime Energ

y Henefit s an dTota l LifetimeCapacit

y Henefit s plu s an y benefi t associate d wit h avoidedincandescen

t purchases mad

e due l o th

e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a

s compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Itase

dupo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoidedsupply costs , includin g th e reduclio n i n cost s o f electric energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s value dal margina

l cosl fo r period s whe n ther e i s aloa dreduction
. |S | TR C Rati o equal s Tota

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tota l TR C Costs
. |9 | Pos t PY 4 cost s an dbenefit s ar

e includedi n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Navigant

anah/sis

PEC O Energ y Compan y j Pag e 96Tabl e 5-12. Summar y o f LEE PFinance s - Evaluatio n Verifie d

IQI9I ' ($1,000 ) PY 4

<$1>000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 0 0 0 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 0 0 0 Subtotal ED C Incentiv e Cost s 0 0 0 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration 11 1 21 5 87 3 2,85 4 Management 12 1 7 6 28 5 1,27 6 Marketing 13 1 17 8 55 0 922 Technical Assistanc e 71 2 3,37 7 13,30 4 Subtotal ED C Implementatio n Cost s 1,18 1 5,084 18,35 5
ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 132 23 9 594 SW E Audi tCost s 0 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs' 4 1 1,31 3 5,32 3 18,949 Participan tCosts' 5 ' 0 0 0 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 1 N/ A 5,32

3 18,94

9
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/ A 19,37 4 54,05 5 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N/ A 1,01 4 2,71 6 Tota l TR C Benefits' 7 ' N/ A 20,96 1 58,69 7 TR C Ratio' 8 1 N/ A 3.9

4 3.1 0 NOTE S Per PUC direction, TRC

inputs and

calculations arc required in the Annual

Report only and should comply with the 201 ITotal Resource Cost Test Order approved luly 28, 2011. Please see Ihe "Report Definitions" section of

this report for more details. 11 1 Includu s th

e administrativL ' CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system , an dgenera l adminislralio n an

dclerica l cost. [2 | Include s LD

C progra mmanngemenl , CS

P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . [3 | Include s th

e marketin g CS

P an dmarketing cosl s b

y progra mCSPs
. |4 | Pe r Ih e 201 1 Tola

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order , th e Tota l LD C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurredexpense

s only
. [5 | Perlhe20 n Tota

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order, thene l Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cosl s fo r

th e end-us e custome r or progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t cosls
. Thes

e include incentive s pai

dt o applianc e recycling an

dDeman dRespons

e participanls , |6 | Tota l TR C Cost s include LD

C Lvaluatio n Costs , LD

C Implemenlalion Cosls , an dParlicipan

t Costs
. |7 | Tola l TR C Henefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tota l Lifetime Lnerg

y Henefit s an dTola l Lifetime Capacit

y Henefit s plu s an y benetl l associate d wil h avoidedincandescen t purchases mad

e du e t o Ih e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a

s compare dt o tli e baselin e measure . Hase

dupo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoidedsupply costs , includin g ih e reduclio n i n cosl s o f eleclri c energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s value da l margina l cos t fo r period s whe n Iher e is aloa dreduclion
. |8 | TR C Rati o equal s Tota

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tota l TR C Cosls
. |9 | Pos l PY 4 cost s an dbenefit s ar

e includedi n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Navigant

analysis
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 9 7

## 6 Smar

tEquipmen

tIncentives : Commercia l an d Industrial Progra

m Th e purpos e o f

th e Smar

t Equipmen t

Incentive s Commercia l an dIndustria l progra mi s t o increas e awarenes s o f

energ y saving s opportunitie s an dassis t customer s i n actin g o n thos e opportunitie s t o decreas e energ y usag e i n commercia l an dindustria l facilitie s an di n master
metere dmultifamil y residentia l buildings
. Thi s progra moffer s incentive s t o customer s wh o instal l high-efficienc y electri c equipmen t an dengage s equipmen t supplier s an dcontractor s to promot e th e incentive-eligibl e equipment
. Th e SE I C& I progra mha s thre e sub-components : retrofi t projects , multi-tenan t

projects , an dappliance-recyclin g projects
. Th e SE I progra moffer s bot h aprescriptiv e an dcusto mincentiv e approac h fo r customers . Th e prescriptiv e approac h follow s pre-establishe dincentive s typicall y base d o n adolla r per unit

installe dincentiv e fo r C& I businesse s intereste di n purchasin g mor e commo n efficien t technologies
. Th e custo mincentiv e approac h i s availabl e to customer s intereste di n les s commo n o r

mor e comple x energy-savin g measure s installe di n qualifie dretrofi t o r equipmen t replacemen t

projects
. Th e progra mprovide s incentive s fo r th e followin g equipmen t categories : HVAC , Lighting , Drive s an dMotors , Refrigeration , an dCusto mSolutions
. I n addition , th e progra mprovide s incentive s fo r ENERGY STAR ® appliance s an dHVA C equipmen t i n multi

tenan t master-metere dbuilding s an dapplianc e recyclin g fo r C& I customers . Th e progra m launche dMarc h 1 , 2010 , althoug h incentive s wer e als o offere dfo r project s complete dbetwee n Jul y 1 , 2009 , an dFebruary 28 , 2010
. I n PY4 , th e C& I progra mincente datota l o f 71 7 project s coverin g C& I retrofi t

project s (65 9 projects 29 ) , C& I multi-tenan t project s (4

4 projects) , an dC& I applianc e recyclin g project s (1 4 projects)
. PECO' s four-yea r

energ y efficienc y pla n separate s th e progra meffort s targetin g privat e C& I businesse s fro mth e progra meffort s targetin g th e governmen t an dnonprofi t

sectors . For

th e limite dpost-launc h perio do f PYl , th e marketin g an dimplementatio n o f th e Smar

t Equipmen t Incentive s progra mwa s no t differentiate dbetwee n C& I an dGovernment/Nonprofi t t o adegre e tha t mad e i t

necessar

y t o conduc t

separat e evaluations
. For

PY 2 throug h PY4 , C& I an d Government/Nonprofi t program s ar

e sufficientl y differentiate dtha t th e tw o program s ar

e no w bein g evaluate dseparately
.

2 9 Tw o project

s wer e no t verifie di n th

e PY 4 evaluation an

dreport , bu

t wil l instea

db e verifie da

t alate r dat e onc e th e projec t file s ar e read y for evaluation
. Thes

e projects an

dth e saving s wil l b

e reporte da s "unverified " saving s i n th e Phas e I compliance report . Thes e project s wer e no t verifie di n th

e PY 4 evaluation an

drepor t becaus e th e application s wer

e receive da t th e en do f Phas e 1 an d ther e wa s insufficien t

tim e t o assig n saving s t

o thes e projects
. Th

e projects represen

t tw o part s o

f alarge r overall projec

t installatio n (PLCCM1-0281 2 an

dPl-CO- l 1-04673)
. Thes

e project s ar e includedin thi s tota

l coun t o f C& I retrofi t

projects
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 9 86. 1 Progra m Update s

PEC O sough t

an d receive d approva l fro mth e Pennsylvani aPubli c Utilit y Commissio n t o establis h awaitlis t

procedur e fo r

ne w projec t

applications
. Ne w projec t application s receive d o n o r afte r Octobe r 1 , 201 1 were place d o n th e waitlis t wit h n o incentiv e fund s reserve do r guaranteed
. Durin g th e waitlist , project s wer e evaluate di n th e orde r i n whic h the y wer e received
. I f

progra msaving s goal s allowed , th e project s woul dbe grante dactiv e status , wit h an incentiv e fun dreservation
. Du e to the waitlist , th e progra mha dshifte dit s marketin g messag e fro mtha t

o f a n incentive-base dprogra mt o mor e o f a n educationa l message focusin g o n energ y saving s i n general
. Th e SE I C& I progra mremaine di n waitlis t statu s fo r

Q1-Q 3 o f

PY 4 (June-February 2013 ) an d fo r th e firs t hal f o f Marc h 2013
. However , as o f Marc h 15 , 2013 , PEC O lifte dth e waitlis t fo r customer s applyin g to th e SEI C& I program . A t tha t time , PEC O worke dthroug h al l project s o n th e waitlis t

to ensure the y wer e complete dan dpai d o r cancelled
. 

## 6. 2 Impac tEvaluation Gros s Saving s Tabl e 6- 1 show s th e tota l participants , reporte dgros s energ y savings
. To p 10 0 Hour s reporte d gros s deman d reduction , an dtota l reporte dgros s deman dreductio n an dincentive s fo r PY 4 an d Phas e I
. Th e tota l Phas e I SE I C& I reporte d gros s saving s wer e 265,27 7 MW h an d45. 7 MW
. Tabl e 6-2 show s th e SE I C& I reporte d result s b y sector . Al l reporte dresult s fo r th e SEI C& I progra mfal l unde r

th e Commercia l an d Industria l sector . Th e remainde r o f thi s sectio n detail s th e measuremen t

an dverificatio n (M&V ) methodology , sampl e design , an devaluatio n finding s fo r th e SE I C& I progra mgros s impac t evaluation
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 9 9Tabl e 6-1 . PY 4 SE I C& I Reporte d Result s b y Quarte r

Reportin g Perio d

PY 4 Q I Participant s M l

10 8 Reporte d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 10,44 8 To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 6. 3 Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 1.9 Incentive s

($1,000 )

80 0 PY 4 Q 2 5 6 24,77 0 0. 0 4. 5 2,222 PY 4 Q 3 3 2 3,27 6 0. 0 0. 6 18 9 PY4Q 4 52 7 60,83 6 0. 0 (0. 5 5,84 1 PY 4 Total' 2 ' 71 7 99,329 6. 3 17. 4 9,05 2 CPIT D Tota l 3,96 1 265,27 7 6. 3 45. 7 21,02 0 NOTES : [ 1 j Th e lotn l participnnt s (projects ) fo r PY 4 wa s 717
. However, PY

4 verifie dsaving s wer

e base d on 71 5 projects
. Tw o projec

t number s (on e project ) wer e no t include di n th

e PY 4 evaluation becaus

e th e saving s estimate s wer

e no l read y in time
. |2 | Tota l saving s an

dincentive s wil l no

t matc h amounts reporte

di n PY 4 Q 4 repor t due t o Ih e additio n o

f saving s an

dincentive amounts fo r

on e pos t PY 4 Q 4 retrofi t projec t (projec t PECO-11-04673) an

don e pos t PY4Q 4 incentive adjustmen

t (projec t PI-CO-11-03058)
. Sowrcc; Nnvignnt

nmlysis Tabl e 6-2
. PY

4 SE I C& I Reporte dResult s b y Secto r

Secto r

Residentia l Participant s " >

0 Reporte dGros s Energ y Saving s (MWh )
0 To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte dGros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0 Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0 Incentive s

($1,000 )

0 Low-Incom e 0 0 0 0 0 Commercia l an d Industria l I 2 ' 71 7 99,329 6. 3 17. 4 9,05 2 Governmen t

an dNon

profi t 0 0 0 0 0 PY 4 Tota l 71 7 99,329 6. 3 17. 4 9,05 2 CPIT D Tota l 396 1 265,27 7 6. 3 45. 7 21,02 0 NOTES : 11 1 Th e tota l participant s (projects ) fo r PY 4 wa s 717
. However

, PY 4 verifie dsaving s wer

e base d o n 71 5 projects
. Tw o projec t number s (on e project ) wer e no l include di n th

e PY 4 evaluation becaus

e th e saving s eslimale s wer

e no t read y i n time
. |2 | Tota l saving s an

dincentive s wil l no

t matc h amount s reportedi n PY

4 Q 4 repor t due t o th e additio n o f

saving s nn

dincentiv e amount s fo r on e posl PY 4 Q 4 retrofi t projec t (projec t 4673) an don e pos t PY 4 Q 4 incentive adjustmen

t (projec t 3058)
. Source; Nnvignnt

nnnli/sis PEC O Energ y Compan y f Pag e 10 06.2. 1 M& V Methodology

Th e evaluatio n o f

th e SE I C&J progra mconsiste do f thre e sub-components : retrofi t projects , multi-tenan t

projects , an dappliance-recyclin g projects
. Th e M& V methodolog y fo r th e SE I C& I progra mwa s ver y simila r t o th e PY 3 methodology
. Th e primar y modificatio n wa s tha t th e multi-tenan t

an dapplianc e recyclin g project s wer e no t evaluate di n PY

4 du e t o th e very smal l percentag e o f

overal l progra msavings
. Th e realizatio n rate fo r SE I multi-tenan t

project s an d applianc e recyclin g project s wa s deeme d a t 1.0 fo r PY 4 fo r th e purpose s o f

evaluation
. Th e remainde r

o f thi s sectio n focuse s exclusivel y o n th e M& V methodolog y fo r C& I retrofi t

projects
. Measuremen t

an dverificatio n i n PY 4 include don-site dat acollectio n fo r mos t sample dsites
. C& I sample dsite s tha t me t th e followin g criteri areceive dphon e verificatio n instea do f on-site verification : 1 ) tli e projec t wa s asmal l partiall y deeme d projec t wher e th e TR M o r

an Interi m Measure Protoco l (IMP ) applied , 2 ) th e projec t ha drelativel y smal l saving s (i.e. , thos e i n C& I Stratu m3) , an d3 ) th e projec t documentatio n wa s complet e an dcoul db e use d t o verify tha t th e measure s wer e installed
. Gros s impact s fo r

deman dan denerg y wer e verifie dthroug h differen t approache s fo r

th e thre e categorie s o f

measure s i n thi s program : 1 ) deemed , 2 ) partiall y deemed , an d3 ) custo m measures . Th e measure s i n thes e categorie s ar e define db y th e TRM 3 0plu s IMP s approve db y th e Pennsylvani aPubli c Utilit y Commissio n throug h th e SW E team . I f

ameasur

e wa s deemed , th e impact s fo r

th e measure wer e provide di n the TR M o r i n an approve dIMP
. Th e evaluatio n approac h fo r

deeme d measure s wa s t o verify bot h th e installe dquantit y an dtha t th e installe d measure matche dth e TRM-require dspecifications
. I f ameasur

e wa s partiall y deemed , th e TR M o r approve dIM P provide dth e algorithm s an d defaul t assumption s fo r

calculatin g impact s an dth e variable s t o b e verified
. Dependin g o n th e complexit y o f

th e partiall y deeme d measure , th e evaluatio n teamapplie deithe r aBasic o r Enhance dleve l o f

rigo r a s describe di n th e applicabl e protocol s an dth e Audi t Plan. 3 1 Th e evaluatio n tea

mconducte da n applicatio n an dfil e revie w an ddevelope dasite-specifi c M& V

31 1 Pennsylvani aPubli c Utilit y Commission , Technica l Referenc

e Manua l (TRM ) fo r Pennsylvani aAc t

12 9 Energ y Efficienc y an

dConservation Progra

man dAc t 21 3 Alternativ e Energ

y Portfoli o Standards , Jun e 2012
. 3 1 Th e Statewid

e Evaluatio n Team : GD

S Associates , Inc. , Nexant, & Mondr e Energy ; contractedunde r th e Pennsylvani aPubli c Utilit y Commission RF P 2009- 1 fo r

th e Statewid

e Evaluator , Audi t

Pla n an d Evaluatio n Framewor

k fo r Pennsylvani aAc t

12 9 Energ y Efficienc y an

dConservation Programs , Novembe r 4 , 201 T
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 10 1pla n (SSMVP) fo r al l partiall y deeme d projects
. Th e tea mcomplete d site visit s o r phon e interview s (i f

th e criteri adescribe d abov e wer e satisfied ) followin g th e activitie s lai dou t i n th e SSMVP , an d calculate d verifie dsaving s usin g th e variable s determine d throug h th e sit e visi t o r phon e intervie w i n accordanc e wit h the TR M o r IMP
. For project s tha t

include dcusto mmeasure s (define da s measure s no t

include d i n th e TR M o r i n a n IMP , o r

measure s tha t

wer e initiall y reporte d as TR M measures , bu t determine d throug h th e evaluatio n t o b e custom) , th e evaluatio n teamconducte d an applicatio n review , develope d SSMVPs , an d conducte d site visits
. Th e primar y differenc e wa s tha t there wer e n o deeme d variable s an d al l custo mmeasure s followe dan Enhance d Rigo r leve l o f effort
. Th e evaluatio n tea

mproduce d e

x pos t engineering-base d estimate s o f gros s annua l energ y an d summe r pea k deman d impact s fo r

each sample d project
. Th e pea k kW saving s estimatio n methodolog y wa s consisten t wit h PEC O requirement s fo r each projec t

an d utilize dth e approve d Ac t

12 9 pea k deman d calculators , wher e applicable
. Th e evaluatio n o f PY 4 project s include darevie w o f

program-trackin g dat aan d supportin g documentatio n (invoices , spec sheets ) befor e developin g aSSMVP an d conductin g asite inspectio n o r phon e interview
. Tli e focu s o f th e dat acollectio n wa s t o verify and/o r updat e th e assumption s tha t fee d int o analyse s o f measure-leve l savings
. Dat acollectio n include d verificatio n o f installatio n quantity , operatin g schedule , syste mloadin g conditions , validatio n o f baselin e selection , assessmen t o f persistence , an d verificatio n tha t th e system s ar

e functionin g an d operatin g a s planne d (an d i f not , ho w th e curren t

operatio n differ s fro mplanne d operation , takin g int o accoun t daily , weekly , an d seasona

l variations)
. Th e enhance d rigo r

leve l sit e evaluation s generall y include d performin g on-sit e measuremen t and/o r obtainin g customer-store d dat at o suppor t downstrea mM& V calculations
. Measuremen t

include d spo t

measurements , run-tim e hou r dat alogging , an d post-installatio n interva l metering , dependin g o n th e need s o f th e project
. Evaluator s use d customer-supplie d dat afro man energ y managemen t syste m(EMS ) o r

supervisor y contro l an d dat aacquisitio n (SCADA ) syste mwhe n available
. I n addition , the tea mrequeste d billin g dat afo r al l project s fro mPEC O o n amonthl y o r 15-minut e interva l basis , dependin g o n th e site
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 10 26.2.

2 Sampl e Desig n Th e sampl e desig n fo r PY 4 SE I retrofi t project s use dstratifie drati o estimatio n simila r t o th e metho duse di n PY'I throug h PY3
. Base do n acombine dpai dannua l populatio n o f 657 3 2C& I retrofi t projects , th e fina l verifie dsampl e siz e wa s 3 0 C& I project s fo r th e progra myear , wit h sample s allocate db y participatio n fro meach quarte r an db y stratum . Tin

e evaluatio n team designe dth e fina l C& I sampl e t o achiev e th e require d85/1 5 confidenc e an dprecision , a t th e progra mlevel
. Al l o f

th e sample d project s wer e complete dan dinclude di n th e fina l progra m analysis
. Th e strat aboundarie s wer e define dwit h Q l data , Q 2 data , an dpipelin e dat aa t th e en do f

Q2
. Th e boundarie s wer e define dt o includ e th e to p 3 3 percen t o f reporte dkW h saving s i n Stratu m 1 , th e middl e 3 3 percen t o f reporte d kW h saving s i n Stratu m2 , an dth e lowe r 3 3 percen t

o f reporte dkW h saving s i n Stratu m3
. For th e C& I program , th e tea mals o determine dtha t th e EM S an dcombine dhea t an d powe r

(CHP ) project s shoul db e i n thei r ow n strat adu e t o th e uniqu e propertie s o f

thes e projects
. Th e EM S project s ar e uniqu e becaus e th e implemente r ha s historicall y use dadeeme dsaving s valu e pe r square foo t

o f affecte dare afo r

th e e x ante savings , whil e th e evaluatio n tea muse d acusto mapproac h as th e EM S measure i s no t i n th e TRM
. CH P project s wer e als o separate d int o thei r ow n stratu mdu e t o th e larg e an ddistinc t natur e o f

thes e projects
. Finally , th e implementatio n tea man d PEC O informe dth e evaluatio n tea mtha t one sample dC& I projec t

ha d alarg e saving s discrepanc y du e t o aspreadshee t error . Thi s projec t wa s place dint o it s ow n stratu mfo r purpose s o f

th e fina l progra manalysi s a s th e tea mexpecte d thi s larg e erro r

t o b e an exceptio n an d thu s shoul d no t affec t th e verifie dsaving s fo r th e res t o f th e projects
. Tabl e 6- 3 detail s th e SE I C& I samplin g strateg y fo r PY 4 an dinclude s th e impac t evaluatio n sampl e design
. Th e tabl e als o include s th e samplin g strateg y fo r th e proces s evaluatio n activities : th e participan t surve y an dth e participatin g contracto r survey .

3 2Th e tota l numbe r o f PY 4 C& I retrofi t

projects i s 659
. However , tw o projects wil l no t b e verifie di n th

e PY 4 evaluatio n an

dreport , bu

t wil l instea

db e verifie da

t alate r dat e onc e th e projec t file s ar e read y fo r evaluation
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 10 3Tabl e 6-3 . SE I C& I Samplin g Strateg y fo r PY4

Stratu m

C& I - Larg e i n Strat aBoundarie s

>l,000,OOOkW

h Populatio n

Siz e

8 Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (C ) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n 0. 4 Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n
85/1 5 Targe t

Sampl e Siz e

6 Achieve d Sampl e Siz e

6 Evaluatio n

Activit y

Tmnar t C&l

Mediu m > 300,000 an d5

1,000,00 0 kW h 3 6 0. 4 85/1 5 8 8 I t 1 t L r ' M 1 Evaluation : Sit e visit s an dphon e verificatio n 121.13 1 C&I-Smal l < 300,000 kW h 596 0. 4 85/1 5 9 9 I t 1 t L r ' M 1 Evaluation : Sit e visit s an dphon e verificatio n 121.13 1 C& I - CH P N/A 1 0. 5 85/1 5 1 1 I t 1 t L r ' M 1 Evaluation : Sit e visit s an dphon e verificatio n 121.13 1 C& I - LM S N/ A 1 6 0. 4 85/1 5 6 6 I t 1 t L r ' M 1 Evaluation : Sit e visit s an dphon e verificatio n 121.13 1
Activit y Subtota l '- , i:-'i; :,v > ':v: , , l . 65 7 85/1 5 3 0 3 0 C& I Lightin g - Larg e > 700,000 kW h 8 0. 5 85/1 0 7 1 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an d NT G researc h C& I Lightin g - Mediu m > 100,000 an d£

700,000 kW h 6 5 0. 5 85/1 0 7 5 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an d NT G researc h C& I Lightin g - Smal l > 20,000 an d< , 100,000 kW h 9 7 0. 5 85/1 0 8 8 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an d NT G researc h
Activit y Subtota l 17 0 85/1 0 2 2 1 4 C& l Non

lightin g - Ver y Larg e > 9,000,00 0 kW h 3 0. 5 85/1 0 2 1 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an d NT G researc h C& I Non

lighting

Larg e > 800,000 an d<

5,000,00 0 kW h 5 0. 5 85/1 0 • 5 3 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an d NT G researc h C& l Non

lightin g - Mediu m > 100,000 an d< , 800,000 kW h 1 9 0. 5 85/1 0 6 6 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an d NT G researc h C& l Non

lighting

Smal l > 20,00 0 an d£

100,00 0 kW h 3 0 0. 5 85/1 0 7 6 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an d NT G researc h

Activit y Subtota l , : 5 7 85/1 0 2 0 1 6 Stratu m1 - Ver y Larg e > 9,000,00 0 kW h 3 0. 5 85/1 0 3 0 Proces s Evaluation : Participatin g contracto r Stratu m2 - Larg e > 1,000,00 0 an d£ 6,000,00 0 kW h 1 2 0. 5 85/1 0 1 0 3 Proces s Evaluation : Participatin g contracto r PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 10 4Assume d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Targe t Stratu m Strat aBoundarie s Populatio n Siz e Coefficien t

o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Level s o f

Confidenc e & Precision < Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activit y

Stratu m3 - Mediu m > 300,000 an d

51,000,000 kW h 4 8 0. 5 85/1 0 7 7 surve y Stratu m4 - Smal l > 60,000 an d< , 300,000 kW h 14 8 0. 5 85/1 0 8 8 Activit y Subtota l 

# • j 21 1 i i l 85/1 0 2 8 1 8 Program Tota l 1,09 5 i N/ A 10 0 7 8 NOTES : [ 1 1 A single projec

t (PECO-11-03058

) wa s place dinto it s ow n stratu

mdurin g th

e evaluation proces s du

e t o alarge known error . |2 | C& l - Applianc e Recyclin g an dC& I - Multi-tenan

t projects wer

e no t sample di n PY4
. |3 | Th e tota l numbe r o f SE I C& l retrofi t

project s i n PY 4 wa s 659
. (Not

e tha t th e tota l SI: ! C& l projec

t coun t i n PY 4 i s 71 7 i f C& l multi

tenan t nn dapplianc e recyclin

g project s ar e included. ) However, tw o project s wer e no t verifie di n th

e PY 4 evaluation , bu

t the y wil l b e verifie da

l alate r dale onc e th e projec t Hie s ar e read y fo r evaluation
. Source: Nnvignnt

analysis 6.2. 3 Gros s Impac t

Evaluatio n Finding s Th e evaluatio n teamdevelope de x pos t gros s impact s fo r

each sample dSE

I C& I retrofi t

projec t an danalyze dthes e result s to determin e th e program-leve l e x pos t gros s impacts
. Th e evaluatio n tea mcomplete dsite-specifi c evaluation s o f 3 0 sample dproject s i n PY 4 fo r th e SE I C& I retrofi t

program . Tabl e 6-

4 an dTabl e 6- 5 sho w th e reporte dgros s savings , verifie dgros s savings , an dunverifie dgros s saving s fo r th e SEI C& I program . Fro mth e evaluation , th e tea m foun dth e energ y realizatio n rate fo r th e C& I progra m(includin g retrofi t projects , multi-tenan t projects , an dapplianc e recyclin g projects ) t o b e 0.8 6 (8 5 percen t confidence/1 0 percen t precision ) an dth e deman drealizatio n rat e t o b e 0.8 0 (8 5 percen t confidence/1 6 percen t precision)
. Th e evaluatio n teamfoun dtha t th e e x ante calculation s fo r project s involvin g EM S measure s utilize dassume d saving s value s o f 2 kW h pe r

square foo t

an d0.000 1 kW pe r

square foot 3 3 a

s wa s commo n i n PY3
. Th e evaluatio n tea mbelieve s tha t

th e deeme d saving s value s may b e a

Column s AH-A L o

f th e '300 ' ta b o f th e LD C quarterly trackin g databas e extracts . PEC

O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 10 5viabl e rul e o f thum b i n certai n cases , bu t the y ar e a n inaccurat e wa y o f

estimatin g site-specifi c saving s fo r

impac t evaluations
. Us e o f

thes e factor s ha s typicall y cause d an inaccurat e estimatio n o f

energ y saving s an d pea k deman d saving s du e t o th e EM S controllin g arang e o f equipmen t

i n varyin g buildin g type s wit h divers e schedules
. Thi s resulte d i n widel y varyin g projec t realizatio n rates . Th e evaluatio n tea

mals o foun darang e o f realizatio n rate s fo r

othe r retrofi t projec t type s du e to th e followin g reasons :

• Incorrec t

baselin e classificatio n i n th e ex ante estimate s
• Adjustment s t o hour s o f us e an d equipmen t

quantitie s fo r

lightin g project s
• Pea k deman d saving s no t

based o n th e SWE-approve d pea k deman d calculator s
• Evaluatio n site visi t finding s varie d fro mth e assumption s use d i n th e e x ante calculations
. A s discusse d previously , th e C& I multi-tenan t an d applianc e recyclin g project s ,were no t evaluate d i n PY

4 du e t o th e ver y smal l percentag e o f overal l progra msavings
. Th e realizatio n rate fo r SE I multi-tenan t

project s an d applianc e recyclin g project s wa s deeme d a t 1.0 fo r PY 4 fo r th e purpose s o f

evaluation
. Th e tota l PY

4 verifie dgros s energ y saving s fo r th e C& I retrofit , C& I multi-tenant , an d C& I applianc e recyclin g project s i s 64,53 0 MWh
. Th e tota l PY 4 verifie dgros s deman d saving s fo r th e C& I retrofit , C& I multi-tenant , an d C& I applianc e recyclin g project s i s 11. 0 MW
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 10 6Tabl e 6-4 . PY 4 SE I C& I Summar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y

Stratum Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh) 11112 1 Energ y

Realizatio n Rate ' Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Co ) o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n a

t 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) C& l - Larg e 11,43 3 1.0 9 0.1 6 0.0 7 12,48 1

- C& I - Mediu m 16,65 6 0.8 8 0.3 1 0.2 1 14,66 6

- C& I - Smal l 31,71 8 0.8 4 0.2

9 0.2

4 26,67 2

- C& l - CHS ' 35,85 3 0.6 2 0.0 0 0.0

0 7,13 4 24,38 6 C& I - EM S 967 0.4 1 0.4 4 0.4 3 39 2

- C& I - 305 8 2/11 9 1.2 3 0.0

0 0.0

0 2,60 3

- C& I - Applianc e Recyclin g 7 7 1.0 0 0 0.0 0 7 7

- C&I-Multi-tenan t 50 6 1.0 0 0 0.0 0 50 6

- Progra mTota l 99,329 0.8 6 N/ A 0.1 0 64,53 0 24,38 6 NOTES : 11 1 Reporte

dgros s energ

y saving s include s al

t saving s - bot

h verifie dan

dunverifie dgros s saving s - fo r PY 4 projects
. |2 | Th e reporte dgros s energ

y saving s include on

e additiona

l projec t numbe r nn dassociate

d saving s tha

t wa s no l includedi n th

e 1^40 4 repor t becaus e theprojec l saving s wer

e estimate dafte r th e HMC M report . Thi s projec

t i s th e secon d par t to n single projec

t lha t i s Iracke dusin g tw o projec

t numbers
. Se

e additiona

l not e o n thes e projects : Th

e tota l numbe r o f PY 4 C& l retrofi t

project s i s 659
. However, tw o project

s wil l no t b e verifie din th

e PY 4 evaluation an

drepor t an dwil l b e verifie da

l alate r dat e onc e th e projec t files ar e read y fo r evaluation
. Thes

e project s an dIh e saving s wil l b

e reporte da s "unverified " saving s i n th e Phas e 1 compliance report . Thes e project s wil l no t b e verifie din th

e PY 4 evaluation an

drepor t becaus e th e application s wer

e receive da t th e en do f Phas e Ian d ther e wa s insufficient

tim e t o assig n saving s t

o thes e projects
. Thes

e project s ar e tw o parts t

o th e sam e installatio n (PliCO- l 1-02812 an dPLCO-11-04673)
. Therefore , thes e tw o project

s wer e no l includedin Ih

e sampl e design
. Source: Nnvignnt

mwh/sis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 10 7Tabl e 6-5
. PY 4 SE I C& I Summar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d

Stratu m

C& I - Larg e Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW)"" 2 '
. 13 1 1. 8 Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e
1. 0 Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportio n 0. 2 Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e 0. 1 Verified

Gross Demand Reduction Savings (MW) m 1. 9 Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW) 1 3 1 0. 0 C&I-Mediu m 3/ 1 0. 7 0. 3 0. 3 2. 2 0. 0 C&I-Smal l 6. 5 0. 7 0. 4 0. 4 4. 8 0. 0 C& I - CH P 5. 2 0. 9 0. 0 0. 0 1. 5 3. 6 C& I - EM S 0/ 1 1. 4 2. 4 0. 7 0. 1 0. 0 C& I - 305 8 0. 4 1. 1 0. 0 0. 0 0. 5 0. 0 C& I - Applianc e Recyclin g 0. 0 1.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 C& I - Multi-tenan t 0. 1 1. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 1 0. 0 Progra mTota l 17. 4 0. 8 N/ A 0. 2 11. 0 3. 6 NOTES : | / 1 Reporte

dgros s deman

dreduction include s al l saving s - bot h verifie dan

dunverifie dgros s saving s - fo r PY 4 projects
. [2|Th e reporte dgros s deman

dreductio

n include s on

e additiona

l projec t numbe r an dassociate

d saving s tha

t wa s no t includedi n th e PY 4 Q 4 repor t becaus e th e projec t saving s wer

e estimate dafter th e PY 4 Q 4 report . Thi s projec

t i s th e secon dpar t t o asingle project tha t i s tracke dusing tw o projec

t numbers
. Se

e additiona

l not e o n thes e projects : Th

e tota l numbe r o f PY 4 C& I retrofi t projects i s 659
. However

, tw o project

s wil l no l b

e verifie di n th

e PY 4 evaluation an

drepor t an dwil l b e verifie da

l alale r dal e onc e th e projec t file s ar e read y fo r evaluation
. Thes

e project s an dth e saving s wil l b

e reporte da s "unverified " saving s i n th e Phas e 1 compliance report . Thes

e project s wil l no t b e verifie di n th

e PY 4 evaluation an

drepor t becaus e th e application s wer

e receive da t th e en do f Phas e 1 an dther e wa s insufficient

tim e t o assig n saving s l o thes

e projecls
. Thes

e project s ar e tw o parts t

o th e sam e installatio n (PI-CO-n-0281 2 an dPLCO-11-04673)
. Therefore , thes e tw o projects wer

e no t includedi n th

e sampl e design
. |3]Th e reporte dgros s deman

dreduction , verifie dgros s deman dreduction , an

dunverifie dgros s deman dreduction include th

e lin e los s factor
. Sowm;: Nnviganl

nnnli/sis 

## 6. 3 Impac tEvaluatio n Ne

tSaving s The primar y objective o f th e ne t saving s analysi s wa s t o determin e th e program' s ne t effec t o n th e progra msavings
. Afte r gros s progra mimpact s hav e bee n assessed , ne t progra mimpact s ar

e derive db y estimatin g a n NT G rati o tha t

quantifie s th e percentag e o f th e gros s progra mimpact s tha t ca n reliabl y b e attribute dt o th e program . Onc e fre e ridershi p an dspillove r hav e been estimated , th e NT G rati o i s calculate das follows : NT G Rati o = 1 - Free-ridershi p Rat e + Spillove r

Rat e

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 108Fre

e ridershi p wa s assesse d usin g acustome r

self-repor t

approac h followin g aframewor k tha t wa s develope dfo r

evaluatin g ne t

saving s o f

California' s 2006-200 8 non-residentia l energ y efficienc y programs . Thi s metho dcalculate s fre e ridershi p usin g dat acollecte ddurin g participan t

phon e survey s concernin g th e followin g thre e items : 1
. A Timin g an dSelectio n scor e tha t reflect s th e influenc e o f th e mos t

importan t

variou s progra man dprogram-relate delement s i n th e customer' s decisio n t o implemen t th e specifi c progra mmeasur e a t thi s time
. 2
. A Progra mInfluenc e scor e tha t reveal s th e perceive dimportanc e o f th e progra m (whethe r rebate , recommendation , o r othe r progra mintervention ) relativ e t o non progra mfactor s i n the customers ' decisio n t o implemen t th e specifi c progra mmeasure . Thi s scor

e i s cu t i n hal f i f the y learne dabou t

th e progra mafte r

the y decide dt o implemen t

th e measures . 3
. A No-Progra mscor e tha t capture s th e likelihoo do f variou s action s th e custome r migh t hav e take n a

t thi s tim e an di n th e futur e i f th e progra mha dno t

been available
. Thi s scor e account s fo r

deferre dfre e ridershi p b y incorporatin g th e likelihoo dtha t th e custome r woul dhav e installe dprogra mqualifyin g measure s a t alate r date i f th e progra mha dno t

been available
. Eac h o f thes e score s represent s th e highes t respons e o r

th e averag e o f

several response s give n t o one o r mor e question s abou t

th e decisio n t o instal l aprogra mmeasure . Th e rationale fo r usin g th e maximu mvalu e i s t o captur e th e mos t importan t

elemen t i n th e participant' s decision

makin g process . Th e calculatio n o f

free-ridershi p fo r

th e progra mi s amulti-ste p process . Tli e participan t surve y covere dabatter y o f

question s use d t o asses s fre e ridershi p fo r aspecifi c en dus e an dproject
. Th e evaluatio n tea

muse s surve y response s t o calculat e aTimin g an dSelectio n score , aProgra m Influenc e score , an daNo-Progra mscor e fo r each projec t

covere dthroug h th e survey . Thes e thre e score s ca

n b e give n value s o f

0 t o 1 0 wher e alowe r scor e indicate s ahighe r

leve l o f fre e ridership
. Th e calculatio n the n average s thos e thre e score s t o come u p wit h ameasure-leve l free-ridershi p score . I f

th e custome r

has additiona l measure s a t th e sam e site as par t

o f th e sam e project , th e surve y aske d whethe r th e customer' s response s als o appl y t o th e othe r measures . I f tha t i s th e case , th e entir e projec t i s give n th e sam

e score . I n addition , th e surve y aske d i f th e response s appl y to othe r PY 4 projects , i f

applicable
. Th e evaluatio n tea

muse d aseparate rati o estimatio n statistica l metho dt o combin e th e participan t

ne t o f free-ridershi p ratio s fo r th e C& I sample dproject s u p t o th e program-leve l ne t o f free-ridershi p ratios
. I n thi s method , aseparat e rati o i s calculate dfo r each stratu man dthe n PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 10 9applie dt o th e populatio n saving s i n each stratum . Th e su mo f th e verifie dne t

saving s fo r

each stratu mi s calculate d an di s compare dt o the su mo f th e verifie dgros s saving s resultin g i n a program-leve l ne t

o f free-ridershi p ratio
. I n addition , th e evaluatio n teamaske dprogra mparticipant s abatter y o f question s t o quantitativel y asses s spillover
. Belo w ar e example s o f

th e spillove r

questions : 1
. Sinc e you r

participatio n i n th e program , di dyo u instal l an y additiona l energ y efficienc y measure s a

t thi s facilit y tha t

di dno t receiv e incentive s throug h an y utilit y o r governmen t

program ? 2
. Coul dyo u describ e th e energ y efficienc y measure installed ? 3
. Thinkin g o f

th e additiona l measure(s ) yo u installe do n you r ow n a t thi s sam e facility ; ho w doe s th e energ y saving s compar e t o wha t yo u installe dthroug h th e program ? Were th e saving s lower , abou t th e sam e o r higher ? (Prob e fo r

percentag e as compare dt o al l incente dprojects ) 4
. Ho w significan t

wa s you r

experienc e i n PECO' s progra mi n you r decisio n to instal l thi s measure , usin g ascal e o f 0 t o 10 , wher e 0 i s no t

a t al l significan t

an d1 0 i s extremel y significant ? 5
. Sinc e participatin g i n th e program , hav e yo u installe dan y energy-efficien t measure s i n othe r facilitie s withi n PECO' s territory ? 6
. Thinkin g o f

thes e additiona l measure(s ) yo u installe do n you r ow n a t othe r facilities , ho w doe s th e quantit y compar e t o wha t yo u installe dthroug h th e program ? Di dyo u instal l more , les s o r

th e sam e amoun t

o f measures ? (Prob e fo r

percentag e a

s compare dt o al l incente dprojects ) 7
. Hav e o r

wil l thes e measure s receiv e incentive s throug h th e program ? 8
. Wha t wer e th e reason s tha t

the y di d no t

receiv e a n incentive ? Additionally , th e evaluatio n tea maske dparticipatin g contractor s whethe r the y wer e seein g mor e customer s withi n PECO' s servic e territor y purchas e energy-efficien t equipmen t

withou t progra mincentives
. Spillove r wa s calculate db y askin g participant s ho w th e energ y saving s o f th e un-incente d measure s compared , a s apercentag e save d (e.g. , 10% , 20% , an d30%) , t o th e saving s o f al l o f thei r incente dprojects
. Thi s self-reporte d percentag e wa s the n multiplie db y th e amoun t o f influenc e PECO' s progra mha do n th e decisio n t o instal l th e additiona l measure s (Progra m Influenc e Scor

e fo r spillover)
. Th e progra mspillove r percentag e wa s determine db y dividin g th e tota l self-reporte dkW h describe dabov e b y th e tota l o f al l incente dkW h saving s obtaine d PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 11 0b y th e progra mi n PY4
. Al l spillove r estimate s wer e calculate db y Navigan t usin g custome r

self

reporte ddat aan dn o follow-u p interview s o r sit e visit s wer e conducted
. Fo r C& l customers , th e evaluatio n tea mfoun dacombine dkWh-weighte dNT C rati o a t th e progra mleve l o f

0.7 8 an dakW-weighte dNT G rati o o f 0.79 ; ratio s wer e base d o n fre e ridershi p an dspillover
. 

## 6. 4 Proces s Evaluation Th e evaluatio n teamconducte dproces s evaluatio n activitie s jointl y fo r th e SE I C& I an dth e SE

I GN I programs , a

s man y o f

th e administrator s an dcontractor s wer e common . Navigan t conducte dthre e primar y researc h activitie s t o perfor mth e proces s evaluation
. Thes e activitie s consiste do f

in-dept h phon e interview s wit h PEC O progra mmanagemen t an dKEM A implementatio n staf

f (6) , Computer-Aide dTelephon e Intervie w (CATI ) survey s wit h participatin g contractor s (1 8 contractors) , an dCAT I survey s wit h progra mparticipant s (3 0 C& I customers)
. Tabl e 6- 3 provide s asummar y o f th e evaluatio n activitie s an dth e samplin g strategy . Th e trackin g dat afo r

th e sampl e fram e wa s extracte dfro macop y o f th e PEC O onlin e databas e delivere delectronicall y t o th e evaluatio n teamo n aquarterl y basis
. Th e activitie s conducte d durin g th e proces s evaluatio n ar e furthe r describe di n th e followin g sections
. 6.4. 1 PEC O Progra

m ManagementStaf

f an d KEM A Staf

f Interview s Th e evaluatio n teamconducte dthre e in-dept h interview s wit h PEC O staf f an dthre e in-dept h interview s wit h ke y member s o f th e Smar

t Equipmen t

Incentive s progra mimplementatio n contracto r

team , KEMA , durin g th e months o f February an dMarc h 2013
. Th e interview s wer e designe dt o enabl e th e evaluatio n teamt o as k closed-ende dquestion s abou t th e program' s administratio n an ddeliver y durin g PY 4 an dals o t o obtai n "real-time " informatio n abou t curren t progra mactivit y throug h askin g open-ende d question s tha t create da"free-flowing " conversation
. T o infor mthes e interviews , th e evaluatio n teamreviewe dcurren t progra m reportin g documents , marketin g materials , an dcustome r materials , suc h as th e Wait-lis t Policie s an dProcedure s document
. Th e evaluatio n tea

mfoun dth e followin g informatio n durin g th e in-dept h interviews :

• PEC O an dKEM A staf f bot h reporte dth e waitlis t continue dt o hav e a

n effec t o n th e progra mi n PY4
. I n anticipatio n o f th e waitlis t

bein g lifte di n PY4 , PEC O an dKEM A staffs wer e proactiv e i n reachin g ou t t o customer s wit h waitliste dproject s t o aid e the m i n movin g th e projec t

forwar do r

makin g th e decisio n t o cance l them
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 11 1• O f th e project s tha t

remaine di n th e pipelin e an dwer e accepte dbefor e th e waitlis t wa s instituted , progra mstaf f reporte dtha t

th e majorit y wer e larg e projects , suc h as CH P project s accountin g fo r sizabl e savings
. Th e complexit y o f thes e project s continue dt o challeng e bot h PEC O an d KEM A staff
. Whil e PEC O staf f wa s confiden t

tha t u p to 45 0 project s fro mth e waitlis t woul db e move d t o fil l th e pipeline , there wa s concer n tha t a "phantom " rus h o f

application s coul db e encountere dwhe n th e waitlis t wa s ultimatel y lifted
. • Bot h PEC O an dKEM A staf f commente d there i s arenewe dfocu s o n Qualit y Assuranc e an dQualit y Control
. Fo r instance , PEC O no w document s gol dqualit y inspections , silve r qualit y inspections , an dinspection s o f unacceptabl e quality
. I n th e future , PEC O plan s t o hav e iPad s t o take on-sit e visits , enablin g mor e picture s an dreal-tim e upload s o f ne w data
. 6.4. 2 Progra

m Participatin g Custome r Surve y Th e evaluatio n teamconducte daparticipatin g custome r CAT I surve y fo r

th e PY 4 SE I program . Th e surve y assesse

d al l o f th e parameter s necessar y t o calculat e fre e ridership , spillover , an d NT G ratios
. Additiona l dat awa s collecte dt o suppor t th e proces s evaluatio n (suc h as progra m desig n an dimplementation , progra mmarketin g an dawareness , an dcustome r satisfaction ) an d busines s demographic s fo r th e proces s componen t o f th e evaluation
. Th e samplin g uni t

fo r th e proces s evaluatio n wa s th e uniqu e participatin g customers ; i t di dno t includ e project s wher e th e primar y contac t perso n i n th e databas e wa s acontracto r o r th e projec t di dno t hav e contac t

information. 3 ' 1 Th e rationale fo r contactin g uniqu e participatin g customer s wa s t o ge t

projec t informatio n fro mth e fina l decisio n maker
. Overall , 22 7 uniqu e participan t

contact s complete d 47 5 C& I retrofi t project s i n PY4
. Th e evaluatio n teamtargete d9 0 complete d survey s fo r th e SE I retrofi t program , 42 C& I surveys , an d4 8 GN I surveys . Th e sample s wer e designe dt o achiev e 85/1 0 confidence/precisio n individuall y an dexcee d tha t whe n combine dt o th e progra mlevel
. Th e evaluatio n tea m complete d3 0 SE

I C& I survey s (1 4 lightin g projec t participant s an d1 6 non-lighting/custo m projec t participants)
. A larg e numbe r o f SE I progra mparticipant s (40 ) wer e no t interviewe ddu e t o th e maximu mnumbe r o f contac t attempts bein g reached
.
Ther e wer e 21 2 projecl s wil h acontracto r a s th e primar y contac t perso n i n th e database
. Ther

e wer e 6 project

s withou t contac t information
. Thes

e wer e no t includedi n th

e sample
. Th

e 3 project

number s tha t wer e no t include d i n th

e t : 'Y 4 impac t evaluation wer e includedi n th

e proces s evaluation sampling population
. A l th e tim e o f th e proces s evaluation sampl e design , th

e tea monl y ha dinformalio n o

n 3 o f th e 6 projec t number s tha t wer e no t includedi n Ih

e PY 4 impac t evaluation
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 11 2Th e analysi s o f th e participan t

surve y dat ashowe dcustome r satisfactio n wa s hig h acros s th e variou s progra mprocesse s an dsectors . Ninety-tw o percen t o f C& I participant s wer e satisfied 3 5 wit h th e SE

I progra man d8 8 percen t wer e satisfie dwit h PECO
. Satisfactio n wit h th e SE I progra mwa s simila r

betwee n lightin g an dnon-lightin g C& I participants
. Seventy-seve n percen t o f C& I participant s als o reporte d satisfactio n wit h th e incentiv e amount . Th e PY 4 evaluatio n foun d8 3 percen t o f C& I participant s wer e satisfie dwit h thei r interactio n wit h progra mstaff
. Ninety-seve n percen t o f C& I progra mparticipant s wer e satisfie dwit h th e measure s offered , an d10 0 percen t

o f C& I progra mparticipant s wer e satisfie dwit h th e contracto r

use dt o complet e thei r project
. 6.4. 3 Participatin g Contracto r Surve y A Computer-Aide dTelephon e Intervie w surve y wa s conducte da t th e contracto r

level ; thus , th e sampl e covere d bot h SE I C& I retrofi t

an d SE I GN I retrofi t

projects
. I n total , 21 1 contractor s complete d63 9 SE

I projects 3 6 i n PY4
. Th e contracto r databas e wa s firs t

sorte dto reflec t

uniqu e participatin g contractors . Afte r th e dat acleanin g process , th e desig n resulte di n atarge t o f 2 8 interview s wit h participatin g contractors . Th e evaluatio n tea mcomplete datota l o f 1 8 contracto r

interview s i n Jul y 2013
. Th e evaluatio n tea mdi dno t

mee t th e targe t

du e t o alarg e numbe r o f refusals , disconnecte dphon e numbers , an dmaximu mattempt s reached
. Th e analysi s o f

th e datacollecte dthroug h th e participatin g contracto r surve y showe dthere wa s somewhat

les s satisfactio n amon g participatin g contractor s tha n participants
. I n general , abou t three-quarter s o f

participatin g contractor s wer e satisfie dwit h PEC O an dtwo-third s wer e satisfie dwit h th e SE

I program . Contractor s suggeste d tha t PEC O mor e effectivel y communicat e change s t o th e progra mno w tha t fund s wer e agai n available , includin g an y rul e changes
. Additionally , contractor s suggeste d shortenin g th e amoun t o f tim e i t take s t o ge t

th e rebate , expandin g th e type s o f measure s tha t

ar e eligibl e throug h th e progra msuc h as inductio n lightin g an dLEDs , an dincreasin g the amoun t o f th e rebates
.

3 5 Surve y respondent s ar e considere d satisfie d i f the y answere d7 o r

greater , o n ascale o f

0 t o 1 0 wher e 0 i s "extremel y dissatisfied " an d1 0 i s "extremel y satisfied. "

3 6 Tota l numbe r

o f project s doe s no t

includ e project s withou t contracto r

contac t information
. Navigan t

eliminate d 29 0 project s tha t di dno t hav e complet e contracto r contac t informatio n i n th e database
. Th e 3 projec t number s tha t

wer e no t

include di n th e PY

4 impac t evaluatio n wer e include di n th e proces s evaluatio n samplin g population
. A t th e tim e o f

th e proces s evaluatio n sampl e design , th e tea monl y ha d informatio n o n 3 o f th e 6 projec t

number s tha t

wer e no t include di n th e PY

4 impac t evaluation
.
PEC O Energ y Compan y J Pag e 11 3

### Tabl

e 6- 6 list s th e ke y PY 4 SE I C& I proces s recommendation s and th e ED C statu s fo r

eac h recommendation
. Th

e processes recommendation s ar e eithe r currentl y bein g implemented , hav e bee n partiall y implemented , o r ar e bein g considered
. Tabl e 6-6 . Statu s Repor tfo r SE I C& I Proces

s Evaluation

s

Recommendation s ED C Statu s Repor t fo r Proces s Evaluation s (Implemented , Bein g considered
. Rejecte d AN D Explanatio n o f

Actio n Take n b y EDC )

PEC O shoul dincreas e communicatio n wit h contractor s ant l more closel y manag e relationship s t o improv e th e contracto r

an dparticipan t

experienc e wit h th e program . Contractor s indicate d that increase d communicatio n fro mPEC O wa s desired
. I n addition , progra m participant s expresse dthat contractor s wer e amai n sourc e o f

informatio n abou t

th e program . PEC O shoul d leverag e contracto r

relationship s t o communicat e progra mgoal s t o customer s an d us e contracto r trainin g an dcommunicatio n a

s awa y t o scal e u p o r

ratche t dow n progra mparticipation
. Implemented :
• PEC O ha s increase dth e frequenc y o f th e Trad e All y newslette r

an dalread y sent

firs t editio n fo r phas e II
. • PEC O ha s conducte d3 seminar s i n October wit h attendanc e o f

50-10 0 a t eac h event . • PEC O i s holdin g trade all y certificatio n seminar s (Firs t

one Oct
. 15)
. • PEC O i s holdin g atrade all y webina r series
. • PEC O launche d a n onlin e trade all y porta l fo r material s an d liv e onlin e projec t tracking
.

PEC O shoul d conside r aslidin g scal e fo r

incentiv e payments , rathe r

than reachin g progra mtarget s an d abruptl y throttlin g th e progra mwit h awaitlist
. Incentiv e amount s coul dbe reduce dwhe n certai n progra msub

goai s ar e met

(e.g. , 50 % o f

progra mgoal , 75 % o f

progra m goal , 90 % o f

progra mgoal)
. Bein g considered : Incentive s wer e file da s arange , an d thu s PEC O ca

n adjus t the rate s withou t

re-filing
.

PEC O shoul d continu e t o revie w th e progra mmeasur e lis t t o ensur e that

th e lates t

prove n technologie s ar e bein g incente d b y th e program . For example , PEC O has expande dth e prescriptiv e progra mLE D offerings
. Thi s revie w o f

measure s shoul d b e a

n ongoin g process . Implemented : KEM A i s unde r contrac t t o evaluat e ne w technologie s fro mpotentia l suppliers ; leverag e KEMA' s nationa l technolog y grou p t o keep u s u p t o date
.

PEC O and/o r

th e implementatio n teamshoul d develo p a complete dapplicatio n exampl e fo r bot h lightin g an d custo mproject s that

ca n be utilize da

s aguid e fo r prospectiv e participant s i n th e program . Bein g Considere d

Source: Navisnnt

analysis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 11 46. 5 Financia l Reportin g

A breakdow n o f

th e progra mfinance s i s presente d i n Tabl e 6-7
. Th e SE I C& I progra mhas aPY 4 TRC rati o greate r

tha n 1.0 an d thu s th e PY 4 progra mwa s cos t

effective
. Th e TRC rati o fo r PY 4 (1.80 ) i s lowe r

tha n th e TRC rati o i n PY3 (2.21) , bu t i s slightl y highe r

tha n th e TR C rati o i n PY 2 (1.79)
. Th e TRC rati o fo r th e progra mi n Phas e I i s 1.9 4 an d thu s the Phase I SE I C& I progra m wa s cos t effective
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y J Pag e 11 5Tabl e 6-7. Summar y o f SE I C& I Finance s

IQ" 1 ($1,000 ) PY 4

($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C fncentive s t o Participant s 5,84 1 9,05 2 21,01 9 ED C incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 0 0 0 Subtotal ED C Incentiv e Cost s 5,84 1 9,05 2 21,01 9 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administrationf " 1,64 9 3,767 10,43 3 Management 12 1 9 3 •42 7 2,12

4 Marketing 13 1 15 2 327 1,33 3 Tecbnicai Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtotal ED C Implementatio n Cost s 1,89 4 4,521 13,89 0
ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 54 6 1,03 5 2,39 0 SW E Audi tCost s 0 0 0 Tota l EDCCosts ^ 8,28 1 14,60 8 37,29 9 Participan tCosts 15 ' N/ A 36,62 5 91,15 1 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 1 N/ A 42,18 1 107,43 1
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/ A 67,47 3 184,48 2 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N/ A 8,41 8 23,84 7 Tota l TR C Benefits' " N/ A 75,90

9 208,43

5 TR C Ratio" " N/ A 1.8

0 1.9

4 NOTE S Per PUC direction, TRC

inputs amt

calculations arc retjuiredin the Annual Report only and

should comply with the 201 ITotal Resource Cost Test Order approved luly 28, 2011. Please see the "Report Dcftnitimts" section of

this report

for more details. [1 | Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system, an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost . |2 ] Include s LD

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . |3 | Include s th

e marketin g CS

P an dmarketing cosl s b

y progra mCSPs
. j4 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order, ih e Tola l LD C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurre dexpense

s only
. |5 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tola

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order , th e ne t Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us e custome r o r progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t costs . Thes

e include incentive s pai dt o applianc e recycling an

dDeman dRespons

e participants
. 16 ) Tota l TR C Cost s include LD

C Lvaluatio n Casts , LD

C Implementation Costs , an dParticipan

t Costs , |7 | Tota l TR C Henefit s equal s ih

e su mo f Tota l Lifetim e Lnerg y Henefit s an dTola l Lifetime Capacit

y henefit s plu s an

y benefi t associate d with avoidedincandescen t purchases mad

e du e t o th e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a

s compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Itase

dupon verifie dgros s kW h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoidedsuppl

y costs , includin g th

e reduclio n i n cost s o f electri c energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnalura l ga s value da t margina l cos t fo r periods whe n ther e i s aloa dreduclion
. 18 ] TR C Rati o equal s Tota

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tota l TR C Costs
. |9 J Pos t PY 4 cost s an dbenefits ar

e includedi n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Navigant analysis
PEC O Energ y Compan

y [ Pag e 11 6

## 7 Smar

tEquipmen

tIncentives - Government , Nonprofit, Institutiona l Progra m Th e purpos e of

th e SE I GN I progra

mi s to increase th

e energy efficienc y of

GN I facilities
. Thi s progra mprovide s al l o f

th e sam e service s offere dwithi n th e C& I segmen

t of th e SE I program . However , th

e GN I progra

monl y offer s incentive s t o GN I customers wh o instal l high-efficienc y electri c equipment
. Th

e SE I GN I progra

mals o enables customers t o captur e opportunitie s t

o reduce consumptio n by retrofittin g stree t lightin g andtraffi c signa l lights
. Th

e stree t an dtraffi c signa l lightin g project s ar

e referre dt

o a s "municipal lighting " project s i n thi s report . I n addition , th

e GN I progra

mwa s intende dt

o provid e assistanc

e wit h obtainin g facility audits , bu t thi s portio n of

th e progra mha s no t bee n use d t o date
. Th

e SE I GN I progra

mha s fou r sub

components : retrofi t

projects , multi-tenant

projects , appliance-recycling projects , an dne w constructio n projects
. 

## 7. 1 Progra m Update s Th e SE I GN I progra

mremainedunchange

dfo r th e firs t thre e quarter s of

PY 4 wit h projec t application s being place don awai t

list
. PEC O institute dthi s wai t

lis t a s i t appeare d fro m saving s projection s tha

t th e Phas e I progra

mgoal s wer

e achieved
. However , a

s of March 15 , 2013 , PEC

O lifte dth

e wai t lis t an dther e wa s asurge i n th

e numbe r of application s tha

t wer e submitte di n Q

4 of th e progra myear . I n PY4, GN I Multi-tenan t project s withi n th

e GN I secto

r wer e no t evaluate di n PY

4 du e t o th e ver y small percentage of

overal l progra

msaving s andth

e realizatio n rate s wer

e se t t o 1.0
. Likewise , GN I applianc e recyclin g project s conductedi n th e GN I secto

r wer e no t evaluatedi n PY 4 due t o th e ver y small percentag

e of overal l progra

msaving s andth

e realizatio n rate s wer

e se t t o 1.0
. New Constructio n project s i n th e GN I secto

r wer e evaluate da

s par t of th e Smar t Constructio n Incentiv e (SCI

) program . Complet

e detail s on evaluatio n of thes e project s ca

n b e foun di n th

e SC I sectio n of thi s report . 

## 7. 2 Impac tEvaluatio

n Gros s Saving s Tabl e 7- 1 show s th

e tota l participants , reporte dgros s energy savings
. To p 10 0 Hour s reporte d gros s deman

dreduction , an

dtota l reporte dgros s demandreductio n an dincentive s fo r

PY 4 an d Phas e I (CPITD)
. Th

e tota l Phas e I SE I GN I reporte dgros s saving s wer e 215,68 2 MWh an

d36. 2 MW
. Th e reporte dresults an

dincentive s fro mGN I Retrofi t projects , GN I Multi-tenan t projects , PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 11 7GN I Ne w Constructio n Projects , an dGN I Applianc e Recyclin g project s combine dan dshow n

unde r th e GN I sector . Tabl e 7- 2 show s th e reporte dresult s b y progra mcomponent . I n PY4 , th e progra mincentivize datota l o f 325 project s coverin g 273 :, 7 SE I GN I retrofi t

projects , 8 GN I Multi-tenan t

projects , 4

4 SE I GN I Ne w Constructio n (GN I NC ) projects
. Th e tabl e belo w als o detail s th e reporte dgros s energ y savings , reporte dgros s deman dreduction , an dincentive s fo r each progra mcomponent .

Tabl e 7-1
. PY

4 GN I Progra mReporte dResult s b y Quarte r
Reportin g Perio d Participants 11 1 Reporte d Cros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 )

PY 4 Q i 8 1 9,41 6 4. 9 1. 4 90 5 PY4Q 2 5 7 13,57 4 0. 0 1. 7 137 8 PY 4 Q 3 4 2 33,305 0. 0 5. 3 295 7 PY4Q 4 14 5 28,56 1 0. 0 2. 8 290 9 PY 4 Total' 2 ' 325 84,85 5 4. 9 11. 3 8,14 9 CPIT D Tota l 1,12 9 177,540 19. 1 25. 5 17,17 6 NOTES : 1 1 ] Th e tota l participant s (projects ) to r PY 4 wa s 325 , However, PY

4 verifie dsaving s wer

e base d o n 32 1 projects
. Pou

r projec t number s (tw o projects ) wer

e no t include di n th

e PY 4 evaluation becaus

e th e saving s estimate s wer

e no t read y i n time
. |2 J Tota l incentive s wil l no

t matc h amounts reporte

di n PY 4 Q 4 repor t due t o th e additio n o f

incentive amount

s fo r GN I N C progra mi n Q I an

dQ 2 o f PY4
. Thes

e wer e incorrectl

y reporte da s 0.0 i n th e previously submittedi|uarter1 y reports . Source: Nnvignnt

nnnhjsb

"Th e tota l numbe r o f PY 4 GNI retrofi t

project s i s 273
. However, four

project s wer e no t verifie di n th

e PY 4 evaluation an

dreport , bu t wil l instea

db e verifie da

t alate r dat e onc e th e projec t file s ar e read y fo r evaluation
. Thes

e projects an

dth e associate

d saving s ar e reportedi n Tabl

e 7- 4 an dTabl e 7- 5 a s "unverified " savings
. Thes e projects wer

e no t verifie da

s par t o f (h e PY 4 evaluation becaus e th e application s wer

e receive da t th e en do f Phas e Ian dther e wa s insufficient

tim e t o assig n saving s t

o thes e projects
. Th

e project s represen t tw o parts o f

on e large r projec t installatio n (PECO-11-0272 1 & PECO-ll-0467 5 an dPECO-n-0447 3 & PRCO-I3

- 04676) , Thes

e projects an

dassociate

d saving s ar

e include di n th

e total s fo r

CN J retrofi t projects below
.
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 11 8Tabl e 7-2
. PY 4 GN I Progra mReporte dResult s b y Secto r

Secto r Participant s in Reporte d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

'($1,000 )

Residentia l 0 0 0 0 0 Low-Incom e 0 0 0 0 0 Commercia l an dIndustria l 0 0 0 0 0 Governmen t

an dNon-Profit [ 2 1 32 5 84,85 6 4. 9 11. 3 8,14 9 PY 4 Tota l 325 84,85 6 4. 9 11. 3 8,14 9 CPIT D Tota l 1,12 9 177,540 19. 1 25. 5 17,17 6 NOTES : [1 1 Th e tota l participants'(pi'6jects ) fo r PY 4 wa s 325
. However, l'Y

4 verifie dsaving s wer

e base d o n 32 1 projecls
. I'ou

r projec t number s (tw o projects ) wer

e no t includedi n th

e PY 4 evaluation becaus

e th e saving s estimate s wer

e no t read y i n time
. |2 | Tota l incentive s wil l no

t matc h amounts reporte

di n PY 4 Q 4 repor t du e t o th e additio n o f

incentive amount

s fo r CN I NC.progra

min Q l an

dQ 2 o f PY4
. Thes

e wer e incorrectl

y reporte da s 0.0 i n Hi e previousl

y submittedquarterly reports . Source : Nnvigan l anah/si s
7.2. 1 M& V Methodolog y Th e evaluatio n o f

tli e SE I GN I progra mconsiste do f fou r sub-components : GN I Retrofi t projects , GN I Multi-tenan t projects , GN I Ne w Constructio n projects , an dGN I Applianc e Recyclin g projects
. Th e M& V methodolog y fo r th e SE I GN I Retrofi t

progra mwa s ver y simila r t o th e PY3 methodology
. Th e primar y modificatio n wa s tha t th e multi-tenan t

an dapplianc e recyclin g project s wer e no t evaluate di n PY

4 du e t o th e ver y smal l percentag e o f overal l progra msavings
. Th e realizatio n rate fo r SE I multi-tenan t

project s an dapplianc e recyclin g project s wa s deeme d a t 1. 0 fo r PY 4 fo r th e purpose s o f

evaluation
. Th e GN I ne w constructio n project s wer e evaluate da s par t o f th e Smar

t Constructio n Incentive s progra man dadditiona l detail s ca

n b e foun di n th e Smart Constructio n Incentive s progra msectio n o f thi s report . Th e remainde r

o f thi s sectio n focuse s exclusivel y o n th e M& V methodolog y fo r GN I retrofi t

projects
. Measuremen t

an dverificatio n i n PY 4 include don-site dat acollectio n fo r mos t sample dsites
. Th e municipa l lightin g project s receive daphon e intervie w in-additio n t o th e des k revie w i n accordanc e wit h th e evaluatio n plan
. On e o f th e municipa l lightin g project s wa s atraffi c signa l LE D replacemen t

projec t an dreceive dafil e revie w only
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 11 9

### Gros s impact s fo r deman d an d energy wer

e verifie dthroug h differen t approache s fo r

th e thre e categorie s of

measures i n thi s program : 1 ) deemed , 2 ) partiall y deemed , an

d 3 ) custo

m measures . Th

e measures i n thes

e categorie s ar

e define d by th

e TRM 3 

### " plu s interi mmeasur e protocol s approve d b

y th e Pennsylvani aPubli c Utilit y Commission throug h th e SW E team . I f a measur e wa s deemed , th

e impact s fo r

th e measur e wer e provide d i n th

e TR M o r i n a n approve dIMP
. Th

e evaluatio n approach fo r deeme dmeasures wa

s to verif y bot h th e installe d quantit y an dtha t th e installe d measur

e matche d th e TRM-require dspecifications
. I f ameasur

e wa s partiall y deemed , th

e TR M o r approve d IM P provide d th e algorithm s an

d defaul t assumption s fo r

calculatin g impact s an d th e variable s t

o b e verified
. Dependin g on th e complexit y of th e partiall y deeme

d measure , th

e evaluatio n tea

mapplie d eithe

r aBasi c o r Enhance dlevel o f

rigo r a s described i n th

e applicabl e protocol s an d th e Audi t Plan. 3 9 

### Th

e evaluatio n tea

mconducte da

n applicatio n and fil e review and developed asite-specifi c M& V pla n fo r al l partiall y deeme

d projects
. Th

e tea mcompleted sit

e visit s o r phon e interview s (i f

th e criteri adescribe

d abov e wer e satisfied ) followin g th e activitie s lai dout

i n th e SSMVP , an d calculatedverifie dsaving s usin g th e variable s determine d throug h th e sit e visi t or phon e intervie w i n accordanc

e wit h th e TR M o r IMP
. Fo r project s tha

t include dcustommeasures (define da s measures no t

include di n th

e TR M or i n a n IMP , o r measure s tha

t wer e initiall y reporte d a

s TR M measures , bu t

determine d throug h th

e evaluatio n t

o b e custom) , th

e evaluatio n tea

mconducte da

n applicatio n review , developed SSMVPs , and conducte dsit e visits
. Tli e primar

y differenc e wa

s tha t ther e wer e no deeme

d variable s and al l custommeasures followe da n enhance

d rigo r level of effort
. Th

e evaluatio n tea mproduce de

x pos t engineering-based estimate s of gros s annua

l energ y and summe

r pea k demandimpact s fo r

eac h sampled project
. Th

e pea k k W saving s estimatio n methodolog y was consisten t wit h PEC

O requirement s fo r

eac h projec t and utilize dth

e approve dAc t

12 9 pea k demandcalculators , wher e applicable
. Th

e evaluatio n of

PY 4 project s include d arevie w of program-trackin g dat

aan d supportin g documentatio n (invoices , spe c sheets ) befor

e developin g a n SSMV P an dconductin g asit

e inspectio n or

phon e interview
. Th

e focu s o f

th e dat acollectio n fo r al l site s a t th e basi c an d enhance

d rigo r level s wa

s t o verif y and/o r updat e the assumption s

' 1 B PennsylvaniaPubli

c Utilit y Commission , Jun e 2012
. Technica

l Referenc

e Manua l (TRM ) fo r PennsylvaniaAc

t 12 9 Energ y lifficienc y an

dConservatio

n Progra man dAc t 21 3 Alternativ e Energ

y Portfoli o Standards
.

3 9 Th e Statewid

e Evaluation Team : GD

S Associates , Inc. , Nexant, & Mondr e linergy ; contracte

d unde r th e Pennsylvani

aPubli c Utilit y Commissio

n RE P 2009- 1 fo r

th e Statewid

e Evaluator, Audi t

Pla n an d Evaluation Framewor

k fo r PennsylvaniaAc

t 12 9 Energ y Efficienc y an

d Conservatio

n Programs , Novembe

r 4 , 2011
. 

### PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 12 0tha t

fee dint o analyse s o f measure-leve l savings
. Dat acollectio n included : verificatio n o f installatio n quantity , operatin g schedule , an dsyste mloadin g conditions ; validatio n o f baselin e selection ; assessmen

t o f persistence ; an dverificatio n tha t th e system s ar

e functionin g an d operatin g a

s planne d{an di f

not , ho w th e curren t

operatio n differ s fro mplanne doperation , takin g int o accoun t

daily , weekly , an dseasona l variations)
. Th e enhance d rigo r

leve l site evaluation s generall y include dperformin g on-sit e dat acollectio n an dmeasuremen t

activities , and , fo r

several sites , obtainin g participants ' collecte ddat afro m record s o r

buildin g automatio n system s t o suppor t downstrea mM& V calculations
. Monitorin g effort s include dspo t

measurements , run-tim e hou r dat alogging , power/amperag e metering , dependin g o n th e need s o f th e project
. Customer-supplie ddat afro man EM S o r supervisor y contro l an ddat aacquisitio n system s wer e use d whe n available
. I n addition , th e tea mrequeste d billin g dat afo r

al l project s fro mPEC O o n amonthl y o r '15-minute interva l basis , dependin g o n th e site
. 7.2. 2 Sampl e Desig n Th e sampl e desig n fo r PY 4 SE I retrofi t project s use d stratifie drati o estimatio n simila r t o th e metho duse d i n PY l throug h PY3
. Base do n acombine dpai dannua l populatio n o f 269 ,, nGN I retrofi t projects , th e fina l evaluate dsampl e siz e wa s 3 6 GN I project s fo r th e progra myear , wit h sample s allocate db y participatio n fro meach quarte r an db y stratum . Th e sampl e siz e wa s targete dt o achiev e an 85/1 5 confidenc e an dprecisio n leve l wit h coefficient s o f variatio n chose n t o reflec t

th e PY 3 achieve drelativ e precisio n targets . On e o f th e sample dMunicipa l Lightin g stratu mproject s wa s no t abl e t o b e verifie dan dwa s therefor e droppe dfro mth e fina l saving s roll-up
. Th e strat aboundarie s define dfo r samplin g purpose s wer e as follows :

• Stratu m1 (Large)>l / 500,00 0 kW h o 500,000 kW h < Stratu m2 (Medium ) < 1,500,00 0 kW h o 0 kW h < Stratu m3 (Small ) < 500,00 0 kW h For th e GN I program , al l municipa l lightin g project s wer e assigne d t o Stratu m4
. I n addition , th e tea mals o separate d CH P i n it s ow n stratu mdu e t o th e larg e an ddistinc t natur e o f

thes e

•"'Th e lola l numbe r o f PY 4 GNI retrofi t

project s i s 273
. However, four

project s wil l no t b e verifie di n th

e PY 4 evaluation nn

dreport , but wil l instea

db e verifie da

t aInte r dat e onc e th e projec t file s ar e read y for evaluation
. Se

e footnot e 37 fo r mor e information
.
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 12 1projects
. Du e t o th e metho duse dt o defin e th e strat aboundarie s earl y i n th e proces s an dth e

influ x o f waitlis t project s a

t th e en do f

PY4 , strat a1 , 2 , an d3 contai n mor e o r les s tha n 3 3 percen t o f th e tota l PY

4 reporte dkW h savings
. Th e sampl e wa s pulle di n fou r stages : afte r

Q 2 usin g bot h Q l an dQ 2 data , afte r Q3 , durin g Q4 , an dafte r Q4
. Durin g each stage , th e sampl e desig n wa s reviewe dan dadjustment s wer e mad e as neede d t o ensure tha t th e sampl e desig n woul dmeet

th e targe t

confidenc e an dprecision
. Thi s proces s include dreviewin g th e project s i n th e pipelin e an destimatin g th e numbe r o f project s tha t

woul db e complete dprio r t o th e en do f PY4
. Th e percentag e o f tota l sampl e pulle dfro meach stag e wa s base d o n th e numbe r o f complete dproject s i n tha t stag e a s aproportio n o f

th e expecte dnumbe r

o f project s fo r

th e entir e progra myear . Lastly , th e tea minclude dal l project s i n th e sampl e design , bu t onl y sample d fro mproject s representin g th e to p 9 5 percen t o f aggregate progra msavings
. Th e tea m determine dtha t

samplin g fro mth e smalles t project s representin g th e botto m5 percen t o f aggregate progra msaving s woul db e o f limite dvalu e t o th e progra mevaluation
. Tabl e 7- 3 belo w include s th e samplin g strategie s fo r SE I GN I retrofi t

progra mgros s impac t analysi s an dth e proces s evaluatio n activities ; th e participan t surve y an dth e participatin g contracto r

survey . Th e tabl e als o include s th e samplin g strateg y fo r GN I N C projects
. Tabl e 7-3 . GN I Progra

m Samplin g Strategy fo r PY 4

Stratu m Strat a

Boundarie s Populatio n

Siz e Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activit y

GN I - Larg e >1,500,00 0 kW h 1 0. 6 85/1 5 4 1 Impact : On-sit e verificatio n GN I - Mediu m <1,500,00 0 kWh , >500,00

0 kW h 1 8 0. 9 85/1 5 1 2 1 2 Impact : On-sit e verificatio n GN I - Smal l <500,00 0 kW h 22

9 0. 7 85/1 5 1 2 1 3 Impact : On-sit e verificatio n
GN I - CH P N/ A 4 0. 5 85/1 5 3 4 Impact : On-sit e verificatio n

GN I - Mun i Lightin g N/ A '1 7 0. 4 85/1 5 6 6 Impact : Des k Revie w an d phon e verificatio n Activit y Subtota l 26 9 85/1 5 3 7 3 6 SE I GN I - N C -Strat a1 [3 | >750,00 0 kW h 2 0. 5 85/1 5 2 2 Impact : Sit e Visit s (Strat a1 , 2 , WB1 ) an d SE I GN I - N C 200,00 0 - 4 0. 5 85/1 5 2 2 Impact : Sit e Visit s (Strat a1 , 2 , WB1 ) an d PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 12 2Stratu m Strat a Boundarie s Populatio n

Siz e Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Targe t1

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n , Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activity

-Strat a2 [3 ] 750,00 0 kW h Des k Review s (all ) Process : Participan t Survey s SMGNI-N C

- Strata3 [3 1 <200 / 00 0 kW h 2

7 0. 5 85/1 5 4 4 Des k Review s (all ) Process : Participan t Survey s SlilGNI-N C

- W B I [3 ] >750 / 00 0 kW h 1 0. 5 85/1 5 1 1 Des k Review s (all ) Process : Participan t Survey s Stt t GN I - N C

- W B 2J3 | <750,00

0 kW h 1 0 0. 5 85/1 5 4 4 Des k Review s (all ) Process : Participan t Survey s

Activit y Subtota l 4 4 85/1 5 1 3 1 3 GN I Lightin g

- Larg e > 600,00

0 kW h 7 0. 5 85/1 0 7 2 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an dNT G research GN I Lightin g

- Mediu m > 100,00 0 an d S 600,000 kW h 23 0. 5 85/1 0 7 7 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an dNT G research GN I Lightin g -Smal l > 20,00

0 an d< . 100,00 0 kW h 5

4 0. 5 85/1 0 7 7 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an dNT G research GN I Lightin g

- Municipa l > 20,00

0 an d< , 200,00 0 kW h 1 3 0. 5 85/1 0 6 2 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an dNT G research
Activit y Subtota l 9 7 85/1 0 2 7 1 8 GN I Non

lighting

Ver y larg e >33,000,00 0 kW h 1 0. 5 85/1 0 1 1
Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an dNT G researc h GN I Non

lighting

Larg e > 800,00

0 an d < 3,500,00

0 kW h 9 0. 5 85/1 0 8 2 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an dNT G researc h GN I Non

lighting

Mediu m > 80,00

0 an d< 800,000 kW h 1

7 0. 5 85/1 0 6 6 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an dNT G researc h GN I Non

lighting

Smal l > 20,00

0 an d£ 80,00 0 kW h 1 5 0. 5 85/1 0 6 6 Proces s Evaluation : Participan t surve y an dNT G researc h

Activit y Subtotal 4 2 85/1 0 2 1 15 Stratu m1 - Ver y Larg e > 9,000,00 0 kW h 3 0. 5 85/1 0 ' 3 0 Proces s Evaluation : Participatin g contracto r surve y Stratu m2 - Larg e > 1,000,00 0 an d< 6,000,00 0 kW h 1 2 0. 5 85/1 0 1 0 3 Proces s Evaluation : Participatin g contracto r surve y Stratu m3 - Mediu m > 300,000 an d

51,000,000 4

8 0. 5 85/1 0 7 7 Proces s Evaluation : Participatin g contracto r surve y
PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 12 3Stratu m Strat a Boundarie s Populatio n

Siz e Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activit y

kW h Stratu m4 - Smal l > 60,00

0 an d£ 300,000 kW h 14 8 0. 5 85/1 0 8 8 Activit y Subtota l 14 8 85/1 0 8 8 Progra m Tota l 60 0 106 9 0 1 1 ] CN I - Applianc e Recyclin g an dCN I - MuHi-tenan

t projects wer

e no t sample di n I'Y4
. {2 \Th e tota l numbe r o f Sl: l GN I project

s i n f'Y 4 wa s 273
. Mowever

, fou r projects wer

e no t verifie di n th

e PY 4 evaluation , bu

t the y wil l b e verifie da

t alate r dal e onc e th e projec t file s ar e read y fo r evaluation
. [3 1 Smar l I-quipmen

l Incentive s - Ne

w Construction sampling strateg y fo r PY 4 i s fo r th e broade r Smar t Construction Incentive s program ; th

e sampling pla

n show n abov e i s fo r th e GN I ne w construction project

s only
. Source : Nnvigant

nmh/si s 

### 7.2. 3 Gros s Impac t

Evaluatio n Finding s Th e evaluatio n tea

mcomplete dsite-specifi c evaluation s of 3 5 sampledproject s i n PY 4 fo r th e SE I GN I retrofi t

program . Th

e gros s impac t

result s fo r

th e GN I retrofi t

project s yielde da

n energ y realizatio n rat

e o f 0.9 3 andapea

k demandrealizatio n rat

e of 0.98
. Relative precisio n level s fo r verifie dgros s saving s wer e 1 2 percen

t fo r energy and4 percen

t fo r deman da t a n 8 5 percen t confidenc e interval , whic h ar e bette r tha n th e targetedrelativ e precision of 1 5 percent . Th e mai n reasons behindth e relativ e precisio n level s (andgreate r accuracy) wer

e th e samplin g strategy (incorporatin g mor e sampl e point s to counteract

hig h error

ratio s encounteredi n PY3 ) andth e accurac y o f saving s estimate s fo r

severa l larg e projects
. Th e evaluatio n tea

mfoun dtha

t the e x ant e calculation s fo r

project s involvin g EM

S measures utilize dassume

d saving s value s of

2 kW h pe r squar e foo t and0.000 1 k

W pe r squar e foot 4 1 

### a s wa s commo n i n PY3
. Th

e evaluatio n tea

mbelieve s tha

t th e deeme d saving s value s ma

y b e a viabl e rul e of

thum b i n certai n cases , bu t

the y ar e a n inaccurat

e wa y of estimatin g site-specifi c saving s fo r

impac t evaluations
. Us

e o f thes e factor s ha

s typicall y cause

d a n inaccurat

e

•"Column s AM-A

L o f the'300 ' ta

b ofth e LD

C quarterly trackin g databas e extracts . 

### PEC

O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 12 4estimatio n o f energ y saving s an dpea k deman dsaving s du e t o th e EM S controllin g arang e o f equipmen t

i n varyin g buildin g type s wit h divers e schedules
. Thi s resulte di n widel y varyin g projec t realizatio n rates . Tin e evaluatio n tea

mals o foun darang e o f realizatio n rate s fo r

othe r retrofi t projec t type s du e t o th e followin g reasons :

• Incorrec t

baselin e classificatio n i n th e e x ante estimate s
• Adjustment s t o hour s o f us e an dequipmen t

quantitie s fo r

lightin g project s
• Pea k deman dsaving s no t

base d o n th e SWE-approve dpea k deman dcalculator s
• Evaluatio n site visi t finding s varie dfro mth e assumption s use d i n th e e x ante calculations
. A s discusse d previously , th e GN I multi-tenan t an dapplianc e recyclin g project s wer e no t evaluate di n PY

4 du e t o th e ver y smal l percentag e o f overal l progra msavings
. Th e realizatio n rat e fo r SE I multi-tenan t

project s an dapplianc e recyclin g project s wa s deeme d a t 1.0 fo r PY 4 fo r th e purpose s o f

evaluation
. Th e GN I ne w constructio n project s wer e evaluate dunde r th e Smar

t Constructio n Incentive s progra man dpertinen t detail s o f

thi s evaluatio n ma y b e foun dunde r th e SC I progra msectio n o f thi s report . Th e evaluatio n teamprovide dPEC O th e site-specifi c M& V report s fo r th e verifie dprojects
. Thes e site-specifi c impac t evaluatio n report s summariz e th e e x ante savings , th e e

x pos t M& V plan , th e dat acollecte da t th e site , an dal l o f

th e calculation s an dparameter s use d t o estimat e savings
. Stratu m1 (Large ) energ y realizatio n rate wa s 6 4 percen t wit h a0 percen t

stratum-leve l relativ e precision
. Stratu m2 (Medium ) ha darelativ e precisio n o f 1 7 percen t

du e t o realizatio n rate s rangin g fro m3 5 percen t t o 18 7 percent . Stratu m3 (Small ) ha darelativ e precisio n o f 4 7 percen t wit h realizatio n rate s rangin g fro m3 4 percen t t o 22 4 percent , whil e th e CH P an d municipa l lightin g stratu mha daver y lo w (< 1 percent ) relativ e precisio n wit h al l sample d project s a

t almos t 10 0 percen t realizatio n rates . Tabl e 7- 4 present s th e strata-leve l an dprogram leve l relativ e precisio n level s fo r verifie dgros s energ y saving s fo r eac h o f th e GN I progra m components .

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 12 5Tabl e 7-4
. PY 4 GN I Progra mSummar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y

Stratu m Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh)'"' 3 ' Energ y

Realizatio n Rate Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv)'o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Energy Saving s (MWh ) Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) GN I - Larg e 1,83 7 0.6 4 0.0

0 0.0

0 1,168 0 GNI-Mediu m 14,584 0.8 5 0.0 4 0.1 7 12,38 1 0 GN I - Smal l 18,85 7 0.9 1 0,0 0 0.4

7 17,12 6 0 GN I - CH P 37,71 9 0.9 8 0.0 0 0.0

0 34,51 0 2,67 7 GN I - Mun i Lightin g 1,04 4 1.0

0 0.0

0 0.0 1 1,04 1 0 GN I - Multi-tenan t T l 1.0 0 N/ A N/ A 1 1 0 GN 2 - Applianc e Recyclin g 0 1.0 0 N/ A N/ A 0 0 SE I GN I - N C - Strata1 W 2,740 1.1 9 0.1 9 0.0 0 3,27 3 0 SE I GNI-NC-Strat a21 3 ' 1,16 0 1.4 1 0.4 1 0.74 1,63 1 0 SE I GN I - N C - Strata31 1 ' 1,61 4 0.9 4 0.06 0.0 7 1,52

5 0 SE I GN I - N C - WB 1 P

I 3,04 5 0.9 5 0.0 0 0.0

0 2,89 3 0 SE I GNI-NC-WB2i ; , i 2,24 3 1.0 1 0.0 3 0.0 1 2,25 8 0 Progra mTota l 84,85 5 0.9 5 N/ A 0.1 2 77,81 7 2,67 7 NOTES : 11 1 Reporte

dgros s energ

y saving s include s nil saving s - bot h verifie dan

dunveritle dgros s saving s - fo r PY 4 projecls
. [2 1 Th e reporte dgros s energ

y saving s include tw o additiona l projec l number

s nn dassociate

d saving s tha

t wer e no t includedi n th

e PY 4 Q 4 rcpor l becaus e th e projec t saving s wer

e estimate dafte r th e PY 4 Q 4 report . Th

e tota l numbe r o f PY 4 GN I projects i s 273
. However, fou r

project s wer e no t verifie di n ih

e PY 4 evaluation nn

dreport , but

wil l instea

db e verifie da

t n late r dat e onc e th e projec t files ar e read y fo r evaluation
. Thes

e projects an

dth e saving s wil l b

e reporte da s "unverified " saving s i n th e Phas e 1 compliance report . Thes

e project s wil l no t b e verifie di n th

e PY 4 evaluation an

drepor t becaus e th e application s wer

e receive da t th e en do f Phas e 1 an dther e wa s insufficient

tim e t o assig n saving s t

o thes e projects
. Th

e project s represen t tw o parts o

f on e large r projec t installatio n (PLCO-11-0272 I & PLCO-11-0467

5 an dPLCO-11-04473 & PI. :

CO-13-04676)
. Therefore , thea e fou r projects wer

e no t includedi n th

e sampl e design
. [3 j CN I Ne w Construction (NC ) measure s wer e evaluate dunde r th e Smar t Construction Incentive s program . Thi s tabl e onl y contain s reporte

dan dverifie dsaving s for

th e PY 4 GNI N C projects
. Source. Nnvignnt

nmh/sis
Stratu m1 (Large ) deman drealizatio n rate wa s 22 0 percen t

wit h a0 percen t

stratum-leve l relativ e precision
. Stratu m2 (Medium ) ha darelativ e precisio n o f 1 3 percent , wit h projec t realizatio n rate s rangin g fro m4 8 percen t t o 16 9 percent . Stratu m3 (Small ) ha darelativ e precisio n o f

1 0 percen t

wit h projec t

realizatio n rate s rangin g fro m6 7 percen t t o 13 0 percent , whil e th e CH P an dmunicipa l lightin g stratu mha da0 percen t relativ e precisio n wit h al l sample dproject s a

t o r nea r 10 0 percen t

realizatio n rates . Tabl e 7-5 present s th e strata-leve l an d
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 12 6pro g ram-leve l relativ e precisio n level s fo r verifie dgros s deman dsaving s fo r eac h o f th e GN I progra mcomponents .

Tabl e 7-5 . PY 4 GN I Progra m Summary o

f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d

Stratu m Reporte d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW)I'"I*M4 1 Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (C ) o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n a

t 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) w Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) H I GN I - Larg e 0. 1 2. 2 0.0 0 0.0

0 0. 2 0 G N I - Mediu m 1. 8 0. 9 0.02 0.13 1. 6 0 G N I - Smal l 3. 4 1.0 0.0 0 0.1 0 3. 3 0 GNI-CH P 4. 1 1.0 0.0 0 0.0

0 3. 7 0. 3 G N I - Mun i Lightin g 0. 1 1.0 0.0 0 0.0

0 0. 1 0 G N I - Multi-tenan t 0.002 1.0 N/ A N/ A 0.002 0 GN I - Applianc e Recyclin g 0. 0 1. 0 N/ A N/ A 0. 0 0 Sli l GN I - N C - Strat aI P I 0. 5 1. 6 0.6 9 0.0

2 0. 8 0 SE I GNI-NC-Strat a21 3 ' 0. 2 1. 3 0.4 0 0. 2 0. 3 0 SE I GN I - N C - Strat a3 P ' 0. 4 1. 1 0.2 0 0. 4 0. 5 0 SE I GN I - N C - W B 1 P I 0. 4 1. 6 0.0 0 0. 0 0. 6 0 SEIGN1-NC-WB2P 1 0. 4 1. 8 0.2 8 0. 2 0. 7 0 Progra mTota l 11. 3 1. 1 0.0 4 11. 7 0. 3 NOTES : 11 1 Reporte dgros s energ y saving s include s al l saving s - bot h verilie dan dunverifie dgros s saving s - fo r PY 4 projects
. |2 | Th e reporte dgros s energ y paving s includ e tw o additiona l projec t number s an dassociate d saving s tha t wer e no t

include di n th e PY4Q 4 report becaus e th e projec t

saving s wer e estimate dafte r th e PY4Q

4 report . Th e tota l numbe r o f PY 4 CN I project s i s 273
. Mowever , fou r

project s wer e no t

verifie di n th e PY

4 evaluatio n an dreport , bu t wil l instea dbe verifie da t alale r dat e onc e th e projec t file s ar e ready fo r

evaluation
. Thes e project s an dth e saving s wil l b e reporte das "unverified " saving s i n th e Phase 1 complianc e report . Thes e project s wil l no t be verifie di n th e PY

4 evaluatio n an drepor

t becaus e th e application s wer e receive da t th e endo f

Phas e 1 an dther e wa s insufficien t lim e l o assig n saving s t o thes e projects
. Th e project s represent tw o part s o f

on e large r

projec t installatio n (PHCO-11-0272 1 & PLCO-11-0467 5 an dPLCO-11-0447 3 & PLCO-t3-04676)
. Therefore , thes e fou r project s wer e no t

include di n th e sampl e design
. |3 j CN I Ne w Constructio n (NC ) measure s wer e evaluate dunde r th e Smar l Conslruclio n Incentive s program . Thi s tabl e onl y contain s reporte dan dverifie dsaving s fo r th e PY 4 CN I N C projects
. |4 ] Th e reporte dgros s deman dreduclion , verifie dgros s deman dreduclion , an dunverifie dgros s deman dreductio n includ e ih e lin e los s factor
. Source: Nnvignnt

nnaiysis 

## 7. 3 Impac tEvaluation Ne

tSaving s Th e primar y objectiv e o f th e ne t saving s analysi s wa s t o determin e th e program's ne t effec t o n th e progra msavings
. Afte r gros s progra mimpact s hav e been assessed , ne t progra mimpact s ar

e
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 12 7

### derive db y estimatin g a n NT G rati o tha

t quantifie s th

e percentage of

th e gros s progra

mimpact s tha t ca n reliably b

e attribute dt

o th e program . Onc e fre e ridershi p andspillover hav e bee n estimated , th

e NTG rati o i s calculateda s follows : NT G Rati o = 1 - Free-ridershi p Rat e + Spillove

r Rat e Fre e ridershi p wa

s assesse d usin g acustome

r self-repor

t approach followin g aframewor k tha t was developedfo r

evaluatin g ne

t saving s of

California' s 2006-200

8 non-residentia

l energ y efficienc y programs . Thi s metho dcalculate s fre e ridershi p usin g dat acollecteddurin g participant

phon e survey s concerning th

e followin g thre

e items : 1
. A Timin g andSelectio n scor e tha t reflect s th

e influenc e o f

th e mos t importan t

variou s progra mandprogram-relate delement s i n th e customer' s decisio n to implemen t th e specifi c progra

mmeasur

e a t thi s time
. 2
. A Progra

mInfluenc e scor

e tha t reveal s th

e perceivedimportanc e o f th e progra m (whethe r rebate , recommendation , o r othe r progra mintervention ) relativ e t o non progra mfactor s i n th

e customers ' decision t

o implement

th e specifi c progra

mmeasure . Thi s scor e i s cut i n hal f i f the y learnedabou

t th e progra mafte r the y decidedto implemen

t th e measures . 3
. A No-Progra

mscor e tha t capture s th

e likelihoo do f

variou s action s th

e custome r migh t hav e take n a t thi s time andi n th

e futur e i f

th e progra mha dno t bee n available
. Thi s scor e account

s fo r deferre dfre e ridershi p b y incorporatin g th

e likelihoo dtha

t th e custome r woul dhav

e installe dprogra

mqualifyin g measures a t alate r dat e i f th e progra mha dno t bee n available
. Eac h of thes e score s represents th

e highes t respons e or

th e averag e of severa l responses give n t

o on e or mor e question s abou

t th e decisio n to instal l aprogra mmeasure . Th

e rational e fo r

usin g th e maximumvalue i s t

o captur e th e mos t importan t

elemen t i n th e participant' s decision

makin g process . Th

e calculatio n of

fre e ridershi p fo r

the progra

mi s amulti-step process . Th e participant

surve y covere dabatter y of question s use

d to assess fre e ridershi p fo r aspecifi c end us e andproject
. Th

e evaluatio n tea

muse s surve y responses t

o calculat e aTimin g an

dSelectio n score , aProgra

mInfluenc e score , an

daNo-Progra

mscor e fo r eac h projec t covere dthroug h th

e survey . Thes

e thre e score s ca n b e give n value s of

0 t o 1 0 wher e alowe r scor e indicate s ahighe

r level of fre e ridership
. Th

e calculatio n the

n averages those three score s t o com e up wit h a measure-leve

l free-ridership score . If th e custome r ha s additiona l measures a

t th e sam e sit e a s par t o f th e sam e project , th

e surve y aske d whethe r the customer' s responses als o appl y t o th e
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 12 8othe r

measures . I f

tha t i s th e case , th e entir e projec t i s give n th e sam

e score . I n addition , th e surve y aske d i f

th e response s appl y t o othe r PY 4 projects , i f

applicable
. Th e evaluatio n tea

muse d aseparate rati o estimatio n statistica l metho dt o combin e th e participan t

ne t o f free-ridershi p ratio s fo r th e C& I an dGN I sample dproject s u p t o th e program leve l ne t o f free-ridershi p ratios
. I n thi s method , aseparat e rati o i s calculate dfo r each stratu m an dthe n applie dt o th e populatio n saving s i n each stratum . Th e su mo f th e verifie dne t

saving s fo r eac h stratu mi s calculate dan di s compare dt o th e su mo f th e verifie dgros s saving s resultin g i n aprogram-leve l ne t

o f free-ridershi p ratio
. Th e evaluatio n teamaske d progra mparticipant s abatter y o f question s to quantitativel y asses s spillover

- Belo w ar

e example s o f

th e spillove r

questions : 1
. Sinc e you r

participatio n i n th e program , di dyo u instal l an y additiona l energ y efficienc y measure s a

t thi s facilit y tha t

di dno t receiv e incentive s throug h an y utilit y o r governmen t

program ? 2
. Coul dyo u describ e th e energ y efficienc y measure installed ? 3
. Thinkin g o f

th e additiona l nieasure(s ) yo u installe do n you r ow n a t thi s sam e facility ; Ho w doe s th e energ y saving s compar e to wha t yo u installe dthroug h th e program ? Were th e saving s lower , abou t th e sam e o r higher ? (Prob e fo r

percentag e a

s compare dt o al l incente dprojects ) 4
. Ho w significan t

wa s you r

experienc e i n PECO' s progra mi n you r decisio n t o instal l thi s measure , usin g ascale o f 0 t o 10 , wher e 0 i s no t

a t al l significan t

an d1 0 i s extremel y significant ? 5
. Sinc e participatin g i n th e program , hav e yo u installe dan y energy-efficien t measure s i n othe r facilitie s withi n PECO' s territory ? 6
. Thinkin g o f

thes e additiona l measure(s ) yo u installe do n you r ow n a t othe r facilities , ho w doe s th e quantit y compar e t o wha t yo u installe dthroug h th e program ? Di dyo u instal l more , les s o r

th e sam e amoun t

o f measures ? (Prob e fo r

percentag e a

s compare dt o al l incente dprojects ) 7
. Hav e o r

wil l thes e measure s receiv e incentive s throug h th e program ? 8
. Wha t wer e th e reason s tha t

the y di dno t

receiv e a

n incentive ? Additionally , th e evaluatio n tea maske d participatin g contractor s whethe r the y wer e seein g mor e customer s withi n PECO' s servic e territor y purchas e energy-efficien t equipmen t

withou t progra mincentives
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 12 9

### Spillover

wa s calculatedby asking participant s ho w th e energy saving s o f

th e un-incente d measures compared , a

s apercentage save

d (e.g. , 10% , 20% , and30%) , to th e saving s of

al l of their incente dprojects
. Thi s self-reporte d percentage was the n multiplie db y th

e amoun t of influenc e PECO' s progra mha d on th e decision t

o instal l th

e additional measures (Progra m Influenc e Scor

e fo r spillover)
. Th

e progra mspillover

percentag

e wa s determine db y dividin g th e tota l self-reporte d kW

h described abov

e by th e tota l o f al l incented kWh saving s obtaine d by th e progra mi n PY4
. Al l spillover

estimate s wer

e calculate d b y Navigant usin g custome

r self

reporte d dat

aan dn o follow-u p interview s o

r sit e visit s wer

e conducted
. Fo r GN I customers , th

e evaluatio n tea

mfoun dacombined kWh-weighte d NT G rati o a t th e progra mlevel of

0.6 4 an d acombined kW-weighte d NTG rati o a t th e progra mlevel o f 0.65
. NT G ratio s wer

e base d on fre e ridershi p and spillover
. 

## 7. 4 Proces s Evaluation Th e evaluatio n tea

mconducted proces s evaluatio n activitie s jointl y fo r th e SE I C& I and th

e SE I GN I programs , a

s man y of th e administrator s an

d contractors wer

e common . Th

e evaluatio n tea mconductedthre

e primar y researc h activitie s t

o performth

e proces s evaluation
. Thes e activitie s consiste

d o f in-dept h phon e interview s wit h PEC

O progra mmanagemen

t an d KEMA implementatio n staf

f (6) , CAT I survey s wit h participatin g contractor s (1 8 contractors) , and CAT I survey s wit h progra mparticipant s (3 0 C& I customers)
. Tabl e 7- 3 provide s asummar

y of th e evaluatio n activitie s an d th e samplin g strategy . Th e trackin g dat

afo r th e sampl e fram e was extracted fro macop y of th e PEC O onlin e database delivere delectronically to th e evaluatio n tea

mon aquarterl y basis
. Th e activitie s conducted durin g th e proces s evaluatio n ar

e furthe r describe d i n th e followin g sections
. 7.4.1 PEC O Progra

m Managemen

tStaf f an d KEM A Staf

f Interviews Th e evaluatio n tea

mconducted thre

e in-dept h interview s wit h PEC

O staf f and thre e in-dept h interview s wit h ke

y member

s of th e Smar t Equipmen

t Incentive s progra

mimplementatio n contracto r team , KEMA , durin g th

e month s o f

Februar y and Marc h 2013
. Th

e interview s wer

e designedt

o enabl e th e evaluatio n tea

mt o as k closed-ende

d question s abou

t th e program' s administratio n and deliver y durin g PY

4 an d als o t o obtai n "real-time " informatio n abou t current progra mactivit y throug h asking open-ende d question s tha

t create d a"free-flowing " conversation
. T

o infor mthes

e interviews , th

e evaluatio n tea

mreviewe d current

progra m reportin g documents , marketin g materials , an d custome

r materials , suc

h a s th e Wait-lis t Policie s an

d Procedure s document
.
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 13 0Th e evaluatio n tea mfoun dth e followin g informatio n durin g th e in-dept h interviews :

• PEC O an d KEM A staf f bot h reporte dth e waitlis t continue dt o hav e a

n effec t o n th e progra mi n PY4
. I n anticipatio n o f th e waitlis t

bein g lifte di n PY4 , PEC O an dKEM A staf f wer e proactiv e i n reachin g ou t t o customer s wit h waitliste dproject s t o aid e the mi n movin g th e projec t

forwar do r

makin g th e decisio n t o cancel them
. • O f th e project s tha t

remaine d i n th e pipelin e an dwer e accepte dbefor e th e waitlis t wa s instituted , progra mstaf f reporte d tha t

th e majorit y wer e larg e projects , suc h a s CH P project s accountin g fo r sizabl e savings
. Th e complexit y o f thes e project s continue dto challeng e bot h PEC O an dKEM A staff
. Whil e PEC O staf f wa s confiden t

tha t u p t o 45 0 project s fro mth e waitlis t woul dbe move dt o fil l th e pipeline , there wa s concer n tha t a "phantom " rus h o f

application s coul dbe encountere dwhe n th e waitlis t wa s ultimatel y lifted
. • Bot h PEC O an dKEM A staf f commente dthere i s arenewe dfocu s o n Qualit y Assuranc e an dQualit y Control
. For instance , PEC O no w document s gol dqualit y inspections , silve r qualit y inspections , an dinspection s o f unacceptabl e quality
. I n th e future , PEC O plan s to hav e iPad s t o tak

e on-sit e visits , enablin g mor e picture s an dreal-tim e upload s o f ne w data
. 7.4. 2 Progra

m Participatin g Custome r Surve y Th e evaluatio n teamconducte daparticipatin g custome r CAT I surve y fo r

th e PY 4 Smar t Equipmen t

Incentive s program . Tli e surve y assesse d al l o f th e parameter s necessar y to calculat e fre e ridershi p an dNTG
. Additiona l dat awa s collecte dt o suppor t th e proces s evaluatio n (suc h a s progra mdesig n an dimplementation , progra mmarketin g an dawareness , an dcustome r satisfaction) , aqualitativ e assessmen t o f spillover , an dbusines s demographic s fo r th e proces s componen t

o f th e evaluation
. Th e samplin g uni t

fo r th e proces s evaluatio n wa s th e uniqu e participatin g customers ; i t di dno t includ e project s wher e th e primar y contac t perso n i n th e databas e wa s acontracto r o r th e projec t di dno t hav e contac t

information. 11 2Th e rationale fo r contactin g uniqu e participatin g customer s wa s t o ge t

projec t informatio n fro mthe fina l decisio n maker
. Overall , 13 9 uniqu e participan t

contact s complete d 23 6 GN I retrofi t project s i n PY4
.

4 1 Ther e wer e 21 2 projecl s wit

h acontracto

r a s th e primar y contac t perso n i n th e database
. Ther

e wer e 6 projecl s withou t

contac t information
. Thes

e wer e no t included i n th

e sample
. Th

e 3 projec l number

s tha t wer e no l included i n th

e PY 4 impac t evaluation wer e includedin th

e proces s evaluation sampling population
. A t th e tim e o f th e proces s evaluation sampl e design , th

e tea monl y ha dinformatio n o

n 3 o f th e 6 projec

t number s tha t wer e no t includedi n th

e PY 4 impac t evaluation
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 13 1Th e evaluatio n teamtargete d9 0 complete dsurvey s fo r th e SE I retrofi t program , 42 C& I survey s an d4 8 GN I surveys . Th e sample s wer e designe dt o achiev e 85/1 0 confidence/precisio n individuall y an dexceedtha t whe n combine dt o th e progra mlevel
. Th e evaluatio n tea m complete d3 3 SE

I GN I survey s (1 8 lightin g projec t participant s an d1 5 non-lighting/custo m projec t participants)
. A larg e numbe r o f SE I progra mparticipant s (40 ) wer e no t interviewe ddu e t o th e maximu mnumbe r o f contac t attempt s bein g reached
. Th e analysi s o f

th e participan t

surve y dat ashowe dcustome r satisfactio n wa s hig h acros s th e variou s progra mprocesse s an dsectors . Eighty-si x percen t o f GN I participant s wer e satisfied 4 3 wit h th e SE

I progra man d8 8 percen t wer e satisfie dwit h PECO
. Satisfactio n wit h th e SE I progra mwa s simila r

betwee n lightin g an dnon-lightin g GN I participants
. Seventy-fiv e percen t o f GN I participant s als o reporte dsatisfactio n wit h th e incentiv e amount . Th e evaluatio n tea m foun d9 0 percen t

o f GN I participant s wer e satisfie dwit h thei r interactio n wit h progra mstaff
. Eighty-tw o percen t

o f GN I progra mparticipant s wer e satisfie dwit h th e measure s offered , an d 9 4 percen t

o f GN I progra mparticipant s wer e satisfie dwit h th e contracto r use d t o complet e thei r project
. 7.4. 3 Participatin g Contracto r Surve y A Computer-Aide dTelephon e Intervie w surve y wa s conducte da t th e contracto r

level ; thus , th e sampl e covere dbot h SE I C& I retrofi t

an dSE I GN I retrofi t

projects
. I n total , 21 1 contractor s complete d63 9 SE

I projects 4 1 i n PY4
. Th e contracto r databas e wa s firs t

sorte dto reflec t

uniqu e participatin g contractors . Afte r th e dat acleanin g process , th e desig n resulte di n atarge t o f 2 8 interview s wit h participatin g contractors . Th e evaluatio n teamcomplete datota l o f 1 8 contracto r

interview s i n Jul y 2013
. Th e evaluatio n tea mdi dno t

meet th e targe t

du e t o alarg e numbe r o f refusals , disconnecte dphon e numbers , an dmaximu mattempt s reached
. Th e analysi s o f

th e dat acollecte dthroug h th e participatin g contracto r surve y showe dther e wa s somewhat

les s satisfactio n amon g participatin g contractor s tha n participants
. I n general , abou t three-quarter s o f

participatin g contractor s wer e satisfie dwit h PEC O an dtwo-third s wer e satisfie dwit h th e SE

I program . Contractor s suggeste d t o PEC O tha t i t mor e effectivel y

Surve y respondent

s ar e considere

dsatisfiedi f

the y answere d7 o r greater , o n ascal e o f 0 t o 1 0 wher e 0 i s "extremel

y dissatisfied " an d1 0 i s "extremel

y satisfied. " Tota l numbe r o f projects doe

s no t includ e project s withou t contracto r contac t information
. Navigan

t eliminate d29

0 project s tha t di dno t hav e complet e contracto

r contac t informatio n i n th

e database
. Th

e 3 projec t number s tha t wer e no t includedin th

e PY 4 impac t evaluation wer

e includedi n th

e proces s evaluation sampling population
. A t th e tim e o f th e proces s evaluation sampl e design , th e tea monly ha dinformatio n o

n 3 o f th e 6 project

number s tha t wer e no t includedi n th

e PY 4 impac t evaluation
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 13 2communicat e change s t o th e progra mno w tha t fund s wer e agai n available , includin g an y rul e changes
. Additionally , contractor s suggeste dshortenin g th e amoun t o f tim e i t take s t o ge t

th e rebate , expandin g th e type s o f measure s tha t

ar e eligibl e throug h th e progra msuc h a s inductio n lightin g an dLEDs , an dincreasin g th e amoun t o f th e rebates
. Tabl e 7-6

. Statu s Reportfo r SE I GN I Progra m Proces s Evaluation s

Recommendation s ED C Statu s Repor t fo r Proces s Evaluation s (Implemented , Bein g Considered , Rejecte d AN D Explanatio n o f

Actio n Take n b y EDC )

PEC O shoul d increas e communicatio n wit h contractor s an dmor e closel y manag e relationship s t o improv e th e contracto r

an d participan t

experienc e wit h Ihe program . Contractor s indicate dtha t increase d communicatio n fro mPEC O wa s desired
. I n addition , progra m participant s expresse dtha t contractor s wer e amai n sourc e o f

informatio n abou t

th e program . PEC O shoul d leverag e contracto r

relationship s t o communicat e progra mgoal s t o customer s an d us e contracto r trainin g an dcommunicatio n a

s awa y t o scal e u p o r

ratche t dow n p ro g r ampar t ic i p at ion . Implemented :

• PEC O ha s increase dth e frequenc y o f th e Trad e All y newslette r

an d alread y sen

t firs t editio n fo r phas e II
. • PEC O has conducte d3 seminar s i n Octobe r wit h attendanc e o f

50-100 a t eac h event . • PEC O i s holdin g trade all y certificatio n seminar s (Firs t

one Oct
. 15)
. • PEC O i s holdin g atrad e all y webina r series
. PEC O launche da

n onlin e trad e all y porta l fo r material s an d liv e onlin e projec t

tracking
.

PEC O shoul d conside r aslidin g scal e fo r

incentiv e payments , rathe r

than reachin g progra mtarget s an d abruptl y throttlin g th e progra mwit h awaitlist
. Incentiv e amount s coul dbe reduce dwhe n certai n progra msub

goal s ar e me t (e.g. , 50 % o f

progra mgoal , 75 % o f

progra m goal , 90 % o f

progra mgoal)
. Bein g considered : Incentive s wer e file da s arange , an d thu s PEC O ca

n adjus t th e rate s withou t

re-filing
.

PEC O shoul d continu e t o revie w th e progra mmeasur e fis t t o ensur e that

th e lates t

prove n technologie s ar e bein g incente d b y th e program . For example , PEC O has expande dth e prescriptiv e progra mLE D offerings
. Thi s revie w o f

measure s shoul dbe a

n ongoin g process . Implemented : KEM A i s unde r contrac t t o evaluat e ne w technologie s fro mpotentia l suppliers ; leverag e KEMA' s nationa l technolog y grou p t o kee p u s u p t o date
.

PEC O and/o r

th e implementatio n tea mshoul ddevelo p a complete dapplicatio n exampl e fo r both lightin g an d custo mproject s that

ca n be utilize da

s aguid e fo r prospectiv e participant s i n th e program . Bein g Considere d

Source: Nnvigant analysis PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 13 3

## 7.

5 Financial Reportin

g A breakdow n o f

th e progra mfinance s i s presente d i n Tabl e 7-7
. Th e TR C rati o fo r PY 4 (1.38 ) i s lowe r tha n th e TRC ratio s i n PY3 (1.85 ) an dPY 2 (2.08) , bu t

i s highe r

tha n th e TRC rati o fo r PY l (0.78)
. Th e overal l Phas e I TR C rati o fo r th e SE I GN I progra mi s 1.6

0 an dthu s th e SE

I GN I progra mwa s acost-effectiv e offerin g fro mPECO
. Tabl e 7-7
. Summar y o f GN I Progra mFinance s IQ' 9 1 ($5,000 ) PY

4 ($1,000 ) CPIT D ($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 2,87 6 8,043 16,97 4 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 5 7 13 1 22 6 Subtota l ED C Incentiv e Cost s 2,93 4 8,17 4 17,20 0 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration' " 78 8 2,45 6 6,13 9 Management 12 1 6 9 25 5 1,28 3 Marketing 13 1 4 1 10 0 48 8 Technica l Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Implementatio n Cost s 899 2,81 1 7,91 0 ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 27 5 51 2 1,18 4 SW E Audi t Cost s 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs l ' l 4,10 8 11,49 8 26,29 5 Participan t

Costs' 5 ! N/ A 48,822 80,68 8 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 ! N/ A 52,145 89,78 2 Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/ A 64,28 5 128,69 3 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N/ A 7,462 14,942 Tota l TR C Benefits 17 1 N/ A 71,78 0 143,41 2 TR C Ratio' 8 ' N/ A 1.3 8 1.6 0 NOTE S Per PUC directum, TRC

inputs and

calcuiaiians are required in the Annual Report only and should comply with the 201 ITotal Resource Cost Test Order approved \uiy28, 2011, Please sec the "Rifiorl Definitions"

section of

this report

for more details. 11 1 Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system , an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost. |2 | Include s ED

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts , |3 | Include s th

e marketing CS

P an dmarketin g cost

s b y progra mCSPs , 14 ] Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order , th e Tota l ED C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurre dexpense

s only
. 15 ] Pe r ih e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order , th e ne t Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r ih e end-us e custome r o r progra mcosl s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t cosls
. Thes

e include incentive s pai

dt o applianc e recycling an

dDeman dRespons

e participants
. |6 1 Tota l TR C Cost s include LD

C Evaluation Costs , LD

C Implementation Costs , an dParticipan

t Costs
. [7 ] Tota l TR C Henefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tola l Lifetim e Lnerg y Henefit s an dTola l LifetimeCapacit

y Itenefit s plu s an

y benefi t associate d with avoidedincandescen t purchases mad

e du e l o th e longe r usefu l lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a

s compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Hase

dupo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoidedsuppl

y costs , includin g th

e reduction i n cost s o f elec t ri c energy , generation , transmission , an ddislributio n capacity , nn dnalura l ga s valueda t margina l cos t fo r period s whe n ther e is aloa dreduction
. |8 J TR C Rati o equal s Tota

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tota l TR C Costs
. [9 J Pos t PY 4 cost s an dbenefits ar

e includedi n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Navigant

analysis PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 13 4

## 8 Smar

tConstruction Incentives Progra m Th e purpos e o f

th e SC I progra mi s t o greatl y improv e th e energ y efficienc y o f newl y constructe dfacilitie s an dfacilitie s tha t ar e completel y renovate do r reconstructe di n .the PEC O servic e territory
. Th e progra mcover s bot h C& I an dGN I projects. 4 5 Th e SC I progra mprovide s facilit y designer s an dbuilder s wit h training , desig n assistance , an dprescriptiv e an dcusto m incentive s l o incorporat e energy-efficien t system s an dconstructio n practice s i n facilitie s tha t surpas s th e requirement s o f stat e an dloca l energ y codes 4 6 o r meet th e requirement s se

t fort h i n applicatio n material. 4 7 

## 8. 1 Progra m Update s Thi s progra mlaunche di n Februar y 2011 , durin g th e secon dhal f o f PY2
. Fou r

project s were complete di n PY2
. I n PY3 PEC O pai dincentive s fo r 65 projects
. PY

4 sa w th e program' s larges t participatio n ye t

wit h 10 1 pai dprojects
. Progra mactivitie s throug h PY 4 include dsom

e marketin g an dtrainin g offering s i n conjunctio n wit h th e SE I program . PEC O ha dplanne dt o launc h additiona l recruitin g an dtrainin g activitie s t o attrac t marke t actor s suc h a

s developers , engineers , an darchitects ; however , thes e recruitmen t event s wer e postpone ddu e t o th e establishmen t

o f th e progra mwaitlis t

startin g Octobe r

1 , 201 1 fo r

th e remainde r

o f PY 3 an d PY4
. Th e progra mals o provide s technica l assistance , technica l review , an dincentiv e processin g fo r participants
. 

## 8. 2 Impac tEvaluatio

n Gros s Saving s Th e impac t

evaluatio n consiste do f acombinatio n o f

des k revie w an don-sit e inspection s fo r a sampl e o f

projects
. Althoug h th e progra mi s small , i t encompasse s an extensiv e rang e o f measure s an dha s man y comple x whole-buildin g an dcusto mprojects
. Prescriptiv e project s rang e fro mlightin g improvement s abov e cod e lightin g powe r densit y allowance s t o HVAC , variabl e frequenc y drive , an drefrigeratio n measures . Whole-buildin g project s clai mmodele d saving s fo r

al l buildin g system s (wit h th e exceptio n o f proces s equipment ) fro macode referenc e building
. Th e progra mals o offer s custo mincentive s fo r ne w constructio n measure s

^ CN I project

s ar e pai dan dclaime dthrough th

e Sli l GNI progra

mbu t implemente

dthrough th

e SC I program . ASHRAI i Standar d90.1-200

7 applies , i n general , an

di s th e baselin e fo r saving s comparisons
.
1 7 l-o r lightin g project

s th e installedlightin g powe

r densit y mus t b e lowe r tha n cod e lightin g powe

r densit y limit s b y a t leas t 10%
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 13 5no t

covere db y th e Pennsylvani aTRM
. Navigan t use dthre e mai n approache s fo r evaluatin g sample dprojects :

• Des k Review
. Navigan t

use dthi s approac h fo r al l project s i n th e "low " saving s stratu m (project s smalle r

tha n 20 0 MWh ) an dal l project s i n th e "whol e building-low " stratu m (whol e buildin g project s smalle r tha n 75 0 MWh)
.

• Whole-Buildin g Verificatio n an dModeling
. Navigan t conducte dverification-onl y site visit s fo r al l larg e whol e buildin g project s (more tha n 75 0 gros s reporte dMWh)
. Subsequent

analysi s include dcomparin g mode l input s t o parameter s verifie don-site an dmakin g adjustment s to modele dsaving s i f needed
. The teamals o compare dmode l output s t o actua l historica l billin g dat awhe n a t leas t on e yea r o f electri c billin g dat awa s available
. Thi s ensure dtha t th e modele dresult s wer e reasonabl y representativ e o f actua l consumptio n i n th e efficien t case .

• Prescriptiv e an dNon-whol e Buildin g Custo mM&V
. Navigan t conducte don-sit e verificatio n a

t several non-whol e buildin g site s i n th e "medium " stratu m(200-75 0 MW h o f gros s reporte dsavings)
. Navigan t verifie dth e typ e an dquantit y o f measure s installe d a t thes e sites
. Wher e possible , Navigan t als o collecte dtren ddat aand/o r metere ddata
. For al l projects , Navigan t

pai dclos e attentio n t o baselin e choices , whic h ar e no t alway s obviou s fo r ne w constructio n measures . Tabl e 8- 1 present s th e reporte dsavings , participation , an dincentive s b y quarte r fo r th e SC I program . Not e tha t

tli e GN I project s i n tli e SC I progra mare processe d i n th e SE I GN I progra m an dar e no t reflecte di n th e Tabl e 8- 1 an dTabl e 8- 2 totals
.

PEC

O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 13 6Tabl e 8-1
. PY 4 SC I Reporte dResult s b y Quarte r

Reportin g Perio d Participant s Reporte dGros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) PY 4 Q l 2 76 8 0. 7 0.1 5 8 6 PY 4 Q 2 4 81 8 0 0.1 5 13 1 PY 4 Q 3 1 1 5 0 0.0 0 1 PY4Q 4 5 0 6,72 1 0 1.2 0 87 7 PY 4 Tota l 5 7 8,323 0. 7 1.50 1,09 5 CPIT D Tota l 103 13,55 4 0. 7 2.3 8 2,01 1 Source: Nnvignnl

mmlysis Tabl e 8-2 : PY 4 SC I Reporte d Result s b y Secto r

Secto r Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) TopiO O

Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) Residentia l 0 0 0 0 0 Low-Incom e 0 0 0 0 0 Commercia l an d Industria l 5 7 8,32 3 0. 7 1.5 1,09 5 Governmen l an d Nonprofi t 0 0 0 0 0 PY 4 Tota l 5 7 832 3 0. 7 1.5 1,095 CPIT D Tota l 10 3 1355 4 0. 7 2. 4 2,01 1 Source: Nnvigant

nmh/sis Du e t o the smal l siz e o f th e progra mrelativ e t o PECO' s portfolio , Navigan t combine dth e C& I an dGN I project s int o asingl e sampl e fram e fo r th e impac t

evaluation
. Thi s resulte di n atota l o f 10 1 project s i n th e sampl e frame
. Navigan t use d astratifie dsampl e desig n base d o n projec t siz e (gros s reporte dkWh ) an dprojec t type : i n additio n to thre e strat afo r non-whol e buildin g projects , Navigan t

create d tw o strat afo r whol e buildin g (WB ) project s only
. Th e sampl e wa s conservativel y designe dt o meet 8 5 percen t

confidenc e an d1 0 percen t precisio n a

t th e progra m level
. Navigan t

wa s abl e t o achiev e th e impac t targe t sampl e size s fo r

al l strat aa

s show n i n Tabl e 8-3
. Tabl e 8- 3 als o show s th e samplin g strategie s fo r tw o component s o f

th e proces s evaluatio n (trad e all y interview s an dparticipan t surveys)
. PEC

O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 13 7

### Navigan t

conducte dsit

e visit s fo r

a] ] sampled"high " an

d"medium " strat

aproject s wit h th

e exception of

on e mediumstratu mprojec t wher e th e participant

di dno t respon dt o request s fo r asit e visit
. Fo

r whole-buildin g projects , whic h encompasse d awid e variet

y of measures , th

e visit s serve

dt o verif y a t least asampl e of th e installation s fo r

eac h measure . Navigan

t metered on e larg e projec t

but wa s unable t o gathe r tren ddat afo r an y projects
. Navigan

t conductedafil e revie w of th e e x ant e calculation s fo r

al l project s i n th

e "low " stratum . Tabl e 8-3 . SC I Sampling Strateg

y for PY 4

Stratu m

Hig h Strat a

Boundarie s

>75 0 MW h Populatio n Siz e

2 Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n 0. 5 Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n
85/1 5 Targe t

Sampl e Siz e

2 Achieve d Sampl e Siz e

2 Evaluatio n

Activit y

Gros s Impac t Evaluation : Sit

e Visit s (High , Medium , Whol e Buildin g Hig h strata ) an dDesk Review s (all ) Mediu m 20

0 - 75 0 MW h 1 0 0. 5 85/1 5 5 5 * Evaluatio n Activit y

Gros s Impac t Evaluation : Sit

e Visit s (High , Medium , Whol e Buildin g Hig h strata ) an dDesk Review s (all ) Lo w <200 MW h 7 3 0. 5 85/1 5 7 7 Evaluatio n Activit y

Gros s Impac t Evaluation : Sit

e Visit s (High , Medium , Whol e Buildin g Hig h strata ) an dDesk Review s (all ) Whol e Buildin g Hig h >75 0 MW h 2 0. 5 85/1 5 2 2 Evaluatio n Activit y

Gros s Impac t Evaluation : Sit

e Visit s (High , Medium , Whol e Buildin g Hig h strata ) an dDesk Review s (all ) Whol e Buildin g Lo w <75 0 MW h 1 4 0. 5 85/1 5 6 6 Evaluatio n Activit y

Gros s Impac t Evaluation : Sit

e Visit s (High , Medium , Whol e Buildin g Hig h strata ) an dDesk Review s (all )
Activit y Subtota l 10 1 85/1 5 2 2 2

2
Trad e Allie s N/ A 1 8 N/ A N/ A 8 4 Trad e All y In

dept h Interview s Activit y Subtota l 1 8 N/ A 8 4 Hig h >75 0 MW h 4 0. 5 85/1 5 4 2 Participan t Survey s (confidenc e an d precisio n target s fo r NT G results ) Mediu m 20

0 - 75 0 MW h 2

4 0. 5 85/1 5 1 1 6 Participan t Survey s (confidenc e an d precisio n target s fo r NT G results ) Lo w <20

0 MW h 7 3 0. 5 85/1 5 7 8 Participan t Survey s (confidenc e an d precisio n target s fo r NT G results ) Activit y Subtotal 10 1 85/1 5 2 2 1 6 Progra mTota l 22 0 85/1 5 5 2 4 2
* On e site i n thi s stratu mcoul dno t be reache d fo r

a n on-sit e visit , an dresult s represen t ades k revie w instead
. Source: Navigant

analysis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 13 8Tabl e 8-

4 an dTabl e 8-

5 presen t

th e result s o f

th e SC I progra mfo r

bot h energ y an ddeman dfo r C& I project s only
. Again , saving s fro mne w constructio n project s i n th e GN I sector ar e reporte d wit h saving s fro mth e SE I GN I program . Th e progra machieve dgros s realizatio n rate s o f 1.0 2 fo r energ y an d1.2

0 fo r deman dfo r

thes e projects
. Tabl e 8-4
. PY

4 SC I Summar y o f

Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y

Stratu m

Mediu m Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 2,77 2 Energ y

Realizatio n Rat e
1.0 5 Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportio n 0.23 Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e 23.5 % Verifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 2,89 8 Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 0 Lo w 2,17 5 0.9 1 0.0 5 23 % 1,96 8 0 Whol e Buildin g Hig h 1,685 1.1 5 0.0 0 0 % 1,93 6 0 Whol e Buildin g Lo w 1,69 1 1.0 0 0.0

2 0.0 % 1,69 1 0 Progra mTota l 8,323 1.0 2 N/ A 5.6 % 8,49 4 0 Source: Nnvigant anah/sis Tabl e 8-5 . PY 4 SC I Summary o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d

Stratu m Reporte d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n ( G ) o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n a t 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Mediu m 0.6 7 0.8 6 0.3 2 1.9 % 0.5

7 0 Lo w 0.6 1 0.9 1 0.1 8 4.6 % 0.5 6 • 0 Whol e Buildin g Hig h 0.0 0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0% 0.4 4 0 Whol e Buildin g Lo w 0.2 1 1.0 6 0.3 9 21.7 % 0.23 0 Progra mTota l 1.5 0 1.2 0 N/ A 1.5 % 1.8 0 0 Source: Navigant

anah/sis 

## 8. 3 Impac tEvaluation Ne

tSaving s Navigan t

use d aself-repor t

approac h to determin e th e NT G rati o fo r thi s program . I n ne w constructio n projects , desig n firm s ar e ofte n ke y decisio n maker s fo r project s an dca

n provid e insigh t int o projec t

decisio n making
. Becaus e o f thi s an dth e fac t

tha t som e project s onl y liste d trade-all y contac t

information , Navigan t relie do n bot h participan t survey s an dtrad e all y interview s t o infor mth e NT G calculation
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 13 9I n total , Navigan t collecte dattributio n dat afro mone trad e all y representin g 1 projec t an d1 4 participant s representin g 1 6 projects
. Thus , th e evaluatio n collecte dNT G input s fo r atota l o f

1 7 o f th e program' s 10 1 PY

4 projects
. For each participant , th e surve y focuse do n asingl e project
. Fo r participant s wit h multipl e projects , Navigan t

aske d abou t

th e projec t

wit h th e greates t

savings
. Tir e attributio n question s firs t aske d abou t

th e larges t

measure installe d(as quantifie db y gros s reporte dkWh)
. A t th e en d o f th e battery , participant s wer e aske d i f th e decision-makin g proces s wa s differen t fo r th e othe r measure s installed /

i f any . I f participant s indicate dtha t thei r decision-makin g proces s wa s differen t fo r an y o f th e remainin g measures , th e interviewe r repeate d th e ke y attributio n questions
. Navigan t

calculate dth e NT G rati o fo r th e progra mas : NT G = l-F R+ S O wher e F R- Free ridershi p an dS O ~ spillover
. Th e surve y respondent s di dno t indicat e an y spillove r an dthi s facto r

wa s se t t o zero . Th e free-ridershi p batter y aske d question s designe dt o infor mthre e progra mscores , describe d i n Tabl e 8-6
. Tabl e 8-6. Components o f Free-Ridershi p Score Componen t Descriptio n Scorin g Numbe r o f Question s Influenc e Ratin g influenc e o f progra mo n decisio n 0-1 0 1 Progra m Component s Influenc e o f progra m component s o n decisio n 0-10 1 Quantit y an d Efficienc y Likelihoo dsam e quantit y an d efficienc y leve l o f

measure s installe d 0-10 0-100% 4
Source; Nnvignnt

nmh/sis For nationa l retaile r

participant s (chai n stores) , wher e decisio n makin g ofte n occur s a t a nationa l scale , th e interviewe r aske d abou t

bot h th e direc t

influenc e o f

th e PEC O progra ma

s wel l as PECO' s indirec t influenc e as on e o f

man y utilit y rebat

e program s offere dacros s th e country . Thi s i s reflecte di n th e Influenc e score s fo r thes e participants
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 14 0Fo r

PY4 , Navigan t

als o adde dquestion s fo r participant s wh o submitte dLeadershi p i n Energ y an dEnvironmenta l Desig n (LEED ) project s t o determin e whethe r th e progra mwa s abl e t o hel p participant s achiev e thei r LEE D goals
. Whil e thes e participant s ma y no t hav e give n hig h influenc e score s t o th e progra mdirectl y du e t o thei r preexistin g LEE D goals , th e progra mmay hav e enhance d thei r

abilit y t o mee

t thos e goals
. Navigan t deducte d5 percen t

fro mth e free

ridershi p scor

e (increasin g th e NT G score ) fo r apositiv e answer

t o each o f

th e followin g questions :

• Wa s th e progra mimportan t i n helpin g t o refin e an existin g energ y model ?
• Wa s th e program' s staf f o r technica l assistanc e importan t i n highlightin g way s t o achiev e LEE D desig n plans ?
• Were progra mincentive s o r technica l assistanc e importan t i n improvin g energ y efficienc y level s t o meet ahighe r leve l o f LEED ? Navigan t

normalize deach scor

e t o apercentag e scale an dcalculate dfre e ridershi p a s follows : F R-1/ 3 * ((1-Influence ) + (1-ProgramComponents ) + (Quantit y an dEfficiency) ) Navigan t

foun dan NT G valu e o f 0.4 4 fo r bot h energ y an ddeman dsavings
. Whil e thi s valu e improve dfro m0.3 9 i n PY3 , i t remain s low
. Severa

l proces s recommendation s fo r PY3 an dPY

4 ar e designe dt o improv e thi s result
. 

## 8. 4 Proces s Evaluation Navigan t

use dseveral dat acollectio n activitie s t o infor mth e proces s evaluation
. In-dept h qualitativ e interview s wit h progra mmanager s an dimplementatio n contractor s an drevie w o f relevan t program-trackin g databases , documents , an dothe r material s wer e centra l t o thi s portio n o f

th e evaluation
. Navigan t use d aCAT I surve y t o intervie w participatin g customer s t o bette r understan dcustome r

satisfactio n an d perception s relate dt o th e program . Th e dat afro m thi s surve y als o supporte dth e NT G analysis
. Finally , th e Navigan t tea mconducte dseveral interview s wit h progra mtrad e allie s t o identify outreac h effectivenes s an dbarrier s t o participation
. Navigan t

analyze dproces s dat at o triangulat e betwee n thes e dat asource s t o identify th e mos t defensibl e conclusion s an d recommendation s i n relatio n t o ke y proces s question s i n th e followin g areas :

• Marketin g an dParticipatio n
• Progra mCharacteristic s an dBarrier s
• Administratio n an dDeliver y PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 14 1Throug h th e in-dept h interview s wit h progra mstaff , Navigan t confirme dtha t

th e implementatio n strateg y fo r PY 4 wa s nearl y identica l t o tha t o f PY3
. Severa

l PY 3 recommendation s hav e been take n int o accoun t fo r th e Phas e I I progra mdesign , bu t coul dno t b e implemente di n tim e fo r PY4
. Fo r thi s reason , man y PY3 finding s an drecommendation s are als o applicabl e t o th e PY 4 evaluation
. I n additio n t o th e finding s fro mPY3 , Navigan t mad e the followin g observation s throug h th e proces s evaluatio n activitie s i n eac h o f th e thre e researc h areas . Marketin g an d Participatio n
• Th e percentag e o f

respondent s wh o hear dabou t th e progra mbefor e beginnin g thei r project s increase d fro mPY3 t o PY4 , indicatin g tha t th e progra mmay be beginnin g t o reac h participant s earlie r i n th e desig n phase
. • Althoug h th e progra mi s effectivel y reachin g participant s throug h emai l an daccoun t managers , respondent s di dno t identif y trad e allie s o r

contractor s as ke y source s o f progra minformation
. Thi s indicate s tha t desig n firms , wh o are ofte n th e primar y "trad e allies " fo r

ne w constructio n firms , ma y no t b e brandin g themselve s as progra mallie s yet . Thi s reflect s th e fac t tha t th e SC I progra mha s no t ye t been abl e t o direc t

outreac h t o thi s group ; PEC O i s alread y makin g progres s o n increasin g thi s outreac h i n PY5
. Progra m Characteristic s an d Barrier s
• Participant s showe dhig h satisfactio n wit h th e program , an dwer e especiall y satisfie d wit h thei r

interactio n wit h progra mstaf f (averag e scor

e o f 9.3 1 ou t o f 10)
. • Participant s identifie dlac k o f awarenes s as th e larges t barrie r t o progra mparticipatio n fo r othe r firms
. Thi s agai n reflect s th e fac t tha t PEC O ha s no t

been abl e t o promot e th e progra mdu e t o th e waitlis t statu s tha t

wa s i n plac e fo r

mos t o f PY4
. Progra m Administratio n an d Deliver y
• Trad e allie s suggeste d streamlinin g th e applicatio n proces s b y usin g a n onlin e application
. PEC O i s i n th e proces s o f implementin g ane w onlin e applicatio n fo r PY5
. • Trad e allie s als o suggeste d creatin g differentiatio n betwee n trad e allie s b y implementin g mor e stringen t

guideline s fo r

becomin g atrad e ally , o r b y encouragin g customer s t o wor k wit h mor e activ e allies
. Tabl e 8-7 show s Navigant' s proces s recommendation s fo r PY4
. PEC O i s considerin g o r implementin g al l recommendations
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 14 2Tabl e 8-7 . Statu s Reportfo r SC I Proces s Evaluation s

Proces s Recommendation s ED C Statu s Repor t fo r Proces s Evaluation s (Implemented , Bein g Considered , Rejecte d AN D Explanatio n o f

Actio n Take n b y EDC ) Tr y t o reach participant s earlie r i n the desig n phase
. Implementatio n i n Progres s Increas e advertisemen t

o f technical assistanc e t o hel p participant s incorporat e more measures . Bein g Considere d

Prioritiz e shif

t t o onlin e application s i f implementatio n o f

thi s too l has no t ye t bee n completed
. Implementatio n i n Progres s

Promote th e SCI progra mmore aggressively , especiall y th e whol e • buildin g track
. Implementatio n i s agoal fo r Phas e II
.
Conside r promotin g highl y activ e trad e allie s throug h th e progra m website
. Bein g Considere d
Source: Nnvignnt

nnnl\/sis
8. 5 Financia l Reportin g Th e SC I progra machieve dTR C result s o f

1.96 fo r C& I projects , 2.07 fo r

GN I projects , an d2.0 3 overall
. Thes e result s sho w tha t th e progra mremain s cos t effectiv e an dca

n affor dt o inves t

i n th e proces s recommendation s abov e o f increasin g outreach , technica l assistance , an d educationa l offerings
. A breakdow n o f th e progra mfinances , fo r C& I project s only , i s presente d i n Tabl e 8-8
. SCI GN I project s ar e include di n th e SE

I GN I progra mfinances
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 14 3

### Tabl e 8-8 . Summar

y o f SC I Progra

m Finance

s IQ' 9 ' ($1,000 ) PY 4

i($l;000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 77 0 96 2 1,57 5 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 10 7 13 2 25 1 Subtotal ED C Incentiv e Cost s 87 7 1,09 5 1,827 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration 11 1 15 8 30 0 70 1 Management 12 1 1 3 4 7 16 0 Marketing 13 1 0 1 1 6 5 Technica l Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtotal ED C Implementatio n Cost s 17 0 35 7 92 5
ED C Evaluatio n Costs 1 3 2 2 8 5 SW E Audi tCost s 0 0 Tota l ED C Costsl* ) 1,06 0 1,47 4 2,83 7 Participan tCosts' 5 ' N / A 4,29 1 6,76 2 Tota l TR C Costs " N/ A 4,67 0 7,77 2
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N / A 7,63 2 12,11 5 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N / A 1,53 3 2,67 6 Tota l TR C Benefits 17 1 N/ A 9,16 5 14,79 1 TR C Ratio' 8 1 N/ A 1.9 6 1.9 0 

### NOTE S Per PUC Uircclion, TRC

inputs ami calculalioiis are required in the Annual

Report only and should

comply with the 201 ITotal Resource Cast Test Order approved luly 28, 2011, Please see the "Report Dcftuiliotts"

section of

this report

far nwrc delails. 1 1 j Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system , an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost. |2 J Include s LL>

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . [3 ] Include s th

e marketing CS

P an dmarketing cost

s h y progra mCSPs
. [4] Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order , th e Tota l ED C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurredexpense

s only
. [5 ] Pe r th e 201 1 "Tota

l Resourc e Cos l Tes

t Order , th e ne t Participan

t Cosl s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us e custome r or progra mcosl s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t cosls
. Thes

e include incentive s paidt o applianc e recycling an

dDeman dRespons

e participants
. [6 1 Tota l TR C Cost s include s LD

C Evaluation Costs , ED

C Implementation Costs , an dParticipan

t Costs
. |7 j Tota l TR C Henefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tota l Lifetime Lnerg

y Henefit s an dTola l LifetimeCapacit

y Henefit s plu s an y benefit associate d wit h avoidedincandescen

t purchases mad

e due t o th e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a

s compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Hase

dupo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoidedsuppl

y costs , includin g th

e reduction i n cost s o f electri c energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s value da t margina l cos t fo r period s whe n ther e i s aloa dreduction
. [S J TR C Rati o equal s Tola

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tota l TR C Costs
. 19 1 Pos l PY 4 cost s an dbenefits ar

e include di n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Navigant

analysis
PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 14 4

## 9 Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n Progra m

Th e Conservation Voltag e Reductio n (CVR ) progra machieve s loa dreduction s throug h change s i n voltag e regulatio n parameters , a t th e substation/transforme r level.
. Thi s chang e involves , a physica l adjustment

i n transforme r

setting s governin g voltag e a t th e substation
. B y adjustin g substatio n voltage , th e progra mimpact s hourl y energ y flow s an dcapacity , includin g deman d coinciden t

wit h th e syste mpea

k period(s) , include dwithi n the to p 10 0 (pea k demand ) hour s o n th e syste mloa dduratio n curve . Change s t o voltag e setting s a t substation/feede r

location s wer e complete ddurin g afour-mont h perio dfro mFebruary throug h Ma y 201 0 i n PECO' s CV R program . 

## 9. 1 Progra

mUpdate s Th e CV Rprogra mwa s full y implemente db y th e en do f PY2
. There wa s n o incrementa l progra mactivit y i n PY4 , s o ther e ar e n o energ y o r

deman dsaving s attribute dt o th e progra mi n PY4
. 

## 9. 2 Impac t

Evaluatio n Gros s Saving s Tabl e 9- 1 present s cumulativ e saving s fro mth e CV Rprogra mactivit y i n PY2
. Not e tha t a s thi s progra mi s implemente da t PECO' s substations , non e o f PECO' s customer s activel y participat e directl y i n th e program , bu t al l ratepayer s ar

e it s beneficiaries
. Tabl e 9-1
. CPIT D Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n Progra mReporte dResult s b y Secto r Reporte d Reporte dGros s Cros s Energ y Deman d Saving s Reductio n Incentive s Secto r Participant s (MWh/yr ) (MW ) ($1,000 ) Residentia l 0 105,72 3 0 0 Low-Incom e 0 25,63 0 0 0 Commercia l an dIndustria l 0 150,57 5 0 0 Governmen t

an dNon-Profi t 0 38,44 5 0 0 CPIT D Tota l 0 320,37 2 89. 3 0 Source: Nnvignnt

nnnh/sis 

## 9. 3 Impac t

Evaluatio n Net

Saving s A s ther e i s n o opportunit y fo r PEC O customer s t o undertak e th e distributio n syste m modification s implemente dfo r thi s program , an dPEC O implemente dth e progra mi n direc t
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 14 5respons e t o Ac t 129 , ther e i s n o opportunit y fo r fre e rider s o r

spillover
. Therefore , th e NT G rati o fo r thi s progra mi s 1.0
. 

## 9. 4 Financia

l Reportin

g A breakdow n o f

th e progra mfinance s i s presente d i n Tabl e 9-2
. A s ther e wa s n o incrementa l activit y i n th e progra mi n PY4 , ther e ar e n o incrementa l lifetim e benefits
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 14 6Tabl e 9-2. Summar y o f Conservatio n Voltag e Reductio n Progra m Finance s IQI9 ! ($1,000 ) PY 4 ($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 0 0 0 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Incentiv e Cost s 0 0 0 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Adminislralion 11 1 0 23 9 1,95 0 Management' 2 1 5 -2 0 13 9 Marketing 13 1 0 0 0 Technica l Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Implementatio n Cost s 5 21 9 2,08 9 ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 4 7 9 1 23 1 SW E Audi t Cost s 0 0 Tota l ED C Costsl 4 ' 5 2 31 0 2,32 0 Participan t

Costs' 5 ' N / A 0 0 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 1 N/ A 31 0 2,32 0 Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N / A 0 335,97 0 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N / A 0 63,41 4 Tota l TR C Benefits' 7 ' N/ A 0 399,38 4 TR C Ratio" 1 ' N/ A 0.0 0 172.1 2 NOTE S Per PUC tiirecikm, TRC

inputs and

calculations are required in the Annual

Rqiort only and should comply wilh the 20! ITotal Resource Cosl Test Order approved luly 28, 2011. Please see the "Report Definitions" section of

this report

for more details. j 1 j Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system, an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost. |2 j Include s HO

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . 13 ] Include s th

e marketin g CS

P an dmarketing cosl s b

y progra mCSPs
. 14 ) Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order , th e Tola l V.O C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurredexpense

s only
. |5 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order, th e ne t Parlicipan

t Cost s ar e ih e cost s fo r th e end-us e custome r o r progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

parlicipan l cosls
. Thes

e include incentive s pai dt o applianc e recycling an

dDeman dRespons

e participants
. |6 | Tola l TR C Cost s include s LD

C Lvaluatio n Cosls , LD

C Implementation Costs , an dParticipan

t Costs
. |7 | Tola l TR C Itenefit s equal s Ih

e su mo f Tola l Litetim e Lnerg y Menefit s an dTota l Lifetim e Capacit y Henefit s plu s an y benefi t associate d wit h avoidedincandescen

t purchases mad

e due t o th e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a s compare dt o Ih e baselin e measure . Hase

d upo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoide

dsupply costs , includin g th e reduction i n cosl s o f

electric energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacily , an dnatura l ga s value da t margina l cos t fo r period s whe n Iher e i s aloa dreduction
. |8 | TR C Rati o equal s Tola

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tola l TR C Cosls
. |9 1 Pos l PY 4 cost s an dbenefit s ar

e includedi n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Navigant anah/sis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 14 7

## 1

0 Residentia

l Smar tA/ C Saver Progra

m Th e Smar t A/ C Save r Progra mi s adirec t

loa d contro l progra

mfo r residentia

l customers base

d o n th e installatio n of

digita l cyclin g unit s (DCUs ) o n qualifie dcentra l air conditioners
. Participant s ar

e incente d a

t th e rat e of $120/yea r ($30 pe r fou r summe r month s pe

r installe d device)
. Durin g pea

k summe r hours , contro l signal s ca n b e sen t t o reduce air-conditionin g loa d b y cyclin g (i.e. , cuttin g powe r to ) th e compresso

r 5 0 percen t o f th e tim e fo r th e duratio n o

f th e event . Th e progra mwa s designed t

o provid e deman

dresponse durin g PECO' s To p 10 0 Hour s o f syste mpea k loads
. DCUs hav

e bee n installe di n participan t homes , and 1 5 conservation events wer

e calle di n PY4
. 10. 1 Progra m Update s Th e Residentia

l A/C Save

r Progra mlos t atota l of 1,67 5 participant s i n PY4, bringin g tota l participatio n to 76,97 6 participant s b y PY 4 yea r end
. PY 4 wa s the secon

d yea r th e Smar t A/ C Save r Progra mcalle d system-wid

e events , wit h atota

l of 1 4 system-wid

e event s and on e M& V group onl y even

t being calle d by th

e en d of th e progra myear . Th

e residentia

l M& V group i s a statistically vali dsampl

e of residentia

l site s tha t hav e loggin g equipmen

t installe d t

o captur e 5

- minute loa

d profil e dat

ause d to calculat

e th e loa d impac t estimat e fo r th e entir e enrolle d population
. 

## 10. 2 Impac tEvaluatio

n Gros s Saving s Navigant applie d adeeme

d saving s valu e t

o determine residentia

l Smar t A/ C Save

r progra m impact s durin g even

t hours
. PJ

M Manua

l 19 , Attachmen

t B 4 8 

### provide s tha

t curtailment

service provider s wit h direc t

load contro l program s whic h emplo y aradi o signa l ma y elec t t o eithe r submi t aloa d researc h stud y supportin g bas

e per-participant

impact s fo r

their program , o

r utiliz e th e bas e per-participant

impact s containe d i n th

e Deeme d Saving s Estimate s fo r Legac y Ai r Conditionin

g an dWate r Heatin g Direc t Loa d Contro l Program s i n PJ M Regio n report . Th

e deeme d saving s value was base

d o n th e result s i n Tabl

e 1 3 o f thi s report , prepare d by RL W Analytic s fo r Lawrence Berkele

y National Laborator

y (LBNL) i n Apri l 2007. 4 9 

### Table 1 3 specifie s tw o set s of

wPJM , Manua l 19 : Loa dPorecastin

g an d Analysis , Attachmen

t H : Direc t Loa d Contro l Loa

d Researc h Guidelines , Revisio

n 23 , Lffecliv e Date : 6/1/2013
. * I n aguidance mem

o date d8/22/2012

, theSW L confirme dtha

t PennsylvaniaEDC

s coul dus e th e appropriat

e value s fro mTabl

e 1 3 a s verified , deeme

dsaving s fo r

DL C programs fo r

PY4
. 

### PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 14 8savings , on e fo r aconnecte ddeman dtinde r 3. 5 kW an don e fo r

aconnecte ddeman dove r 3. 5 

### kW
. Sinc e connecte ddeman di s no t recorde di n th e program-trackin g database , Navigan t conducte d researc h t o determin e th e distributio n o f connecte ddeman damongs t residentia l ai r conditioners
. T o d o so , Navigan t pulle dastratifie drando msampl e o f participant s an d researche d th e connecte ddeman dbase d o n th e uni t make an dmode l information
. Thi s researc h indicate dthat

an estimate d5 2 percen t o f th e progra munit s hav e aconnecte dloa dles s tha n 3. 5 kW
. For PY4 , PECO' s bas e saving s valu e wa s fo r aweighte dtemperature-humidit y inde x (WTHI ) o f

83. 2 an dtli e hou r

fro m4- 5 p.m. , as specifie db y PJM
. Th e deeme dsaving s value s correspondin g t o thes e condition s ar e 0.6 6 kW fo r

unit s wit h aconnecte dloa d< 3. 5 kW an d1.1 5 kW fo r unit s wit h connecte dloa d>= 3. 5 kW
. Th e weighte ddeeme dsaving s valu e fo r th e PEC O residentia l progra mi s 0.90 kW/unit
. Progra mimpact s fo r

each hou r

wer e calculate das th e produc t o f th e weighte ddeeme dsaving s value , switc h operabilit y rat e (0.97), 5 0line-los s facto r (1.1916) , an dth e numbe r o f unit s cycle d (rangin g fro m91,82 3 t o 92,71 5 ove r th e cours e o f

th e summe r

o f 2012)
. T o maintai n consistenc y wit h th e evaluatio n methodolog y applie dt o th e DR A an dDE R programs , Navigan t

researche d progra mimpact s i n th e hou r prio r t o an dth e tw o hour s followin g th e calle deven t period
. Navigan t

use dhourl y interva l dat afo r asampl e o f

10 0 M& V participatin g site s t o quantify progra mimpacts
. Navigan t followe dth e protocol s specifie di n section s 3.3A.2 , 3.3A.2.01 , an d3.3A. 3 o f th e Amende

dandRestate

dOperatin g Agreemen

t o f PJ M Interconnection , L.L.C. , date dMa y 8 , 2012 , t o calculat e th e progra mimpact s durin g thes e hours
. Navigan t

the n estimate daregressio n mode l t o predic t ho w th e impact s i n th e hou r befor e an d tw o hour s followin g an even t var y wit h th e even t

lengt h an dth e maximu mWTH I durin g th e even t period
. Non e o f th e regressio n coefficient s ar e statisticall y significan t a t th e 9 0 percen t

confidenc e level
. A visua l inspectio n o f

th e event-day loa dcurve s an dbaseline s indicate dtha t participant s di d no t pre-coo l an dsnapbac k generall y di dno t

occur afte r th e events . Th e regressio n indicate s n o statistica l evidenc e tha t th e callin g o f

event s affecte dth e custome r loa di n th e on e hou r

befor e an dtw o hour s followin g a n event . Nevertheless , Navigan t applie dth e result s o f

th e regressio n analysi s t o th e extende deven t hour s t o maintai n consistenc y wit h th e DR A an dDE R

s nResidentia

l switc h operabilit

y ral e stud y wa s complete

db y Comverg

e in PY3
. PEC

O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 14 9evaluations , pe r th e SWE' s recommendation
. Th e regressio n indicate dtha t th e averag e loa d reductio n i n th e hou r

befor e th e even t

perio dwa s 0.0 3 kW/unit , 0.3 7 kW/uni t i n th e firs t

hou r followin g th e even t

period , an d0.2

4 kW/uni t

i n th e secon dhou r

followin g th e even t

period
. Tabl e 10- 1 show s reporte dresult s b y quarte r an dTabl e 10- 2 show s reporte dresult s b y sector . Tabl e 10-1 . PY 4 Residentia l SmartA/ C Save r Progra m Reporte d Result s b y Quarte r

Reportin g Perio d Participant s Reporte dGros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) PY 4 Q l 112 6 0 51. 3 51. 3 $5,55 5

PY 4 Q 2 -802 0 0 0 $5,60 1

PY 4 Q 3 -90 2 0 0 0 $ 0
PY4Q 4 -109 7 0 0 0 $ 0

PY 4 Tota l -167 5 0 51. 3 51. 3 $11,15 7

CPIT D Tota l 7697 6 0 51. 3 51. 3 $19,78 4 Source: Nnvigant

anah/sis

PEC O Energ y Compan y J Pag e 15 0Tabl e 10-2. PY 4 Residentia l SmartA/ C Save r Progra m Reporte d Result s b y Secto r To p 10 0 Hour s Tota l Reporte d Reporte d Reporte d Cros s Gros s Gros s Energy Deman d Deman d Saving s Reductio n Reductio n Incentive s Secto r Participants (MWh ) (MW ) (MW ) ($1,000 ) 76,97 6 0 51. 3 51. 3 $11,15 7 Residential 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Low-Incom e Commercia l an d 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Industria l Governmen t

an d 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Nonprofi t 76,97 6 0 51. 3 51.

3 $19,78

4 PY 4 Tota l 76,97 6 0 51. 3 51.

3 $11,15

7 CPIT D Tota l Source: Nnoigmit

nnaiysis Tli e samplin g strategie s utilize db y th e Navigan t teamfo r

PY 4 impac t an dproces s analysi s activitie s ca

n b e see n i n Tabl e 10-3
. Tabl e 10-3 . Residentia l SmartA/ C Save r Progra m Samplin g Strateg

y fo r PY 4

Stratum

Strahi m 1 Strat a Boundarie s

< 3 ton s Populatio n

Siz e

17,09 5 Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n 0 Targe t

Level s of Confidenc e & Precisio n
90/1 0 Targe t

Sampl e Siz e

1 9 Achieve d Sampl e Siz e

1 9 Evaluatio n

Activit y

Impact : Deeme d Saving s Sampl e Stratu m 2 = 3 ton s 46,30 5 1 90/1 0 4 4 4

4 Evaluatio n

Activit y

Impact : Deeme d Saving s Sampl e Strahi m3 > 3 ton s 26,54 1 0 90/1 0 2 2 2

2 Evaluatio n

Activit y

Impact : Deeme d Saving s Sampl e Activity Subtota l 89,94 1 90/1 0 8 5 8

5 M& V Sampl e N/ A 91,64 4 1 90/1 0 10 0 10

0 Impact : Extende d Event Analysi s Activit y Subtota l 91,64 4 90/1 0 10 0 10

0 Residentia l N/ A 92,53 0 0. 5 90/1 0 7 0 7

4 Process : Post Event Surve y # 1 Residentia l N/ A 91,64 4 0.

5 90/1 0 7 0 7

6 Process : Pos t Event Surve y #

2 Residentia l N/ A 90,63 0 0.8 5 90/1 0 20 0 20

0 Process : Willingnes s t o PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 15 1Stratu m Strat a Boundarie s Populatio n

Siz e Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activit y

accept Surve y
Residentia l N/ A 8805 3 0. 5 90/1 0 7 0 7 1 Process : Pos t Seaso n Surve y Activit y Subtota l 92,53 0



# . • 90/1 0 41 0 42 1 Residentia l N/ A 8805 3 0. 2 90/1 0 1 3 1 3 On-sit e Verificatio n Visit s Activit y Subtota l 8805 3 90/1 0 1 3 1 3 Progra mTota l 92,53 0 90/1 0 60 8 61 9 Source: Nnvignnl

nnnh/sis A summar y o f

energ y an ddeman dresult s ca n b e foun di n Tabl e 10- 4 an dTabl e 10-5 , respectively
. Tabl e 10-4
. PY

4 Residentia l Smar t

A/ C Saver

Progra mSummar y o f

Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y Reporte d Gros s Energ y Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (C ) o r Proportion ^ Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Unverifie d

Gros s Stratu m Energ y

Saving s (MWh ) Realizatio n

Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (C ) o r Proportion ^ Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e Energ y

Saving s (MWh ) Energ y

Saving s (MWh ) Residentia l Smar

t A/ C Save

r 0 N/ A N/ A 0 0 0 Progra mTota l 0 N/ A N/ A 0 0 0 Source: Nnvignnt

nnnh/sis

PEC O Energy Compan

y [ PagelB 2Tabl e 10-5
. PY 4 Residentia l Smar t

A/ C Saver

Progra mSummar y o f

Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d

Stratu m

Residentia l Smar

t A/ C Save r Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 51.3 Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e
1 Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n 0.5 1 Relativ e

1 Precisio n a t 85 % Confidenc e
8.4 % Verifie d

Cros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) 51.3 Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0 Progra mTota l 51. 3 1 0.5 1 8.4 % 51. 3 0 Source: Nnvigant

anah/sis 

## 10. 3 Impac tEvaluation Ne

tSaving s Navigan t

assume d a

n NT G rati o o f

1.0
. Navigan t

di dno t conduc t researc h t o determin e fre e ridershi p fo r

thi s program . Navigant' s assumptio n i s tha t non e o f

th e progra mparticipant s woul dhav e curtaile dloa da t th e time s PEC O dispatche dth e progra mwithou t th e incentive s tha t th e CSP s pai dt o the mfo r

thei r loa dcurtailment
. 

## 10. 4 Proces s Evaluation Fou r separat e CAT I survey s wer e utilize ddurin g PY 4 t o understan dresidentia l custome r perspectives
. Tw o o f

thes e survey s wer e conducte dimmediatel y followin g th e contro l event s o f June 21 , 201 2 (Even t

#1 ) an dAugus t

31 , 201 2 (Even t

#2) , an dsough t

t o bette r

understan d commercia l customers ' awarenes s an dsatisfactio n wit h conservatio n events . A thir dCAT I surve y wa s conducte dfollowin g th e en do f th e progra myear . Thi s participan t surve y wa s use d t o understan dcustome r demographics , ho w customer s learne do f th e program , i f

customer s wer e satisfie dwit h th e progra man dPECO , whethe r customer s notice dloa dcontro l events , an d wha t customer s ha dhear dabou t th e futur e o f

PECO' s Residentia l Smar t A/ C Save

r program . Durin g PY

4 Q 3 whe n there wa s uncertaint y abou t th e futur e o f

th e Smar

t A/ C Save

r program , Navigan t

develope dan dconducte daWillingnes s t o Accep t (WTA ) survey . Thi s surve y sough t t o understan dho w man y residentia l progra mparticipant s wer e likel y t o remai n i n th e progra m i f th e incentiv e wer e t o b e reduced
. Additionally , residentia l participant s wer e aske d i f the y woul dallo w PEC O t o keep th e loa dcontro l equipmen t o n thei r home s i f

th e progra mwen t

int o hiatu s an di f

s o woul dan additiona l incentiv e b e necessary .

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 15 310.4. 1 Satisfactio n wit h th e Residentia l SmartA/ C Save r Progra m Residentia l progra mparticipan t satisfactio n with :
• Th e overal l progra m(86% )
• Th e technicia n wh o installe dth e switc h (92% )
• Th e installatio n o f

th e device/promp t

installatio n (98% )
• Th e fou r

bil l credit s (86% )
• Th e amoun t

o f energ y save d (67% )
• PEC O (68% ) Residentia l participant s wer e aske d wh y the y chos e t o participat e i n th e Smar t A/ C Save

r Program :
• Reducin g th e electri c bil l wa s th e mai n sellin g poin t o f th e progra mfo r

almos t al l residentia l customer s (87%)
. • N o residentia l customer s sai dth e bil l credi t wa s areaso n fo r

participatin g i n th e progra m(dow n fro m25 % th e previou s year)
. Othe r majo r finding s included :
• Residentia l progra mparticipant s reporte dhig h level s o f satisfactio n wit h th e sign-up proces s regardles s o f

sign-u p channel
. • Residentia l customer s ar e likel y t o recommen dth e progra mt o other s (65%)
. • Residentia l customer s are ver y likel y t o sa y the y pla n t o sta

y i n th e progra m(81%)
. • Generally , abou t

three-fourth s o f

residentia l surve y respondent s sai dthe y di dno t kno w ho w man y contro l day s the y experience di n eithe r 201 1 o r 2012
. • Whe n aske d wha t

respondent s ha dhear do r rea dabou t

th e futur e o f

th e PEC O Smar

t A/ C Save

r program , mos t

surve y respondent s reporte dthe y ha dno t hear danything
. Eleve n percen t

hear do r

rea dtha t

th e rebat

e and/o r th e numbe r

o f event s woul db e reduced
. Abou t

1 0 percen t

hear dtha t

PEC O wa s plannin g t o sto p th e program . • Residentia l customer s participatin g i n th e PEC O Smar t A/ C Save

r Progra mar

e educated , highe r

incom e customers . 10.4.2 Satisfactio n an d Awarenes s o f Conservatio n Event s Whe n surveye dimmediatel y followin g tw o contro l events , abou t three-fourth s o f

residentia l Smart A/ C Save

r progra mparticipant s wer e satisfie dwit h th e comfor t o f thei r hom e durin g th e contro l event . The y answere d7 o r highe r o n th e 0 t o 1 0 satisfactio n scale
. Th e exceptio n wa s whe n participant s wer e surveye dimmediatel y followin g th e Jun e 21 , 201 2 contro l even t whe n progra mparticipant s were somewhat mor e likel y t o remai n neutra l o n th e issu e o f hom e comfort
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 15 4Awarenes s o f contro l event s remaine dlo w i n .PY4
. Onl y abou t 1 5 percent

o f progra m participant s wer e awar e o f th e contro l events , surprisingl y simila r t o th e percentag e wh o believe dthere wa s a

n even t (11% ) whe n the y wer e no t controlled
. I n th e firs t

post-even t

surve y conducte dimmediatel y followin g th e contro l even t o n June 21 , 2012 , onl y abou t

1 6 percen t

o f residentia l customer s notice dthe y wer e uncomfortable
. Onl y tw o surve y respondent s reporte dnoticin g th e loa dcontro l even t o n Augus t

31 , 2012 , whe n surveye dimmediatel y followin g th e event . 10.4. 3 Residentia l Custome r Willingnes s t o Accep ta Chang e i n Progra m Incentiv e Th e Navigan t

tea mdevelope daWT A surve y addressin g th e issu e o f ho w muc h customer s woul dhav e t o b e pai dt o accep t achang e i n progra mdesign an dincentiv e levels
. Majo r finding s o f

thi s stud y ar

e presente dbelow :
* Ove r one-thir ddi dno t

remembe r

wha t incentiv e the y receive dfo r thei r participatio n i n th e Smar t A/ C Save

r program . • Twenty-fiv e percen t believe dth e paymen t

wa s les s tha n $120 fo r th e fou r months
. * A simila r

percentage , abou t

one-fourth , kne w th e correc t amoun t o f th e incentiv e ($120)
. » Eighty-seve n percen t o f surve y participant s woul dleav e th e devic e installe di f th e progra mwen t

int o ahiatus
. * Abou t

hal f o f th e remainin g participant s (7% ) woul daccep t aone-tim e paymen t

o f $45 o r les s t o leav e th e devic e o n thei r ai r conditione r

i n aprogra mhiatus
. • Fiv e percen t

woul dwan t

aone-tim e paymen t

o f $120 o r mor e to kee p th e devic e o n th e HVA C unit
. • Olde r

respondent s an dyounge r respondent s are mor e likel y tha n bab y boomer s t o agre e t o leav e the devic e o n thei r ai r conditione r

i f th e progra mwa s dormant
. Proces s recommendation s an dthei r curren t statu s fo r

th e Residentia l Smar

t A/ C Save

r repor t ca n b e foun di n Tabl e 10-6
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 15 5Tabl e 10-6. Statu s Reportfo r Residentia l Smar tA/ C Save r Progra m Proces s Evaluation s
Recommendation s ED C Statu s Reportfo r Proces s Evaluation s (Implemented , Bein g Considered , Rejecte d AN D Explanatio n of

Actio n Take n b

y EDC ) Onl y abou t

one i n seven surve y respondent s wer e awar e o f th e contro l event s an dmos t surve y respondent s wer e satisfie dwit h th e comfor t o f thei r homes
. Satisfactio n wit h th e progra mremaine dhig h durin g th e PY 4 loa d contro l season . Th e Navigan t teamconclude s that

PEC O shoul dno t

hesitate t o cal l th e A/ C Save r progra m multipl e day s durin g ahea t wave . There ma

y be some limits , however , that

customer s wil l no t

accept that wer e outsid e o f

ou r research experience
. Unde r consideratio n

Th e larges t

chang e fro mlas t

yea r wa s residentia l customers ' evaluatio n o f PECO
. Satisfactio n score s droppe dfro m82 % i n PY 3 l o 68 % i n PY4
. Th e Navigan t tea mfel t thi s ma y b e aresul t

o f uncertaint y abou t

th e progra mi n PY

5 an drecommend s that change s t o incentiv e levels , progra mcyclin g strategies , an dpa y b y even t strategie s coul dal l be utilize dt o regulat e progra m activit y an deliminat e th e nee d fo r cancelin g th e progra m i n futur e years . Unde r consideratio n

Th e larges t

challeng e i n PY

4 wa s determinin g ho w t o communicat e th e statu s o f th e progra mwithou t

aclea r pla n fo r th e directio n o f

th e progra mdurin g th e curren t progra mcycle
. Navigan t suggest s that

PEC O develo p strategie s t o communicat e change s t o th e progra mahea d o f Phas e HI , anticipatin g that th e progra mmay o r

may no t be par t o f Ac t 12 9 a t tha t time
. Unde r consideratio n

Bil l insert s an ddirec t mai l flyer s wer e stil l th e mos t effectiv e method s o f

marketin g th e program . However , residentia l customer s wer e mos t likel y t o hav e remembere dth e bil l insert
. PEC O shoul dcontinu e t o utiliz e thi s channe l a

s conduit s o f

informatio n durin g th e maintenanc e phas e o f

th e program . Unde r consideratio n

Th e progra mwa s wel l ru n an dwel l like db y customer s durin g PY4
. A t

th e tim e o f

th e post-seaso n survey , th e PY 5 progra myea

r wa s underwa y an dman y (bu t no t all ) customer s realize dth e monthl y rebate wa s reduced
. Custome r

satisfactio n wa s stil l very hig h fo r th e progra m Unde r

consideratio n

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 15 6Recommendation s EDCStatusiRepor t fo r Proces s Evaluation s (Implemented , Bein g Considered , Rejecte dAN D Explanatio n o f

Actio n Take n b y EDC ) attribute s - excludin g th e energ y saving s durin g events . Mos t residentia l an dcommercia l customer s participat e i n th e progra mt o reduc e thei r energ y usage . Navigan t suggest s that

PEC O downpla y th e ide athat th e progra m save s energ y durin g progra mevents . Previou s Navigan t research finding s sugges t that , fo r

mos t customers , th e sna p back i n energ y usage afte r

a n event i s '100 % o r mor e than th e energ y save d durin g a n event . Participant s ar e unlikel y t o se

e reduction s i n thei r

bil l othe r

than th e rebate
. Th e summe r

event s hav e astron g an dpositiv e influenc e o n satisfactio n wit h the Smar t A/ C Save

r Program
. PEC O ma y wan t t o recommen dth e progra ml o customer s wit h hig h bil l complaints
. Unde r consideratio n

Source: Nnvignnl

nnnh/sis 

## 10. 5 Financia

l Reportin

g A breakdow n o f

th e progra mfinance s i s presente d i n Tabl e 10-7
. Th e residentia l Smar t A/ C Save r progra mwa s no t

cos t effectiv e i n Phas e I , usin g PECO' s avoide dcapacity cost s expresse d as dollar s pe r

kWh , as use d i n PECO' s Phas e 1 EE& C Plan
. I n Phas e II , thes e benefit s wil l b e calculate dusin g avoide dcapacity cost s expresse d a s dollar s pe r

kW-year , as use d i n PECO' s Revise dPhas e I I EE& C Pla n an ddiscusse d i n PEC O direc t testimon y i n Docke t P-2012

- 23203441. 5 , Ha dthi s methodolog y been applie dto thi s progra mfo r PY4 , th e benefit-cos t

rati o woul dhav e been 1.0

9 fo r th e residentia l program .

5 1 Direc t testimony , Eran

k Jiruska
. Septembe

r 5 , 2012
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 157Tabl e 10-7. Summary o f Residentia l Smar

tA/ C Save r Progra

m Finance s IQI9 I ($1,000 ) PY

4 ($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 0 0 0 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 0 0 0 Subtotal ED C Incentiv e Cost s 0 0 0 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration 1 " 24 6 2,21 1 9,59 9 Management' 2 ' 63 1 1,48 0 14,08 2 Marketing 13 1 1 9 11,31 3 20,24 6 Technica l Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Implementatio n Cost s 89 7 15,00 4 43,92 7
ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 16 8 29 0 71 4 SW E Audi tCost s 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs' 4 ' 1,06 5 15,29 4 44,64 1 Participan tCosts' 5 ' N/ A 0 8,62 8 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 ' N/ A 15,29 4 53,26 9
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N / A 0 0 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N / A 2,61 8 2,61 8 Tota l TR C Benefits' 7 ' N/ A 2,61 8 2,61 8 TR C Ratio' 8 ' N/ A 0.1 7 0.0 5 NOTE S Per PUC direction, TRC

inputs and calcuiatiotis arc required in the Annual

Report only and should

comply with the 201 ITotal Resource Cost Test Order approved luly 28, 2011. Please see the "Report Definitions"

section of

this report

for more details. 11 1 Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system, an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost. |2 | Include s LD

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . |3 | Include s th

e marketing CS

P an dmarketing cost

s b y progra mCSPs
. |4 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order, th e Tota l LD C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurredexpense

s only
. [5 1 Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order, ih e ne t Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us e custome r or progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t costs . Thes

e include incentive s pai

dt o applianc e recycling an

dDeman dRespons

e participants
. |fi | Tota l TR C Cosl s include s ED

C Lvaluatio n Costs , LD

C Implementation Costs , an dParticipan

t Costs
. |7 | Tota l TR C Itenefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tota l Lifetime Lnerg

y Henefit s an dTota l LifetimeCapacit

y Itenefit s plu s an

y benefi t associate d wil h avoidedincandescen t purchases mad

e du e t o ih e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a

s compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Hase

dupo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include ; avoidedsuppl

y costs , includin g th

e reduction i n cost s o f eleclri c energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s value da t margina l cos l fo r period s whe n ther e i s aloa dreduction
. |8 ] TR C Ralio equal s Tota

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tota l TR C Costs
. |9 [ Pos t PY 4 cost s an dbenefit s ar

e include di n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Navigant anah/sis
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 15 8

## 1 1 Commercia l Smar tA/ C Saver Progra

m Th e Smar

t A/ C Save

r Progra mi s adirec t

loa d contro l progra mfo r commercia l customer s base d o n th e installatio n o f

programmabl e communicatin g thermostat s (PCTs ) o n qualifie dcentral-ai r conditioners
. Participant s ar e incente d a

t th e rate o f

$120/yea

r ($3 0 pe r

fou r summe r month s per installe ddevice)
. Durin g pea k summe r

hours, contro l signal s ca n b e sent

t o reduc e air

conditionin g loa db y cyclin g (i.e. , cuttin g powe r to ) th e compresso r

5 0 percen t

o f th e tim e fo r th e duratio n o f

th e event . Th e progra mwa s designe dt o provid e deman drespons e durin g PECO' s To p 10

0 Hour s o f

syste mpea

k loads
. PCT s hav e been installe di n participan t businesses , an d1 5 conservatio n event s wer e calle di n PY4
. 

## 11. 1 Progra m Update

s Th e Commercia l A/ C Save r Progra mlos t

atota l o f

27 7 participant s i n PY4 , bringin g tota l participatio n t o 2,169 participant s b y PY 4 yea r end
. PY

4 wa s th e secon dyea

r th e Smar

t A/ C Save r Progra mcalle dsystem-wid e events , wit h atota l o f 1 4 system-wid e event s an don e M& V grou p onl y even t

bein g calle db y th e en d o f th e progra myear . Th e commercia l M& V grou p i s a statisticall y vali dsampl e o f commercia l site s tha t

hav e loggin g equipmen t installe dt o captur e 5

- minut e loa dprofil e dat ause dt o calculat e th e loa d impac t estimat e fo r

th e entir e enrolle d population
.


## 11. 2 Impac tEvaluatio

n Gros s Saving s Navigan t

employe dbaselin e calculation s an dregressio n analysi s t o quantif y commercia l Smar

t A/ C Save

r progra mimpact s durin g even t hours
. Navigan t

use dhourl y interva l dat afo r a sampl e o f

7 5 M& V site s t o quantify progra mimpact s durin g progra meven t hours
. Navigan t followe dth e protocol s specifie di n section s 3.3A.2 , 3.3A.2.01 , an d3.3A. 3 o f th e Amende

dand Restate dOperatin g Agreemen

t o f PJ M interconnection , L.L.C. , date dMa y 8 , 2012 , t o calculat e th e progra mimpact s durin g thes e hours
. Navigan t estimate daregressio n mode l t o predic t ho w th e

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 15 9

### even

t impact s var

y wit h hou

r of th e da y an d wit h th e WTHI
. Progra

mimpact s wer

e calculated base d on th e PJM-specifie

dWTH I value o f

83. 2 an d th e hour fro m4- 5 pm. 5 2 

### T o maintai n consistenc

y wit h th

e evaluatio n methodolog y fo r th e DR A an d DE Rprograms , Navigant researche

d progra mimpact s i n th

e hour prio r t o an d th e tw o hour s followin g th e calledeven

t period
. Navigant

use d hourl y interval dat

afo r th e M& V sample to quantif y progra mimpacts
. Navigant

followe dth

e protocol s specifie d i n section s 3.3A.2 , 3.3A.2.01 , and 3.3A. 3 of th e Amende dan d Restate d Operatin

g Agreemen

t of PJ M Interconnection , LLC , dated Ma y 8, 2012 , t o calculat

e th e progra mimpact s durin g thes

e hours
. Navigant

the n estimateda regressio n mode l t o predic t ho w th e impact s i n th

e hou r befor e and tw o hour s followin g a n even t var y wit h th e even t lengt h an d th e maximumWTH I durin g th e even t period
. Althoug h most

of th e regressio

n coefficient s ar

e statisticall y significan t a t th e 9 0 percen t confidenc e level , th

e estimated loa

d reduction s durin g th

e hou r befor e and tw o hour s followin g eac h even t ar e relativel y small
. A visua l inspectio n o f

the event-da

y loa d curve s an

d baseline s indicate dtha

t participant s di d not

pre-cool an

d snapbac

k generally di d no t

occu r after th e events . Nevertheless , Navigant applie d th

e result s of

th e regressio

n analysi s t

o th e extended even t hour s t o maintai n consistenc

y wit h th

e DR A and DE

Revaluations , pe

r th e SWE' s recommendation
. Th

e regressio

n indicate d tha

t th e averag e loa d reductio n i n th

e hou r befor e th e even t perio d wa

s -0.0 7 kW/unit , 0.0

3 kW/uni t

i n th e firs t hou r followin g th

e even t period , and0.0 7 kW/uni t

i n th e secon d hou r followin g th

e even t period
. Tabl

e 11- 1 show s reporte d result s by quarte

r andTabl e 11- 2 show s reporte d result s b y sector .

51 PJM Manual 18section 4.3.7

states: "The nominated

value for a Direct Load Control (DLC) program mil

be based on load

research and cuslomer subscription. The value of the program is equal

to the PIM-approved

pcr-parlicipaul

load reduclion (evaluated

at average peak day weather conditions and adjusted

for the switch operability rate) multiplied by the number

of active participants, adjusted for system tosses."


### PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 16 0Tabl e 11-1 . PY 4 Commercia l SmartA/ C Save r Progra m Reporte d Result s b y Quarte r

Reportin g Perio d Participant s Reporte dGros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte d Cros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) PY 4 Q l -18 0 0 1. 6 1. 8 $25 2

PY 4 Q 2 -1 9 0 0 0 $25 2
PY4Q 3 -4 1 0 0 0 $ 0

PY 4 Q 4 -3 7 0 0 0 $ 0
PY 4 Tota l -27 7 0 1. 6 1. 8 $50 4
CPIT D Tota l 2,169 0 1. 6 1. 8 $649 Source: Nnvigant nnnlysis Tabl e 11-2
. PY

4 Commercia l Smar t

A/ C Save

r Progra mReporte dResult s b y Secto r

Secto r Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10 0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) Residentia l 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 0

Low-Incom e 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 Commercia l an d Industria l 2,169 0 1. 6 1. 8 $50 4 Governmen t

an d Nonprofi t 0 0 0 0 0
PY 4 Tota l 2,169 0 1. 6 1. 8 $50 4
CPIT D Tota l 2,169 0 1. 6 1. 8 $649 Sowrce: Nnvignnt

analysis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 16 1Th e samplin g strategie s utilize db y th e Navigan t tea mfo r PY 4 impac t an dproces s analysi s activitie s ca

n be see n i n Tabl e 11-3
. Tabl e 11-3 . Commercia l SmartA/ C Save r Progra m Samplin g Strateg

y fo r PY 4 Assume d

Stratu m Strat a

Boundarie s Populatio n

Siz e Coefficien t

o f Variatio n (Oo r Proportio n i n Sampl e Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activit y

M& V N/ A 3,92 4 Design ^

1 90/1 0 10 0 10

0 Impact : Contro l Event Analysi s Activit y Subtota l
- 3,92 4 90/1 0 10 0 10

0 Commercia l N/ A 3,949 0. 5 90/1 0 7 0 7 0 Process : Pos t Event Surve y # 1 Commercia l N/ A 3,92 4 0. 5 90/1 0 7 0 6 9 Process : Pos t Event Surve y #

2 Commercia l N/ A 3,73 0 0. 5 90/1 0 7 0 7 0 Process : Pos t Seaso n Surve y Activit y Subtota l 3,94 9 90/1 0 21 0 20 9 On-sit e Commercia l N/ A 3,73 0 0. 2 90/1 0 1 3 1 3 Verificatio n Visit s Activit y Subtota l 3,73 0 90/1 0 1 3 1 3 Progra mTota l 3,949 90/1 0 32 3 32 2 Source; Navigant

anah/sis A summar y o f

energ y an ddeman dresult s ca n b e foun di n Tabl e 11- 4 an dTabl e 11-5 , respectively
. Tabl e 11-4. PY 4 Commercia l Smar tA/ C Save r Progra

m Summar y o

f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y

Stratu m Reported

Gross Energy Savings (MWh) Energ y

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (O ) o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Commercia l Smar

t A/CSavo r 0 N/ A N/ A 0 0 0 Progra mTota l 0 N/ A N/ A 0 0 0 Source: Navigant

anah/sis

PHC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 16 2Tabl e 11-5 . PY 4 Commercia l SmartA/ C Save r Progra m Summary o

f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d

Stratu m Reporte d

Cros s Deman d Reductio n !(MW)
. ! Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv)io r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n a t 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Cros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Commercia l Smar

t 1.

8 "

1 " 0. 2 3.0 % 1.8 0 A/ C Save r Progra mTota l 1. 8 1 0. 2 3.0 % 1. 8 0 Source: Nnvignnt nnnlysis 

## 11. 3 Impac tEvaluatio n Ne

tSaving s Navigan t

assume d aNT G rati o o f 1.0
. Navigan t

di dno t conduc t researc h t o determin e fre e ridershi p fo r

thi s program . Navigant' s assumptio n i s tha t non e o f

th e progra mparticipant s woul dhav e curtaile dloa da t th e time s PEC O dispatche dth e progra mwithou t th e incentive s tha t th e CSP s pai dt o the mfo r

thei r loa dcurtailment
. 

## 11. 4 Proces s Evaluatio n Thre e separat

e CAT I survey s wer e utilize ddurin g PY 4 t o understan dcommercia l custome r perspectives
. Tw o o f

thes e survey s wer e conducte dimmediatel y followin g th e contro l event s o f June 21 , 201 2 (Even t

#1 ) an dAugus t

31 , 201 2 (Even t

#2 ) an dsough t

t o bette r

understan d commercia l customers ' awarenes s an dsatisfactio n wit h conservatio n events . A thir dCAT I surve y wa s conducte dfollowin g th e en do f th e progra myear . Thi s participan t surve y wa s use d t o understan dcustome r demographics , ho w customer s learne do f th e program , i f

customer s wer e satisfie dwit h th e progra man dPECO , whethe r customer s notice dloa dcontro l events , an d wha t customer s ha dhear dabou t th e futur e o f

PECO' s Commercia l Smar t A/ C Save

r program . 11.4. 1 Satisfactio n wit h the Commercia l SmartA/ C Save r Progra m Commercia l progra mparticipan t satisfactio n with :
• Tli e overal l progra m(82% )
• Th e technicia n wh o installe dth e thermosta t (93% )
• Th e installatio n o f

th e device/promp t

installatio n (90% )
• Th e fou r

bil l credit s (85% ) PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 16 3• Th e amoun t o f energ y save d(68% )
• PEC O (73% ) Commercia l participant s wer e aske dwh y the y chos e t o participat e i n th e Smar t A/ C Save

r Program :
• Reducin g th e electri c bil l wa s th e mai n sellin g poin t o f th e progra mfo r

almos t al l residentia l customer s (87%) ; i t wa s stil l th e mai n sellin g poin t fo r commercia l customer s bu t fo r significantl y fewe r

customer s (59%)
. • Fourtee n percen t

o f commercia l customer s mentione dbil l credi t a s areaso n fo r participatin g i n th e progra m(dow n fro m34 % th e previou s year)
. Othe r majo r finding s included :
• Commercia l progra mparticipant s reporte dhig h level s o f satisfactio n wit h th e sign-up proces s regardles s o f

sign-u p channel
. • Commercia l customer s ar e somewhat

likel y t o recommen dth e progra mt o other s (50%)
. • Commercia l customer s ar e ver y likel y t o stay i n th e progra m(81%)
. • Thre e ou t

o f fou r commercia l surve y participant s als o di dno t kno w ho w man y loa d contro l day s the y experience di n 201 1 an dalmos t two-third s di dno t

kno w th e numbe r o f contro l day s i n 2012
. • Commercia l customer s participatin g i n th e progra mten dt o b e ver y smal l busines s customer s wit h les s tha n te n employee s tha t ar e locate di n olde r

building s les s tha n 5,00 0 square fee t

i n size
. 11.4. 2 Satisfactio n an d Awarenes s o f Conservatio n Event s Whe n surveye dimmediatel y followin g tw o contro l events , commercia l customer s wer e slightl y mor e awar e o f

th e Jun e 21 , 201 2 contro l even t (even t #1 ) tha n the y wer e o f

th e Augus t

31 , 201 2 even t (even t #2) , althoug h thes e difference s ar e no t statisticall y significant
. O n average , abou t one-fourt h o f

commercia l customer s wer e awar e o f th e contro l events . Overall , commercia l customer s wer e mor e uncomfortabl e tha n usua l whe n surveye d immediatel y followin g th e even t o f June 21 , 2012 , than followin g th e even t o f Augus t 31 , 2012
. Even t # 1 wa s durin g ahea

t wav e an dbuilding s hea t u p an dar

e harde r t o coo l afte r

acoupl e o f day s o f ver y ho t

weather
. Fou r

time s a s man y commercia l customer s i n ou r stud y sai dthe y wer e mor e uncomfortabl e tha n usua l durin g th e even t whe n surveye dfollowin g Even t # 1 tha n Even t #2
. Thes e difference s ar e significan t

a t th e 0.00 1 leve l o f

significance
. Mos t respondent s di dno t

remembe r

discomfor t

fro meithe r

contro l even t

fo r whic h the y wer e surveyed
. However , significantl y mor e commercia l customer s reporte dtha t everyon e i n th e buildin g wa s uncomfortabl e durin g Even t #1 , th e hea

t wave , compare dt o Even t #2
. Mos t

tellin g wa s tha t 9 0 percen t

o f surve y respondent s di dno t remembe r

thei r comfor t leve l durin g Even t PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 16 4#

2 compare dto 6

0 percen t wh o ha dn o memor y o f thei r comfor t leve l durin g Even t

#1
. Even t

# 2 ha djus t occurred , suggestin g tha t Even t #1 , durin g th e hea

t wave , wa s muc h mor e memorabl e tha n Even t

#2
. Proces s recommendation s an dthei r curren t statu s fo r

th e Commercia l Smar

t A/ C Save

r repor t ca n b e foun di n Tabl e 11-6
. Tabl e 11-6. Statu s Reportfo r Commercia l Smar tA/ C Save r Progra

m Proces s Evaluation s
Recommendation s ED C Statu s Repor t fo r Proces s Evaluation s (Implemented , Bein g Considered , Rejecte dAN D Explanatio n o f

Actio n Take n b y EDC ) Onl y abou t

on e i n seven surve y respondent s wer e awar e o f th e contro l event s nn dmos t surve y respondent s wer e satisfie dwit h th e comfor t o f thei r businesses
. Satisfactio n wit h th e progra mremaine dhig h durin g th e PY 4 loa d contro l season . Th e Navigan t tea mconclude s that

PEC O shoul dno t

hesitate t o cal l th e A/ C Save r progra m multipl e day s durin g ahea t wave . There ma

y be some limits , however , that

customer s wil l no t

accep t that wer e outsid e o f

ou r researc h experience
. Unde r consideratio n

Th e Navigan t

tea mrecommend s that

change s t o incentiv e levels , progra mcyclin g strategies , an dpa y b y event strategie s coul dal l be utilize dt o regulat e progra m activit y an deliminat e th e need fo r cancelin g th e progra m i n futur e years . Unde r consideratio n

Th e larges t

challeng e i n PY

4 wa s determinin g ho w t o communicat e th e statu s o f th e progra mwithou t aclea r pla n fo r th e directio n o f

th e progra mdurin g th e curren t progra mcycle
. Navigan t suggest s tha t

PHC O develo p strategie s t o communicat e change s t o th e progra mahead o f Phase III , anticipatin g that th e progra mma

y o r ma y no t be part o f Ac t 12 9 a t that time
. Unde r consideratio n

Bil l insert s an ddirec t mai l flyer s wer e stil l th e mos t effectiv e method s o f

marketin g th e program . However , commercia l customer s wer e mos t likel y t o hav e iremembere daprogra mflyer
. PI-C O shoul dcontinu e t o utiliz e thi s channe l a

s conduit s o f

informatio n durin g th e maintenanc e phas e o f

th e program . Unde r consideratio n

Th e progra mwa s wel l ru n an dwel l like db y customer s durin g PY4
. A t

th e tim e o f

th e post-seaso n survey , th e Unde r consideratio n

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 16 5Recommendation s ED C Statu s Repor t fo r Proces s Evaluation s (Implemented , Bein g Considered , Rejecte dAN D Explanatio n o f

Actio n Take n b y EDC ) PY 5 progra myea

r wa s underwa y an dman y (bu t no t all ) customer s realize dth e monthl y rebate wa s reduced
. Custome r

satisfactio n wa s stil l very hig h fo r th e progra m attribute s - excludin g th e energ y saving s durin g events . Mos t residentia l an dcommercia l customer s participat e i n th e progra mt o reduc e thei r energ y usage . Navigan t suggest s that

PEC O downpla y th e ide athat th e progra m save s energ y durin g progra mevents . Previou s Navigan t researc h finding s sugges t that , fo r

mos t customers , the snapbac k

i n energ y usag e afte r

a n event i s 100 % o r

mor e than th e energ y save d durin g a n event . Participant s ar e unlikel y t o se

e reduction s i n thei r

bil l othe r

than th e rebate
. Tli e summe r

event s hav e astron g an dpositiv e influenc e o n satisfactio n wit h th e Smar t A/ C Save

r Program
. PEC O ma y wan t t o recommen dth e progra mt o customer s witl i hig h bil l complaints
. Unde r consideratio n

Sowrce: Nnvignnt

nmh/sis 

## 11. 5 Financial Reportin

g A breakdow n o

f th e progra mfinance s i s presented i n Tabl e 11-7
. Th

e commercia

l Smar t A/C Save r progra mwa s no t

cos t effectiv e i n Phas

e I , usin g PECO' s avoide dcapacit y cost s expresse

d a s dollar s pe

r kWh , a s use d i n PECO' s Phas

e I EE& C Plan
. I n Phas

e II , these benefit s wil l b e calculate dusin g avoide dcapacit y cost s expresse

d a s dollar s pe

r kW-year , a

s use d i n PECO' s Revise dPhas e I I EE& C Pla n anddiscusse

d i n PEC

O direc t testimon y i n Docke

t P-2012

- 23203441. 5 3 

### Ha dthi s methodology bee

n applie dto thi s progra

mfo r PY4, th e benefit-cos t

rati o woul dhav

e bee n 0.1 9 fo r th e commercia

l program .

Direc t testimony , Eran

k Jiruska
. Septembe

r 5 , 2012
.
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 16 6Tabl e 11-7. Summary o f Commercia l SmartA/ C Save r Progra m Finance s IQ' 9 1 ($1,000 ) PY 4

($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 0 0 0 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 0 0 0 Subtotal ED C Incentiv e Cost s 0 0 0 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration" 1 6 6 44 0 3,45 3 Management 12 1 2 5 13 9 84 7 Marketing 13 1 18 4 79

2 1,11 3 Technica l Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtotal ED C Implementatio n Cost s 27 5 1,37 1 5,41 3
ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 5 8 9 9 26 2 SW E Audi tCost s 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs' 4 1 33 2 1,470 5,67 5 Participan tCosts' 5 1 N/ A 0 14 5 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 ' N/ A 1,47

0 5,82

0
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/A 0 0 Tota l LifetimeCapacit y Benefit s N/ A 8 2 8

2 Tota l TR C Benefits' " N/ A 8

2 8

2 TR C Ratio' 8 1 N/ A 0.0

6 0.0

1 NOTE S Per PUC ilircclioii, TRC

inputs and

calculalions arc reipiired in Ihe Annual

Report onhj.and

should comply wilh theWUTolal Resource Cost Tesl Order approved luly 28, 2011. Please sec. the "Report Definitions" section of

this report-far

more details. 11 1 Include s th

e administrativ e CS

L (rebat e processing) , tracking system , an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cost. |2 | Include s HO

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

t oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . [3 | Include s th

e marketing CS

P an dmarketing cost

s b y progra mCSPs
. [4 j Pe r th e 20 I ITota l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order , th e Tota l LD C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurredexpense

s only
. |5 ] Pe r th e 201 1 'Tota

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order , th e ne t Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us e custome r o r progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

parlicipan

t costs . Thes

e include incentive s pai

dt o applianc e recyclin

g an dDeman dRespons

e participants
. |6 | Tola l 'TR C Cost s include LD

C Lvaluation Costs , LD

C Implementatio

n Cosls , an

dParticipan

t Cosls
. |7 | Tota l 'TR C Henefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tota l Lifetime Lnerg

y Henefit s an dTota l LifetimeCapacit

y Henefit s plu s an y benefi t associate d wit h avoidedincandescen

t purchases mad

e du e l o th e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a s compare dl o th e baselin e measure . Hase

d upo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Itenefit s include : avoidedsuppl y costs , includin g th

e reduction i n cost s o f electric energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s value da t margina l cos t fo r period s whe n ther e i s aloa dreduction
. J8 | TR C Rati o equal s Tota

l TR C Henefil s divide db

y 'Tota l TR C Costs
. !9 | Pos l PY' I cosl s an dbenefits ar

e includedi n IQ , PY4

, nn dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Nnvignnt nmh/sis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 16 7

## 12 Permanen tLoa d Reductio n

Th e purpos e o f

th e PEC O Permanen

t Loa dReduction (PLR

) progra mwas to encourage commercia

l andindustria l customers t o permanently shif

t electricit y usag e fro mpea

k period s t o off-pea k period s o n a

n ongoin g basis
. Th

e PL Rprogra mwas implemente db

y KEMA andIC

F International
. Measure s eligibl e fo r incentive s unde

r th e PL Rprogra minclude dga

s absorptio n chillers , energ

y storage systems , andan y othe r technologie s tha

t permanentl

y shif t or eliminat e pea k loads
. A s of

th e endo f PY4, onl y on

e projec t ha dbee n completedi n th

e PL Rprogram . Thi s lo w level o f

participatio n i s du e t o th e fac t tha t most efficienc y measures available t o eligibl e customers wer

e processe

d throug h PECO' s SE

I program . Fo

r example , eve

n thoug h absorptio n chiller s wer

e eligibl e fo r

incentive s throug h th

e PL Rprogram , th

e incentive s availabl e fro mth e SE I progra mwer e mor e attractive , s

o most customers chos

e to submi t

thei r applicatio n to tha

t program . 

## 12. 1 Progra

m Update

s Th e PL Rprogra mwas intende dprimaril y t o encourage adoptio n of technologie s tha

t woul d reduce customers ' load s durin g PECO' s pea k loa dhours
. A s note dabove , onl y on e custome

r installe datechnology qualifyin g fo r incentive s unde

r thi s progra

mdurin g Phas

e I
. Du e t o lo w participation , th

e fac t tha t the progra

mwas not

cost-effectiv e durin g Phas e I , an dth e fac t tha t th e P A PU C decide dno t

to establis h deman

dreductio n goal s fo r

Phas e II , PEC

O ha s discontinue dthi s program . 

## 12. 2 Impac tEvaluation Gros s Saving s This sectio

n describe

s th e methodolog

y an d result s o f th e gros s impac tevaluation. 12.2. 1 Evaluation Methodolog y Navigan t conducte don-sit

e M&V fo r

th e sol e PL Rproject , whic h installe dne w coolin g equipment , includin g agas-engine-drive n chiller , o n th

e campu s of

aprivat e school
. Navigant requeste d an dreceivedth

e complet

e fil e fo r th e project , includin g applications , drawings , invoices , andadescriptio n o f th e project an dit s operatin g sequences . Th e projec t fil e als o include daspreadshee

t presentin g th

e calculation s use

d t o determine e

x ant e deman dsavings
. Followin g fil e review , Navigan t conductedatelephon

e intervie w to clarif

y detail s abou

t installe dequipmen

t an dt o determine th

e prope r baselin e fo r th e project
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 16 8Navigan t develope damonitorin g an dverificatio n pla n fo r th e projec t

an darrange dfo r

th e site visit
. Th e on-site M&V , conducte dJul y 23 , 2013 , include dvisua l verificatio n an dspo t measurement s t o validat e measurement s bein g recorde db y th e facility' s buildin g automatio n syste m(BAS ) an dt o validat e th e assumption s use d t o develo p th e e x ante saving s estimate
. Durin g th e site visit , Navigan t collecte ddat arecorde db y th e BA S necessar y fo r th e e x pos t evaluatio n an dcomplete dan additiona l in-perso n intervie w wit h sit e personne l t o validat e informatio n abou t

th e complete dproject
. 12.2. 2 Reporte dSaving s Tabl e 12- 1 present s progra mparticipation , energ y savings , deman dreductio n durin g PECO' s To p 10 0 Hour s durin g th e summe r o f 201 2 an dthroughou t

PY4 , an dth e incentiv e pai dto th e participant
. Tabl e 12-1 . PY 4 PL RReporte d Result s b y Quarte r

Reportin g Perio d Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Cros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 )

PY 4 Q l 1 201. 1 0. 1 0. 1 3 5 PY 4 Q 2 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 PY 4 Q 3 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 0
• mQ 4 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 PY 4 Tota l I 20 1 0. 1 0. 1 3 5 CPIT D Tota l 1 20 1 0. 1 0. 1 3 5 Source: Navigant analysis Th e oft e projec t

complete dwa s fo r

aprivat e colleg e preparator y school
. A s Tabl e 12- 2 indicates , th e saving s fro mthi s projec t wer e therefor e i n th e GN I sector .

PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 16 9Tabl e 12-2 : PL RReporte d Result s b y Secto r

Secto r Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10 0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) Residentia l 0 0 0 0 0 Low-incom e 0 0 0 0 0 Commercia l an d Industria l 0 0 0 0 0 Governmen t

an d Nonprofi t J 20 1 0. 1 0. 1 3 5 PY 4 Tota l 1 20 1 0. 1 0. 1 3 5 CPIT D Tota l 1 20 1 0. 1 0. 1 3 5 Sowra: ; Nnvignn

tnnnlysi s 12.2. 3 Verifie d Saving s Th e evaluatio n teamfoun dth e equipmen t installe d almos t

precisel y a

s indicate di n th e projec t file , bu t foun dcertai n problem s wit h th e e x ante analysis
. Fou r factor s contribute dto difference s betwee n th e e x ante an de

x pos t saving s estimates
.
» Th e coolin g wate r

pum p i s operate d a t

constant , no t

variabl e speed , as ha dbee n assume d i n th e e

x ante calculations
. » Th e coolin g towe r

fa n spee d wa s miscalibrate d suc h tha t a10 0 percen t spee d contro l signa l resulte di n 70 percen t actua l fa n speed
. » Tli e e x ante analysi s use d a n invali dbaselin e efficiency
. » T o b e consisten t

wit h al l othe r

efficienc y measure s installe di n th e C& I sector throug h PECO' s Smar

t Equipmen t

Incentive s program , Navigan t calculate ddeman dsaving s usin g th e P

A Ac t 12 9 PEC O weathe r

dependen t

Pea k Deman dSaving s Calculato r rathe r tha n assessin g saving s onl y durin g PECO' s To p 10 0 Hours
. Som e o f th e factor s liste dabov e resulte d i n increase s t o energ y o r deman dsavings , whil e other s reduce destimate dsavings
. For example , th e baselin e erro r resulte di n excessiv e energ y saving s an ddeman dreductio n i n th e e x ante estimate
. O n th e othe r hand , deman dreductio n wa s underestimate di n th e e x ante calculatio n b y failin g t o us e th e weather-dependen t Pea k Deman dSaving s Calculator
. Th e overal l result s are presente di n Tabl e 12- 3 an dTabl e 12-4
. Sinc e there wa s onl y on e projec t i n th e populatio n fo r thi s program , there i s n o samplin g uncertainty—relativ e precisio n i s 0 percent . PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 170Tabl e 12-3
. PY 4 PLRSummar y o f

Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y

Strntur n Reporte d

Gros s Energ y Saving s Energ y

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f ' Variatio n (Cv ) o r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n 1 at 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s Populatio n 20 1 44 % 0 0% 8 8 0 Progra mTota l 20 1 44%
. 0 0% 8 8 0 Soura: Nnvignnt

analysis Tabl e 12-4 . PY 4 PL RSummar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d (To p 10 0 Hours )

Stratu m
Populatio n Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0. 1 Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e
167 % Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Oo r Proportio n 0 Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) Unverifie d

Cros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0 Stratu m
Populatio n Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0. 1 Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e
167 % Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Oo r Proportio n 0 0% 0. 2 Unverifie d Cros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) 0 Progra mTota l 0. 1 167 % 0 0% 0. 2 0 Source: Nnvignnt

analysis 

## 12. 3 Impac tEvaluation Ne

tSaving s Navigan t

di dno t conduc t ane t saving s analysi s fo r

thi s program . 

## 12. 4 Proces s Evaluation Du e t o lo w participation , n o proces s evaluatio n wa s conducte dfo r thi s program . 

## 12. 5 Financia

l Reportin

g A breakdow n o f

th e progra mfinance s i s presente d i n Tabl e 12-5
. A s th e tabl e indicates , th e PL R progra mwa s no t

cos t effective
. Thi s i s no t

surprisin g fo r

aprogra mwit h jus t

one participant
. Althoug h the progra mwa s inactiv e prio r t o PY4 , i t

wa s availabl e t o customers , an dwa s therefor e allocate dit s shar e o f portfolio-leve l cost s throughou t Phas e I
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 17 1Tabl e 12-5 . Summar y o f Permanen tLoa d Reductio n Progra m Finance s IQ' 9 ' ($1,000 ) PY 4 ($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 0 3 5 3 5 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C incentiv e Cost s 0 3 5 3 5 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration" 1 4 4 15 9 465 Management 12 1 6 3 2 28 3 Marketing 13 1 0 0 0 Technica l Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Implementatio n Cost s 5 0 19 1 74 8
ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 2 8 5 0 12 0 SW E Audi t Cost s 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs i ' i 7 8 27 7 90 3 Participan t

Costs 15 1 N/ A 1,82 6 1,82

6 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 " N/ A 2,067 2,69 4
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/ A 8 0 8 0 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N/ A 14 1 14 1 Tota l TR C Benefits' 7 ' N/ A 22 1 22 1 TR C Ratio' 8 ' N/ A 0.1 1 0.0 8 NOTE S Per PUC direction, TRC

inputs and calcuiations arc reipurcd in the Annual

Report only and should

compl}/wilh the 201 ITotal ResourceCost Test Order approved luly 28, ZOU. Please sec the "Report Definitions" section of

this report

for more details. J1 1 Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system, an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cosl
. |2 | Include s LD

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagemenl , genera

l managemen

l oversight , an

dmajo r accounts . J3 ) Include s th

e marketing CS

P an dmarketing cost

s b y progra mCSPs
. |4 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tola

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order , th e Tota l LD C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurredexpense

s only
. |5 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota

l Resourc e Cos t Tes t Order , th e ne l Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us e custome r o r progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t cosls
. Thes

e include incentive s pai dt o applianc e recycling an

dDeman dRespons

e participanls
. 16 ] Tota l TR C Cost s include LD

C Lvaluatio n Costs , LD

C Implementation Costs , an dParticipan

t Costs
. 17 ] Tota l TR C Henefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tota l Lifetime Energ

y Henefil s an

dTota l LifetimeCapacit

y Henefit s plu s an y benefi t associate d wil h avoidedincandescen t purchases mad

e du e t o Ih e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a s compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Hase

d upo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoidedsuppl

y costs , includin g th

e reduclio n i n cost s o f electric energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s valueda t margina l cos t fo r period s whe n Iher e i s aloa dreduction
. |8 | TR C Rati o equal s Tota

l TR C Henefil s divide db

y Tota l TR C Cosls
. |9 | Pos t PY 4 cost s an dbenefits ar

e include di n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Nnvignnt

nnnli/sis

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 172

## 13 Deman d Respons e Aggregators

Th e DR A progra mwa s ademan d respons e loa d curtailmen t progra mfo r

larg e commercia l an d industria l customer s tha t operate d onl y durin g th e summe r o f 2012
. I t wa s based o n D R performanc e contract s establishe d betwee n PEC O an d thre e third-part y servic e provider s {D R aggregators)
. Th e thre e D Raggregator s wer e EnerNO Q EnergyConnect , an d Comverge
. Th e D Raggregator s wer e responsibl e fo r recruitin g customer s willin g to curtai l thei r deman d an d deliverin g th e deman d reduction s t o PEC O o n adispatchabl e basis
. Th e progra mwa s designe d to provid e deman d respons e durin g PECO' s To p 10 0 Hour s o f

syste mpea

k load s durin g th e summe r o f 2012
. Th e contracte d M W an d numbe r o f dispatchabl e hour s tha t PEC O contracte d fo r wit h each aggregato r

ar e presente d i n Tabl e 13-1
. Tabl e 13-1 . DR A Contracte d M W an d Hour s Aggregato r Contrac t M W Dispatchabl e Hour s UnergyConnec t 10 0 125 Comverg e 3 1 125 I-nerNO C 4 0 60 Tota l 17 1 Source: DR Aggregator contracts 

## 13. 1 Progra

m Update

s Becaus e th e Pennsylvani aPU C decide d no t t o establis h pea

k deman d reductio n goal s fo r P A utilitie s i n Phas e II , PEC O ha s discontinue d th e DR A program . 

## 13. 2 Impac tEvaluation Gros s Saving s Thi s section describes th e methodolog

y an d results o

f th e gros s impac

tevaluation . 13.2. 1 Evaluatio n Methodology Progra mimpact s wer e calculate d a s th e differenc e betwee n eac h participant' s hourl y loa d an d th e baseline , develope d i n accordanc e wit h section s 3.3A.2 , 3.3A.2.01 , an d 3.3A. 3 o f th e Amende

d nn dRestate d Operatin g Agreemen

t o f PJM Interconnection , L.L.C
. date d Ma y 8 , 2012
. Us e o f th e symmetri c additiv e adjustmen t (SAA ) wa s designate d fo r eac h participant
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 17 3PJM Baselin e Protoco l

Section s 3.3A.2 , 3.3A.2.01 , an d3.3A. 3 o f th e Amende

dandRestate

dOperatin g Agreemen

t o f P} M Interconnection , L.L.C , date dMa y 8 , 2012 , describ e th e methodolog y use dt o estimat e th e custome r baseline
. The baselin e loa di s calculate das th e averag e o f th e highes t

fou r ou t o f fiv e eligibl e baselin e day s wit h an optiona l symmetri c additiv e adjustment
. Day s ar e no t eligibl e fo r inclusio n i n th e baselin e i f th e day i s an even t

day , aNort h America n Electri c Reliabilit y Corporatio n (NERC ) holiday , o r weeken d(PEC O cal l event s onl y o n weekdays)
. Otherwis e eligibl e day s ar

e exclude di f

th e averag e dail y even t perio dusag e i s les s tha n 25 percen t o f th e averag e even t

perio dfo r

th e fiv e days ; thi s criterio n eliminate s outlie r day s i n whic h th e loa d wa s extremel y low
. Th e optiona l SA A affect s th e leve l o f the baselin e load , bu t

no t th e shape
. Th e SA A shift s th e baselin e u p o r

dow n s o tha t

th e averag e baselin e load s durin g th e thre e consecutiv e hour s beginnin g fou r

hour s prio r

t o th e even t

perio d i s equal t o th e averag e loa ddurin g thi s sam e period
. Lin e Losse s Th e lin e los s varie s b y th e participant' s rate class
. Occasionally , multipl e account s ar e groupe d i n asingl e registration
. T o accoun t fo r instance s i n whic h th e rate clas s varie db y account , Navigan t

calculate daweighte dline-los s facto r fo r each registration , wit h th e weight s base d o n th e registere dloa d reductio n fo r each account . Treatmen to

f Negativ e Loa d Reduction s Progra mreduction s ma y b e eithe r

positiv e (th e loa d i s les s tha n th e baseline ) o r negativ e (th e loa di s greater

tha n th e baseline)
. Occasionally , th e negativ e loa dreduction s outweig h th e positiv e loa dreduction s fo r acustome r

o n aspecifi c even t

day , resultin g i n an averag e loa d reductio n durin g th e even t perio dtha t

i s les s tha n zero . Navigan t flagge dcustomer s wit h negativ e averag e loa dreduction s as non-participant s fo r tha t event , an dth e loa dimpac t durin g th e entir e even t

perio dwa s recorde da s zero . Otherwise , bot h positiv e an dnegativ e hourl y loa d reduction s ar

e recorded
. Th e lef t pane l o f Figur e 13- 1 show s acustome r flagge das anon-participan t durin g on e event . Th e customer' s averag e loa dreductio n durin g th e even t perio dwa s - 9 kW , indicatin g a n increas e i n energ y usag e durin g th e event . Navigan t assigne daloa dreductio n valu e o f 0 kW fo r thi s custome r

durin g th e entir e even t period
. Th e righ t

pane l o f

Figur e 13- 1 show s a custome r flagge da

s aparticipan t

durin g an event . Not e tha t th e loa dwa s abov e th e baselin e i n PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 174th e firs t

hou r o f th e even t

(correspondin g t o anegativ e loa dreduction ) an dbelo w th e baselin e durin g th e remainde r

o f th e event . Becaus e th e averag e loa dreductio n wa s positiv e 25 9 kW , Navigan t

recorde dbot h th e negativ e (firs t even t hour ) an dpositiv e (remainin g even t hours ) loa dreduction s durin g th e even t hours
. Figur e 13-1 . Exampl e o f a Non-Participan t(lef tpanel ) an d Participan t(righ tpanel ) Durin g a n Even tPerio d

451) Non-Participan t(8/ 3 Event ) Participan t(7/26 Event )

1 2 3 • ! 5 f

> 7 H 9 mi l 12131. 1 1516171819202 1 22232- 1

Hou r (hidin g 1 2 3 A 5 (
. 7 8 9 101 1 12131 4 151l > 1 7 181921)21222 3 2

4 Hou r Endin g •Loa d •Baselin e 'Loa d •Baselin e Source: Navigant

anah/sis Participants wit h Generator s o r Input/Outpu tMeters On e progra mparticipan t use d agenerato r

whe n reducin g loa di n respons e to a n Ac t 12 9 event ; however , th e generato r wa s use d outsid e Ac t 12 9 even t hour s a

s well
. Th e generato r

dat a containe dth e amoun t

o f energ y generate d an dth e amoun t o f energ y exported
. Navigan t calculate dth e ne t

generato r

energ y b y subtractin g th e exports . Th e ne t generato r

dat awa s the n multiplie db y negativ e one t o conver t th e dat afro msuppl y t o deman dan dth e baselin e wa s calculate dfollowin g th e protocol
. Anothe r progra mparticipan t

ha dseveral inpu t

an doutpu t

meters . Navigan t

calculate dth e ne t loa db y summin g th e inpu t loa ddat aan dsubtractin g th e outpu t loa ddata
. Th e ne t

loa dwa s use d i n th e baselin e calculation
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 175

### Additiona l detail s on th e evaluatio n methodology ar e documentedi n PECO' s Preliminar y Deman dReduction report. 5 4 

### 13.2. 2 Reporte dSaving s Tabl e 13- 2 present s progra mparticipation , energ

y savings , deman

dreductio n durin g PECO' s To p 10 0 Hour s durin g th

e summe r o f 201 2 an dthroughou t

PY4, an dprogra mincentive s t

o participants
. A s i t

was intende da

s aloa dshiftin g program , PEC O i s no t claimin g energ

y saving s fro mth

e DR A program . Furthermore , a s PEC O calledcurtailment

event s only durin g Q l (ther e wer e non e calle di n Septembe

r 2012) , ther

e i s no differenc e betwee n tota l demand reductio n andtha

t i n th e To p 10 0 Hours
. Finally , althoug h th e D Raggregators pai dparticipant s t o curtai l loa

dwhe n PEC O calle dcurtailment

events , PEC

O di dno t provid e incentive s directl y to participants
. Hence , n

o incentive s ar

e presente

d i n th e table
. Not

e tha t th e reporte ddeman

d reductio n presente

d i n thi s table i s 7.

4 M W highe r tha n th e value presented i n PECO' s Preliminar

y Deman dRespons

e report . I n th

e proces s of

preparin g thi s report , th e evaluator identifie da

n error i n th e applicatio n o f

lin e los s factors , whic h resulte di n th e increase destimat e o f demandreductio n reporte dhere
.

Tabl e 13-2
. PY

4 DR A Reporte dResult s b y Quarter
Reportin g Perio d Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n 

### mvti Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 )

PY 4 Q l 19 3 0 113. 4 113. 4 N/ A PY 4 Q 2 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 N/ A PY 4 Q 3 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 N/ A PY 4 Q 4 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 N/ A PY 4 Tota l 19 3 0 113. 4 113. 4 N/ A CPIT D Tota l 19 3 0 113. 4 113. 4 N/ A 

### Source: Nnvigant

nnnlysis

5 4

### PECO , Phas e IDeman dReduction

, mem o t o th e P A PUC , Marc h 1 , 2013
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 17 6Tabl e 13- 3 present s th e distributio n o f participatio n an dsaving s acros s th e sectors . Tabl e 13-3 . DR A Reporte d Result s b y Secto r

Secto r Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) Residentia l 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 N/ A Low-Incom e 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 N/ A Commercia l an d Industria l 9 9 0 79.9 79.9 N/ A Governmen t

an dNon

Profi t 9 4 0 33. 5 33. 5 N/ A PY 4 Tota l 19 3 0 113. 4 113. 4 N/ A CPIT D Tota l 19 3 0 113. 4 113. 4 N/ A Source : Navigan t analysi s 13.2. 3 Samplin g A s Tabl e 13-

4 indicates , Navigan t

analyze ddat afro mal l participant s fo r th e impac t

analysis
. N o sample s wer e drawn , s o there wa s n o samplin g uncertaint y i n th e results
. Tabl e 13-4 . DR A Samplin g Strategy fo r PY 4

Stratu m Strat a

Boundarie s Populatio n

Siz e Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activit y
Tota l Populatio n N/ A 19 3 N/ A 90 % ± 0 % 19 3 19 3 Calculatio n o f custome r baselin e an dloa d reductio n durin g D Reven t hour s Progra m Tota l N/ A 19 3 N/ A 90 % ± 0% 19 3 19 3 Source : Navigan t analysi s 13.2. 4 Verifie dSaving s

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 177Tabl e 13- 5 an dTabl e 13- 6 presen t reporte dan dverifie denerg y saving s an ddeman dreduction , respectively
. A s DR A wa s aloa dshiftin g program , PEC O i s no t claimin g energ y saving s fro m th e program . Tabl e 13-5 . PY 4 DR A Summar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y

Stratu m
Populatio n Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 0 Energ y Realizatio n Rat e
N/ A Observe d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportion ^ N/ A Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e 0 Verifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 0 Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) 0 Progra mTota l 0 N/ A N/ A 0 0 0 Sowrce: Nnviganl

nnnh/sis Th e impac t

evaluatio n fo r

thi s progra mutilize dth e PJ M protocol s fo r

establishin g loa d baseline s fo r

each participatin g customer , Navigan t calculate dloa dreductio n fo r each participan t

i n eac h hou r

durin g th e summe r

o f 201 2 b y subtractin g actua l loa dfro mth e custome r baseline
. I n orde r

t o determin e deman dimpact s o f th e progra move r

PECO' s To p 10

0 Hour s durin g th e summe r o f 2012 , i t wa s necessar

y t o firs t reconstruc t

PECO' s gros s baselin e load , b y addin g th e deman dreductio n fro mal l E E an dD Rprogram s t o PECO' s measure d (net ) load
. Wit h th e gros s baselin e loa dreconstructed , Navigan t wa s abl e t o identify th e To p 10 0 Hours
. Th e program' s impac t wa s the n calculate das th e averag e o f th e program-wid e hourl y impact s ove r

th e To p 10

0 Hours
. Becaus e PECO' s to p 10 0 loa dhour s wer e unknow n prio r t o th e en do f

September

2012 , an d becaus e participatio n i n an y give n D Reven t wa s voluntary , PEC O di dno t requir e an dth e aggregator s di dno t

develo p e

x ante estimate s o f

deman dreduction
. Thi s bein g th e case , i t wa s no t possibl e t o calculat e realizatio n rate s o n aparticipant-by-participan t basis , o r therefor e fo r th e progra mas awhole
. Fo r thi s reason . Tabl e 13- 6 present s neithe r ademan drealizatio n rate no r acoefficien t

o f variation
. A s th e analysi s wa s conducte dfo r al l participant s i n th e population , ther e i s n o samplin g uncertaint y i n thi s value
. Therefore , th e relativ e precisio n i s zer o percent .

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 17 8Tabl e 13-6
. PY 4 DR A Summar y o f

Evaluatio n Result s fo r Deman d(To p 10

0 Hours )

Stratu m Reporte d

Cros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) i Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Gio r Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n a t 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Populatio n 113. 4 N/ A N/ A 0 113. 4 0 Progra mTota l 113. 4 N/ A N/ A 0 113. 4 0 Soura': Nav'tgnnt

nmh/sis 

## 13. 3 Impac tEvaluation Ne

tSaving s Navigan t

di dno t conduc t researc h to determin e fre e ridershi p fo r thi s program . Navigant' s assumptio n i s tha t

non e o f th e progra mparticipant s woul dhav e curtaile dloa da t th e time s PEC O dispatche dth e progra mwithou t th e incentive s tha t

th e CSP s pai dt o the mfo r

thei r loa d curtailment
. Th e PA PUC' s 201 1 TR C Orde r make s i t

clea r tha t utilitie s ar

e t o us e an NT G facto r o f 1. 0 i n determinin g progra mcost-effectiveness
. Navigan t note s tha t

th e statewid e evaluato r conducte d researc h t o estimat e th e relativ e importanc e o f payment s fro mPJ

M an dthos e fro mth e EDC s i n D Rprogra mparticipants ' decision s t o curtai l loa do r tur n o n generators . Th e repor t o n tha t researc h an dit s conclusion s ca n b e foun do n th e PA PU C websit e a t http://www.puc.state.pa.us/filin g resources/issue s law s regulations/ac t 12 9 information/ac t

1 29 statewid e evaluato r sw e .aspx . 

## 13. 4 Proces s Evaluation Navigan t

di dno t conduc t aproces s evaluatio n fo r thi s progra mbecaus e PECO' s pla n wa s t o terminat e th e progra mfollowin g th e summe r o f 201 2 (PY4) ; therefore , an y finding s fro ma proces s evaluatio n coul dno t b e applie dt o improv e performanc e i n asubsequen t progra myear . 

## 13. 5 Financial Reportin

g A breakdow n o f

th e progra mfinance s i s presente d i n Tabl e 13-7
. Wit h abenefit-cos t rati o o f 0.69 fo r PY 4 an d0.3 1 fo r

Phas e I , th e progra mwa s no t cos t effective
. Not e tha t

benefit s fo r

thi s repor t wer e calculate dusin g PECO' s avoide dT& D cost s expresse d i n dollar s pe r kW h an d value dbase d o n th e energ y shifte ddurin g even t hours
. Sinc e PEC O claim s n o energ y saving s fro mthi s program , ther e ar e n o T& D benefits
. Althoug h thi s progra mwil l no t b e implemente d beyon dPY4 , i n Phas e II , T& D benefit s wil l b e calculate dusin g avoide dcost s expresse d i n PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 179dollar s pe r kW
. Ha dthi s methodolog y been applie dt o th e DR A progra mfo r PY4 , th e benefit

cos t rati o woul dhav e been 1.63
. Tabl e 13-7
. Summar y o f Deman dRespons e Aggregator s Progra mFinance s IQ' " ($1,000 ) PY 4 ($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C fncentive s ( o Participant s 0 0 0 ED C incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Incentiv e Cost s 0 0 0 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration 11 1 0 7,41 7 16,162 Management 12 ' 26 24 4 1,13 6 Marketing' 3 1 0 0 0 Technica l Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Implementatio n Cost s 26 7,66 1 17,29 8
ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 7 6 13 0 40 1 SW E Audi t Cost s 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs'* ' 10 2 7,79 1 17,69 9 Participan t

Costs' 5 ' N/ A 0 0 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 ' N/ A 7,79 1 17,69 9
Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/ A 0 0 Tota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s N/ A 5,40 9 5,40

9 Tota l TR C Benefits' 7 ' N/ A 5,40 9 5,40

9 TR C Ratio 18 ' N/ A 0.69 0.3 1 NOTE S Per PUC direction, TRC

inputs and calculations arc required iu the Annual

Report only and should comply with the 201 ITotal Resource. Cost Test Order approved luly 28, 2011. Please see the "Report Definitions" section of

Ihis report

for more details. 11 1 Include s th

e administrativ e CS

P (rebat e processing) , trackin g system, an dgenera l administratio n an

dclerica l cosl
. |2 | Include s LD

C progra mmanagement

, CS P progra mmanagement

, genera l managemen

l oversight , nn

dmajo r accounts , |3 | Include s th

e marketing CS

P an dmarketin g cost

s b y progra mCSPs
. 14 ] Pe r Ih e 201 1 Tota

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order , th e Tola l LD C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurre dexpense

s only
. [5 J Pe r th e 20 1 [ Tota

l ResourceCos

t Tes t Order , th e ne t Participan

t Cost s ar e th e cost s fo r th e end-us e custome r o r progra mcost s tha t ar e proxie s fo r

participan

t costs . Thes

e include incentive s pai dt o applianc e recycling an

dDeman dRespons

e participants
. [6] Tota l TR C Cost s include LD

C Evaluatio

n Costs , LD

C Implementation Costs , an dParlicipan

t Costs
. |7 | Tota l TR C Itenefit s equal s th

e su mo f Tota l Lifetim e Lnerg y Henefit s an dTota l Lifetime Capacit

y Henefit s plu s an y benefi t associate d with avoided.incandescen t purchases mad

e du e t o th e longe r useful lif e o f energy-efficien

t lightin g a

s compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Hase

d upo n verifie dgros s kW

h an dk W savings
. Henefit

s include : avoidedsuppl

y costs , includin g th

e reduction i n cost s o f electri c energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacily , an dnatura l ga s value dal margina

l cos t fo r period s • whe n ther e i s aloa dreduction , |S | TR C Rati o equal s Tota

l TR C Henefit s divide db

y Tota l TR C Costs
. |9 | Pos t PY 4 cost s an dbenefit s ar

e include di n IQ , PY4

, an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Nnvigant

nnaiysis PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 18 0

## 14 Distribute d Energ y Resource s

Th e DE Rprogra mwa s designe d t o realiz e pea k deman dreduction s durin g PECO' s To p 10 0 Hour s fro meligibl e commercia l an dindustria l customer s i n th e utility' s servic e territor y b y providin g incentive s fo r customer s t o ru n standb y generator s whe n requeste db y PECO
. PEC O contracte dwit h Comverg e t o provid e 16. 5 M W o f distribute dgeneratio n durin g PECO' s To p 10 0 Hour s b y recruitin g an d registerin g PEC O customer s fo r thi s progra mwh o were willin g t o ru n thei r generator s fo r

u p t o 12 5 hour s durin g th e month s June throug h September 2012
. 

## 14. 1 Progra

m Update

s Becaus e th e Pennsylvani aPU C decide d no t t o establis h pea

k deman dreductio n goal s fo r PA utilitie s i n Phas e II , PEC O ha s discontinue dth e DE Rprogram . 

## 14. 2 Impac tEvaluation Gros s Saving s Thi s section describe s th e methodolog

y an d result

s o f th e gros s impac

tevaluation . 14.2. 1 Evaluatio n Methodology Progra mimpact s wer e calculate da s th e differenc e betwee n each participant' s ne t hourl y loa d (consumptio n minu s generation ) an dth e baselin e (describe dbelow) , develope di n accordanc e wit h section s 3.3A.2 , 3.3A.2.01 , an d 3.3A. 3 o f th e Amende

dandRestate

dOperatin g Agreemen

t o f PJ M Interconnection , L.L.C , date dMa y 8 , 2012
. Us e o f th e SA A wa s designate dfo r each participant
. PJ M Baselin e Protoco l Section s 3.3A.2 , 3.3A.2.01 , an d 3.3A. 3 o f th e Amende

dandRestate

dOperatin g Agreemen

t o f PJ M Interconnection , L.L.C , date dMa y 8 , 2012 , describ e th e methodolog y use dt o estimat e th e custome r baseline
. The baselin e loa di s calculate d a s th e averag e o f

th e highes t

fou r ou t o f fiv e eligibl e baselin e day s wit h an optiona l symmetri c additiv e adjustment
. Day s ar e no t eligibl e fo r inclusio n i n th e baselin e i f th e day i s an even t

day , NER C holiday , o r weeken d(PEC O cal l event s onl y o n weekdays)
. Otherwis e eligibl e day s ar e exclude di f

th e averag e dail y even t perio dusag e i s les s tha n 2 5 percen t o f th e averag e even t

perio dfo r

th e fiv e days ; thi s criterio n eliminate s outlie r

day s i n whic h th e loa dwa s extremel y low
. Baselin e loa dcalculation s utilize d ne t loa d—th

e differenc e betwee n hourl y consumptio n an don-site generation
.
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 18 1Th e optiona l SA A affect s th e leve l o f th e baselin e load , bu t

no t th e shape
. Th e SA A shift s th e baselin e u p o r

dow n s o tha t

th e averag e baselin e load s durin g th e thre e consecutiv e hour s beginnin g fou r

hour s prio r

t o th e even t

perio di s equa l t o th e averag e loa ddurin g thi s sam e period
. Lin e Losse s Th e lin e los s varie s b y th e participant' s rate class
. Occasionall y multipl e account s ar e groupe d i n asingl e registration
. T o accoun t fo r instance s i n whic h th e rate clas s varie db y account , Navigan t

calculate daweighte dline-los s facto r fo r each registration , wit h th e weight s base d o n th e registere dloa dreductio n fo r each account . Participants wit h Generator s o r Input/Outpu tMeter s On e progra mparticipan t use d agenerato r

whe n reducin g loa di n respons e t o a n Ac t 12 9 event ; however , th e generato r wa s use d outsid e Ac t 12 9 even t hour s a

s well
. Th e generato r

dat a containe dth e amoun t o f energ y generate d an dth e amoun t o f energ y exported
. Navigan t calculate dth e ne t

generato r

energ y b y subtractin g th e exports . Th e ne t generato r

dat awa s the n multiplie db y negativ e on e t o conver t th e dat afro msuppl y t o deman dan dth e baselin e wa s calculate dfollowin g th e protocol
. Anothe r progra mparticipan t

ha dseveral inpu t

an doutpu t

meters . Navigan t

calculate dth e ne t loa db y summin g th e inpu t loa ddat aan dsubtractin g th e outpu t loa ddata
. Th e ne t

loa dwa s use d i n th e baselin e calculation
. Additiona l detail s o n th e evaluatio n methodolog y ar e documentedi n PECO' s Preliminar y Deman dReductio n report. 5 5 14.2. 2 Reporte d Saving s Tabl e 13- 2 present s progra mparticipation , energ y savings , deman dreductio n durin g PECO' s To p 10 0 Hour s durin g th e summe r o f 201 2 an dthroughou t

PY4 , an dprogra mincentive s to participants
. A s th e DE Rprogra mdi dno t

curtai l consumption , bu t merel y shifte di t

t o customer-owne dgeneration , PEC O i s no t claimin g energ y saving s fro mth e program . Furthermore , a

s PEC O dispatche dth e progra monl y durin g Q l (ther e wer e n o event s i n

MPLCO , Phas

e IDman dReduclion

, mem o t o th e P A PUC, Marc

h I , 20T3
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 182September 2012) , there i s n o differenc e betwee n tota l deman dreductio n an dtha t i n th e To p 10

0 Hours
. Finally , althoug h Comverg e pai dparticipant s t o star t o r ram p u p thei r

generator s whe n PEC O dispatche dth e program , PEC O di dno t provid e incentive s directl y t o participants
. Hence , n o incentive s ar e presente d i n th e table
. Not e tha t th e reporte ddeman dreductio n presente d i n thi s tabl e i s 1.0 M W highe r tha n th e valu e presente d i n PECO' s Preliminar y Deman dRespons e report . I n th e proces s o f preparin g thi s report , th e evaluato r identifie dan erro r i n th e applicatio n o f

lin e los s factors , whic h resulte di n th e increase destimat e o f deman d reductio n reporte dhere
.

Tabl e 14-1 . PY4 DE RReporte d Result s b y Quarte r
Reportin g Perio d Participant s Reporte d Cros s 1 Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 10

0 Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n JMW ) Total

Reported \ Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 )

PY 4 Q l 2 0 16. 4 16. 4 N/ A PY 4 Q 2 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 N/ A mQ 3 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 N/ A PY4Q 4 0 0 0. 0 0. 0 N/ A PY 4 Tota l 2 0 16. 4 16. 4 N/ A CPIT D Tota l 2 0 16. 4 16. 4 N/ A Source: Nnvignnt

nnnh/sis Tabl e 14- 2 present s th e distributio n o f participatio n an dsaving s acros s th e sectors .

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 183Tabl e 14-2
. DE RReporte dResult s b y Secto r

Secto r Participant s Reporte d Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) To p 100

Hour s Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Tota l

Reporte d Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Incentive s

($1,000 ) Residentia l 0 0 0 0 N/ A Low-Incom e 0 0 0 0 N/ A Commercia l an d Industria l 1 0 13. 6 13. 6 N/ A Governmen t

an dNon

profi t 1 0 2. 8 2. 8 N/ A PY 4 Tota l 2 0 16. 4 16. 4 N/ A CPIT D Tota l 2 0 16. 4 16. 4 N/ A Source : Navigan t analysi s 14.2. 3 Samplin g A s Tabl e 14- 3 indicates , Navigan t analyze ddat afro mal l participant s fo r th e impac t

analysis
. N o sample s wer e drawn , s o ther e wa s n o samplin g uncertaint y i n th e results
. Tabl e 14-3
. DERSamplin g Strateg y fo r PY 4

Stratu m Strat a

Boundarie s Populatio n

Siz e Assume d

Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv) o r Proportio n i n Sampl e Desig n Targe t

Level s o f Confidenc e & Precisio n Targe t

Sampl e Siz e Achieve d

Sampl e Siz e Evaluatio n

Activit y
Tota l Populatio n N/ A 2 N/ A 90 % ± 0% 2 2 Calculatio n o f custome r baselin e an dloa d reductio n durin g D Reven t hour s Progra m Tota l N/ A 2 N/ A 90% ± 0% 2 2 Source: Navigant

analysis

PEC O Energ y Compan y J Pag e 18 414.2. 4 Verifie dSaving s

Tabl e 14-4 an dTabl e 14- 5 presen t reporte dan dverifie denerg y saving s an ddeman dreduction , respectively
. A s DE

Rmerel y shifte dconsumptio n t o customer-owne dgeneration , PEC O i s no t claimin g energ y saving s fro mth e program .

Tabl e 14-4. PY 4 DE RSummar y o f Evaluatio n Result s fo r Energ y

Stratu m Reporte d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Energ y

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (CvTor Proportio n Relativ e

Precisio n at 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s , (MWh ) Unverifie d

Gros s Energ y Saving s (MWh ) Populatio n 0 N/ A N/ A 0 0 0 Progra mTota l 0 N/ A N/ A 0 0 0 Source: Nnvigant

analysis Th e impac t

evaluatio n fo r

thi s progra mutilize dth e PJ M protocol s fo r

establishin g loa d baseline s fo r

eac h participatin g customer . Navigan t calculate dloa dreductio n fo r each participan t

i n each hou r

durin g th e summe r

o f 201 2 b y subtractin g actua l loa dfro mth e custome r baseline
. I n orde r

t o determin e deman dimpact s o f th e progra move r

PECO' s To p 10

0 Hour s durin g th e summe r o f 2012 , i t wa s necessar

y t o firs t reconstruc t

PECO' s gros s baselin e load , b y addin g th e deman dreductio n fro mal l E E an dD Rprogram s t o PECO' s measure d (net ) load
. Wit h th e gros s baselin e loa dreconstructed , Navigan t wa s abl e t o identify th e To p 10 0 Hours
. Th e program' s impac t wa s the n calculate da s th e averag e o f

th e program-wid e hourl y impact s ove r

th e To p 10

0 Hours
. Becaus e PECO' s to p 10 0 loa dhour s wer e unknow n prio r t o th e en do f

September

2012 , an d becaus e participatio n i n an y give n D Reven t wa s voluntary , PEC O di dno t requir e an d Comverg e di dno t

develo p e

x ante estimate s o f

powe r productio n b y DE

Rparticipant s durin g even t hours
. Thi s bein g th e case , i t wa s no t

possibl e t o calculat e realizatio n rate s o n a participant-by-participan t basis , o r therefore , fo r

th e progra mas awhole
. For thi s reason . Tabl e 13- 6 present s neithe r

ademan drealizatio n rate no r acoefficien t

o f variation
. Sinc e th e analysi s wa s conducte dfo r

al l participant s i n th e population , ther e i s n o samplin g uncertainty
. Therefore , the relativ e precisio n i s zer o percent .

PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e 18 5

### Tabl e 14-5 . PY 4 DE RSummar

y o f Evaluation Result

s fo r Deman

d (To p 10 0 Hours)

Stratu m Reporte d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Deman d

Realizatio n Rat e Observe d Coefficien t o f Variatio n (Cv)o r Proportion ^ Relativ e

Precisio n a t 85 % Confidenc e Verifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n Saving s (MW ) Unverifie d

Gros s Deman d Reductio n (MW ) Populatio n 16.4 N/ A N/ A 0 16. 4 0 Progra mTota l 16. 4 N/ A N/ A 0 16. 4 0 

### Source: Nnvigant

nnnh/sis 

## 14. 3 Impac tEvaluation Ne

tSaving s Navigant di dno t conduct researc h t o determine fre e ridershi p fo r thi s program . Navigant' s assumptio n i s tha

t non e o f th e progra mparticipant s woul dhav e dispatchedo

r increase d powe r productio n fro mtheir

generators a

t th e time s PEC

O dispatchedtli e progra mwithou t

th e incentive s tha

t Comverge pai dt

o the mfo r their loa dcurtailment
. Th e P A PUC' s 201 1 TR

C Orde r makes i t clea r tha t utilitie s ar

e t o us e a n NTG facto r

o f 1. 0 i n determinin g progra

mcost-effectiveness
. Navigant note s tha t th e statewid

e evaluator

conducted researc h to estimat

e th e relativ e importanc e of

payments fro mPJ

M andthose fro mthe EDC s i n D Rprogra mparticipants ' decision s t o curtai l loa

do r tur n on generators . Th

e repor t on tha t researc h an dit s conclusion s ca n b e foun don the P A PU C websit

e a t http://www.puc.state.pa.us/fiUn g resources/issue s law s regulations/ac t 12 9 information/ac t

1 2 9 statewid

e evaluator

swe .aspx . 

## 14. 4 Proces s Evaluatio n Navigan t di dno t conduct aproces s evaluatio n fo r thi s progra

mbecaus e PECO' s pla

n wa s to terminat e the progra

mfollowin g th

e summe r of 201 2 (PY4) ; therefore , an y finding s fro ma proces s evaluatio n coul dno t b e applie dto improv e performanc e i n asubsequen t progra myear . 

## 14. 5 Financia

l Reporting A breakdow n o f

th e progra mfinance s i s presente

d i n Tabl e 34-6
. Th e benefit-cos t

rati o wa s 0.4 1 fo r PY 4 an d0.2 2 fo r Phas e I
. Not e tha t benefit s fo r

thi s repor

t wer e calculatedusin g PECO' s avoide dT& D cost

s expresse

d i n dollar s pe

r kWh-yea r an dvaluedbase

d o n th e energ y shifte d durin g even

t hours
. Sinc

e PEC O claim s no energ

y saving s fro mthi s program , ther e ar e no T& D benefits
. Althoug h thi s progra mwil l no t

b e implemente dbeyondPY4 , i n Phas e II , T& D benefit s
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 18 6wil l b e calculate dusin g avoide dcost s expresse d i n dollar s pe r kW-year
. Ha dthi s methodolog y been applie dto th e DR A progra mfo r PY4 , th e benefit-cos t

rati o woul dhav e been 0.99
.
IQ' 9 ' ($1,000 ) PY 4

($1,000 ) CPIT D

($1,000 ) ED C Incentive s t o Participant s 0 0 0 ED C Incentive s t o Trad e Allie s 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Incentiv e Cost s 0 0 0 Desig n & Developmen t 0 0 0 Administration 1 1 ' 0 1,32 5 1,73 8 Management' 2 ' 4 6 40 1 1,46 4 Marketing 1 3 1 0 0 0 Technica l Assistanc e 0 0 0 Subtota l ED C Implementatio n Cost s 4 6 1,72 6 3,202

ED C Evaluatio n Cost s 103 18 9 46 3 SW E Audi t

Cost s 0 0 Tota l ED C Costs' 4 ' 14 9 1,91 5 3,665 Participan t

Costs' 5 ' N/ A 0 0 Tota l TR C Costs' 6 ' N/ A 1,91 5 3,66 5

Tota l Lifetim e Energ y Benefit s N/ A 0 0 Tota l Lifetim e Capacit y Benefit s N/ A 78 8 78 8 Tota l TR C Benefits' " N/ A 78 8 78 8 TR C Ratio"* ' N/ A 0.4 1 0.22 NOTE S PtT PUC direction, TRC

inputs and

calculations arc required in the Annual

Report only and should comply with the ZOUTolal Resource Cast Tesl Order approved luly 28,2011. Please see the "Report Definitions"

section of

this rqiort

for more details. 11 1 Include s th e administrativ e CS P (rebate processing) , trackin g system , an dgeneral administratio n an dclerica l cost . [2 | Include s LD C progra mmanagemenl , CS P progra mmanagement , general management oversight , an dmajo r

accounls
. [3j Include s th e marketin g CS P an dmarketin g cost s b y progra mCSPs
. |4 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tola l Resourc e Cos l Tes t Order , th e Tola l LD C Cost s refe r t o LD C incurre dexpense s only
. j5 | Pe r th e 201 1 Tota l ResourceCos t Tes t Order , th e ne t

Participan t

Cost s are th e cost s fo r th e end-us e custome r

o r progra mcost s tha t are proxie s fo r

participan t

costs . Thes e includ e incentive s pai dt o applianc e recyclin g an dDeman dRespons e participants , |6 | Tota l TR C Cost s includ e LD C Lvaluatio n Cosls , liD C Implementatio n Costs , an dParticipan t Cosls , |7 ] Tota l TR C Henefil s equal s th e su mo f Tota l Lifetim e linerg y Benefit s an dTota l Lifetim e Capacity Benefit s plu s any benefi t associate d wit h avoide dincandescent purchase s mad e du e l o th e longe r usefu l life o f

energy-efficien t

lightin g a

s compare dt o th e baselin e measure . Hase d upo n verifie dgros s kW h an dkW savings
. Henefit s include : avoide dsuppl y cosls , includin g ih e reductio n i n cost s o f

eleclri c energy , generation , transmission , an ddistributio n capacity , an dnatura l ga s value da l margina l cos t fo r period s whe n ther e i s aloa dreduction
. 18 ) TR C Rati o equal s Tota l TR C Henefit s divide db y Tota l TR C Costs
. 19 | Pos t PY 4 cost s an dbenefit s ar

e include di n IQ , PY4 , an dCPIT D numbers
. Source: Navigant

analysis PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e 18 7

## Appendi

x A Selection o

f Residentia

l Lightin g Coincidence Facto r Prio r t o th e PY

4 Q 3 report , deman dreductio n impact s fo r residentia l lightin g measure s ha d been calculate dusin g th e pea k loa dcoincidenc e facto r o f 5 percen t

i n th e 201 2 Pennsylvani a TRM
. Thi s valu e come s fro ma2007 repor t b y RL W Analytics , entitle d"Developmen t o f Commo n Deman dImpact s fo r Energ y Efficienc y Measures/Program s fo r th e IS O Forwar d Capacity Marke t

(FCM)". 5 0A s th e 5 percen t C F has been acknowledge db y bot h th e SW E an d the TU S t o b e erroneous, 5 7 Navigan t Consulting , Inc
. (Navigant ) ha s use d aresidentia l lightin g loa dshap e develope dthroug h th e 200 9 Northeas t

residentia l lightin g logge r stud y conducte d b y Nexu s Marke t

Research , RL W Analytics , an dGD S Associate s (th e NM R2009 study ) t o calculat e arevise dC F o f "11. 7 percen t ove r PECO' s To p 10

0 Hour s durin g th e summe r o f 2012. 5 8 Navigan t

ha s use d thi s valu e t o recalculat e CPITD-verifie ddeman dreductio n fo r al l residentia l lightin g measure s subsidize dthroug h it s Smar t Lightin g Discount s progra man dComponen t 1 (installatio n o f

"extr aCFLs" ) o f

it s Low-Incom e Energ y Efficienc y Program
. Navigant' s decisio n t o adop t thi s valu e come s fro marevie w o f lightin g logge r

studie s base d o n sampl e size , geographi c relevance , availabilit y o f loa dshap e dat afo r

summe r pea k deman d saving s calculations , an dth e dat e o f th e study
. Specifically , th e 2009 Northeas t stud y ha da sampl e siz e o f

65 7 lightin g logger s sprea d acros s 15 7 homes
. Home s wer e randoml y selecte d fro mamon g alarg e recruitmen t pool , an dlogger s wer e al l i n plac e fo r June , July , an dAugus t o f 2008 , a s wel l as sprin g an dfal l months
. I t i s noteworth y tha t

thi s i s th e stud y tha t

i s cite dfo r annua l hour s o f

us e i n th e 201 3 P A TRM
. Othe r lightin g logge r

studie s Navigan t

reviewe dfo r

th e purpos e o f

updatin g th e pea

k loa d coincidenc e facto r

included : EmPOWERMarylan d2010-2011 , 2006-200 8 Californi aUpstrea m Lightin g Program , 2005 Californi aResidentia l CFL Metering , an dth e 200 8 Databas e fo r Energy

Efficien t Resource s (DEER) CF L loa dshape
. Th e EmPOWERMarylan d2010-201 1 stud y feature dfewe r

logger s tha n th e 2009 Northeas t study , wit h atota l o f 37 7 logger s acros s 13 1 homes
. I n th e Marylan dstudy , ther e wa s no t alarg e poo l o f

recruite dhome s fro mwhic h th e

RL W Analytics , "Developmen t o f Commo n Deman dImpact s fo r Lnerg y lifficienc y Measures/Program s fo r th e IS O Forwar d Capacit y Marke t (LCM)" , prepare

dfo r th e Ne w Englan dStat e Progra mWorkin g Grou

p (SPWG) , Marc

h 25 , 2007 , p , IV ,
• , 7 Se e th e minute s o f

th e Progra mLvaluatio n Grou

p meetin g fro mMarc

h 20 , 201 3 (forwarde dt

o al l EDC s an devaluators o

n Marc h 29, 2013)
. w Nexus Marke

t Research , Inc. , RL W Analytics , Inc. , an

dGD S Associates , 2009
. Residentia l Lightin g Markdow n Impac t Lvaluation
. Prepare d to r Markdow n an

dBuydow

n Progra mSponsor

s i n Connecticut, Massachusetts , Rhod e Island , an

dVermont
. Januar

y 20, 2009
. PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e A- lsampl e coul dbe selecte d a t random
. Th e Marylan dstud y als o yielde damodele dseasona l curv e o f C F value s wit h adistinctl y greater amplitud e tha n tha t

see n i n othe r

studies
. Th e 2006

- 200 8 Californi aUpstreamLightin g Progra mstud y include dlogger s i n mor e than '1,20 0 homes
. However , th e repor t

doe s no t

includ e an hourl y loa dshap e an dcanno t b e adapte dfo r

th e calculatio n o f

deman dreductio n i n th e To p 10 0 Hours
. Th e 2005 Californi aResidentia l CFL Meterin g Stud y installe d meter s o n 98 3 CFL s i n 37 5 homes
. Thi s stud y include s alarg e sampl e siz e an dexcellen t

stud y methodology ; however , th e dat aar e comparativel y ol dan dfro ma geographi c locatio n furthe r remove dfro mPennsylvani atha n th e 2009 Northeas t study
. Th e 200 8 DEE

RCFL loa dshap e i s base d o n th e sam e dat afro mth e 2005 Residentia l CF L Meterin g Study , bu t

als o incorporate s th e impac t o f lighting-HVA C interactiv e effect s o n summe r pea k loa dshapes
. Becaus e thes e interactiv e effect s are influence db y climat e an dothe r considerations , thes e adjuste d loa dshape s d o no t represen t

abes t fi t fo r Pennsylvania
. T o creat e bette r fittin g loa d shapes , Navigan t i s undertakin g a

n analysi s o f

HVA C interactiv e effects

- Th e PY

4 Annua l Repor

t wil l includ e thi s analysis
. For th e foregoin g reasons , th e 200 9 Nexu s Marke t

Researc h (NMR ) stud y provide s th e bes t matc h t o Pennsylvani acondition s o f th e availabl e residentia l lightin g loa dstudies
. Navigan t

use dth e NM R200

9 residentia l lightin g loa dshap e t o calculat e hourl y coincidenc e factor s fo r

ever y hou r

o f th e year . Th e averag e o f thes e hourl y CF s durin g PECO' s To p 10 0 Hour s durin g th e summe r o f 201 2 i s 11. 7 percent .

PEC O Energ y Compan y | PageA-

2

## Appendi

x B Residentia

l CFL/LE D Interactiv

e Effects/Wast

e Hea t Facto r Analysi s Thi s appendix detail s th e methodolog y an

d results o f

Navigant' s HVA C interactio n effect s factor (wast e hea t factor) stud

y fo r PECO
. Navigant

constructe d buildin g energ y compute

r simulatio n model s t

o determine th

e heating , ventilation , and air conditionin g (HVAC ) impacts fro mefficien t

lightin g installation s i n th e PEC O servic e territory
. Navigant use d thes e model s t

o calculat e energ y and deman

d interactiv e effect s factor s (IEF) , whic h ar e use d to adjus t

th e progra mlightin g saving s t

o accoun t fo r th e additional impact s on HVA C energy and demand
. Th e Navigant

Consulting , Inc
. (Navigant) tea mha s no t applie d energ

y an d demand interactiv e effect s i n previou s evaluation s of PECO' s residentia

l program s becaus

e thes e wer e no t include d i n th e TRM
. However , th

e evaluatio n tea

mbelieve s tha

t b y no t includin g thi s factor , th

e TR M i s significantl y underestimatin g deman d saving s fro mefficien t

lightin g installations
. Th e energ y and deman

d interactiv e effect s factor s defin e th e secondar

y impact s on HVA C energ y cause d by th e primary energ

y saving s fro mreduced-wattag e lightin g installations
. Th e efficien t lightin g equipmen

t emit s les s "wast

e heat " t o th e conditione dbuildin g space , whic h i n tur n increases th

e nee d fo r heatin g fro mth

e HVA C syste

mdurin g winter

month s an

d decreases th e nee d fo r coolin g i n air-conditione dspace s durin g summe

r months
. Thi s modelin g analysi s calculate dth

e impact s on heating and coolin g energ y us e fro minstallatio n of

reduced-wattag e lightin g equipment , and th e reductio n i n pea

k demand fo r

th e utilit y summe

r pea k period
. Th e interactiv e effect s ar

e define da

s th e ratio s betwee

n th e total saving s (primar

y lightin g and secondar y HVA C impacts ) an

d th e primary , lighting-onl y savings
. Navigant use d th e followin g equation s t

o calculat e energ y and deman

d interactiv e effects
. Th

e energ y IE F i s calculate d usin g annua l energ y savings , whil e deman

d IE F i s calculate d usin g th

e k W saving s fo r

lightin g an

d HVA C en d use s durin g th

e PEC O summe r pea k periods
. g _(kWh Savings Liflht i n g+kWh Savings HVAC)


### Demand' IEF

— ^ kW Savin3SLi 

### s htln 

### 8 +kW Savin 

### ssHVAc) d ~ kW

Savings U

g htin g 

## B. l Methodolog

y Th e followin g section describe s Navigant' s methodolog y fo r calculatin g energ

y an d deman d interactiv e effect s fo r

PECO
. I n general , Navigant performe dthes

e steps :
PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e B- l» Develope dhourl y residentia l buildin g model s wit h EnergyPlu s 8. 0 simulatio n software : o Input s wer e derive dfro mth e 201 1 PEC O Baselin e Stud y conducte db y Navigant
. o Model s wer e calibrate dt o PECO-specifi c monthl y billin g dat afro mU.S
. Energ y Informatio n Administratio n (EIA ) Form826
. o Model s use d Buildin g Americ aBenchmar k hourl y lightin g profiles , o Performe dsimulation s usin g weathe r dat afro mPhiladelphi aInternationa l Airpor t » Calculate dlEF

dusin g tw o specification s fo r pea k period : o 201 2 actua l meteorologica l yea r (AMY ) weathe r

dat ause d t o calculat e aPECO

specifi c IEF

dfo r PECO' s actua l To p 10 0 Hour s fo r

th e perio do f

June I , 201 2 throug h Ma y 31 , 201 3 (effectivel y Jun e throug h September

2012 ) o 201 2 typica l meteorologica l yea r (TMY ) weathe r

dat ause d t o calculat e an IEF d fo r th e statewid e Technical Referenc e Manua l usin g PJM' s definitio n o f th e pea k perio d(2- 6 p.m . o n al l non-holida y weekday s betwee n June an dAugust )
» Calculate dannua l lEF u usin g al l 8,76

0 hour s o f

th e yea r » Result s analyze da s aweighte daverag e o f hom e typ e (singl e famil y an dmultifamily ) heatin g typ e (gas , hea

t pump , electri c resistance ) an dA C typ e (centra l A C an droo mAC ) as observe di n th e PEC O Baselin e Stud y Th e followin g section s describ e eac h proces s in mor

e detail . 

## B. 2 EnergyPlus Simulation Navigan t

performe dhourl y buildin g energ y simulatio n modelin g wit h th e EnergyPlu s 8. 0 softwar e package , awell-establishe dan dvette dwhol e buildin g simulatio n softwar e develope d b y th e U.S
. Departmen t o f Energy
. EnergyPlu s allow s fo r hourl y buildin g simulatio n t o calculat e th e hourl y deman dfo r al l majo r

en duse s i n th e buildin g (includin g lightin g an d HVAC)
. Navigan t

chos e t o us e hourl y simulatio n modelin g becaus e th e softwar e calculate s th e comple x an ddynami c interaction s betwee n th e buildin g components , therma l mass , weather , an dHVA C equipment
. Navigan t use d th e lightin g an dHVA C hourl y end-us e deman dprofile s fro mEnergyPlu s t o calculat e th e energ y an ddeman dinteractiv e effect s fo r thi s study
. Mor e detail s o n th e calculatio n methodolog y ar e provide di n th e Calculations/Analysi s section
. 

## B. 3 BEop tMode l Input s an d Calibration Proces

s Buildin g Energ y Optimizatio n (BEopt ) softwar e i s aplatfor mdevelope db y th e Nationa l Renewabl e Energ y Laborator y (NREL ) t o us e as afront-en dt o th e EnergyPlu s softwar e engine
. PECO-specifi c model s wer e develope di n BEop t accordin g t o housin g characteristic s determine db y th e 201 1 PEC O baselin e stud y conducte db y Navigant
. Analysi s o f th e baselin e
PECO Energ y Compan y | Pag e B- 2

### dat

aandsegmentation b

y hom e typ e andheating syste myielde deigh

t specifi c model s wit h thei r respective weighting s i n parentheses :

• Singl e famil y - ga

s furnac e (59% )

• Singl e famil y - hea

t pum p ( J 1 % )

• Multifamil y - ga

s furnac e (

2 orientations ; 24% )

• Multifamil y - electri c resistance ( 2 orientations ; 4% )

• Multifamil y - hea

t pum p ( 2 orientations ; 2% ) Eac h model differe di n terms o f envelop e input s accordin g t o th e dat ai n th e baselin e study
. Fo

r acomplet e listin g of

th e input s presen

t i n eac h model , se

e Tabl e B-5
. Th e multifamil y homes wer e modeleda

s townhouse s wit h share

d wall s on tw o sides , s

o tw o model s wer

e buil t fo r eac h hom e a t perpendicula

r orientation s t

o matc h dat atha t indicate dther

e i s no predominant orientatio n o f

townhome s withi n PEC

O servic e territory
. A weighte dcalibratio n o f al l model s wa

s performe dusin g th

e averag e monthl y consumptio n of aresidentia

l PEC O custome

r derive dfro mEI

A 82 6 billin g data
. Du

e t o th e limitation s o f

th e baselin e stud y buildin g attribute s andbillin g data , i t wa s determine dtha

t th e modelin g output s woul donl y b

e vali dusin g aweighte daverag e rathe r tha n developin g IE

F fo r eac h individua l buildin g model
. Certai n parameters o

f th e model wer

e adjuste di n orde

r t o matc h th e billin g data , includin g thermosta t se t points , natural ventilatio n behavior , an dtherma l mas s o f th e building. 5 9 

### Area

specifi c Buildin g Americ aBenchmar k default s buil t

int o BEop

t wer e use d fo r lightin g an

d domestic ho t

wate r schedules
. Th

e model s wer

e calibrate da

s agrou p t

o th e billin g dat

ausin g th e weighte daverag

e results , rathe

r tha n calibratin g eac

h model to th

e billin g dat

aon a n individua l basis
. 

## B. 4 Calculations/Analysi s I n orde r to calculat

e energ y anddeman

dinteractiv e effects , Navigant firs t ra n al l o f th e model s wit h th e baselin e lightin g profile s an

drespective weathe

r files
. Next , Navigan t

modeled "efficient " buildin g model s b y "upgrading " 100 % of screw-i n fixture s i n th

e hous e to compac

t fluorescen

t (CFL ) bulbs
. Navigant

performe dtria l model s upgradin g 25% , 50% , and75% of th e fixture s to CFLs , andnote dtha t th e interactio n facto r

result s ar e independen

t o f th e numbe r o f light s replaced
. Eac

h o f th e simulation s wa

s performe datota

l o f fou r times : wit h th

e baselin e andefficien t

cases , usin g 201 2 AM Y weathe r dat aandTM Y weathe

r data
.

• wThes e calibratio n parameter

s wer e chose n becaus e the y ar e largel y independen

t o f th e physica l structur e o f th e house
. Thermosta

t se t points an

dnatura l ventilatio n ar

e determinedb

y th e behavio r o f th e hous e occupants , an

dth e therma l mas s o f th e hous e i s affectedb y th e amoun t o f furnitur e etc . presen

t insid e th e house
. 

### PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e B- 3Deman dInteractio n Effect s Facto r

Navigan t

use dth e followin g methodolog y t o calculat e th e IEF ddurin g th e summe r

an dwinte r utilit y pea

k periods :

T o determin e aPECO-specifi c IEF dfo r calculatin g PECO' s Ac t 12 9 Phas e I verifie ddeman d saving s i n the summe r o f 2012 , Navigan t

average dth e lightin g an dHVA C saving s ove r th e pea k 10 0 hour s fo r

PEC O i n 2012
. T o determin e aPECO-specifi c IEF dfo r th e Ac t 12 9 Phas e I I statewid e Technica l Referenc e Manual , Navigan t

average dth e lightin g an d HVA C saving s ove r th e utilit y pea

k perio das define db y PJM
. Th e utilit y pea k perio di s define das :

» Summe r

Pea k Period : weekday , non-holiday , Jun e throug h August , 2:00

- 6:0 0 p.m . Navigan t

use dth e hourl y simulatio n outpu t fro mEnergyPlu s t o calculat e th e averag e hourl y deman ddurin g bot h pea k periods
. Figur e B- l show s th e weighte daverag e summe r hourl y deman dprofile s fo r

th e baselin e an d reduced-wattag e models
. Th e shade dbo x indicate s th e pea k perio das define db y PJM
. Figur e B-l
. Weighte dAverag e Lightin g an dCoolin g Deman dfo r Baselin e an dE

E Model s 0. 7 - 0. 6 - 0. 5 • TJ n 0. 4 E v a > 0. 3 0. 2 0. 1 0 /(' 

# A \ 

# • /X v / / /

\ \ / \

- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 •Lightin g Bas e •Coolin g Bas e

—Lightin g EE —Coolin g E

E

9 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 7 1 9 2 1 2 3 Hou r ofth e Da y Source : Nnuigfin t nnniysi' s PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e B- 4Figur e B- 2 display s th e hourl y deman d saving s fro mth e baselin e fo r lightin g an d HVA C end

use s fo r th e weighte d averag e o f al l models
. Th e IEF

dquantifie s th e additiona l reductio n i n HVA C deman d du e t o lightin g deman d saving s durin g th e utilit y pea k perio dindicate d b y th e shade d box
. Heatin g saving s are negative , reflectin g a n increas e i n heatin g deman d betwee n th e incandescen t

(Baseline ) an d CFL (EE) cases . Thi s increas e i n heatin g deman d i s aresul t o f lowe r hea t emission s fro mlightin g fixture s i n th e E E case . Figur e B-2 . Weighte d Averag e Lightin g an d HVA C Deman d Saving s betwee n Baselin e an d E E Model s

-o c n E <u a 0.0 2 0.01 5 0.0 1 0.00 5

-0.005 -0.0 1 i 

# /A '

/ /

v

—j—,—,—j—,—,—i—,—,—j— , —i— i ]—i—i— i j i

—-

N ' c XL n o

Hour o th e Da

y 0. 3 0.2 5 0. 2 0,1 5 0. 1 ~ 0.0 5 TM O l 

### o | -0.05 -0. 1 -0.1 5 • eati n

avi n s •Cooli n avi n s •L i ti n avi n s

Sowrce : Navigan t nnnh/si s Th e followin g i s an exampl e IEF dcalculatio n usin g th e modelin g result s show n i n Figur e B-2
. Lightin g an d HVA C deman d saving s ar e average d durin g th e summe r pea k period
. [(0.0239kW) + (0.0055kW)]

IEF « = 0.0239kW = 122 8 Navigan t

calculate d IEF

dfo r al l buildin g model s fo r bot h th e summe r

pea k period s as define d b y PJ M an d PECO' s actua l 201 2 to p 10 0 deman d hours
. Energy Interaction Effects Factor Navigan t

use d th e followin g methodolog y t o calculat e th e lEFe : [{Annual Lighting Energy Savings) + {Annual HVAC Energy Savings)] IEF, = Annual Lighting Energy Savings Figur e B- 3 show s th e monthl y kW h saving s fo r lightin g an d HVA C equipmen t fo r th e weighte d averag e o f

al l buildin g models
. HVA C saving s ar e negativ e durin g th e winte r an d positiv e durin g th e summe r

becaus e o f

th e increase d nee d fo r heatin g fro mth e HVA C syste mdurin g

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e B- 5winte r

month s an dth e decrease d nee d fo r coolin g i n th e summe r months t o maintai n temperatur e set

points
. Figur e B-3 . Monthl y Lightin g an d HVA C Energ y Saving s fo r a Weighte d Averag e o f A H Model s (TMY ) 10 0 8 0 6 0 n o c ro
2 0 0 -2 0 LLP. , 

# •J l o Lighting

• Heatin g

• Coolin g

12345678 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 Mont h Source: Nnvignnt

nmli/sis Th e followin g i s an exampl e IEFO calculatio n fo r th e weighte daverag e o f al l model s usin g th e result s show n i n Figur e B-3
.

Result s Tabl e B- l throug h Tabl e B- 3 sho w th e result s o f Navigant' s energ y an ddeman dinteractiv e effect s facto r

study
. Th e result s o f

thi s stud y ar

e show n fo r

each individua l HVA C type , an d the n weighte dappropriatel y usin g weighting s fro mth e PEC O Baselin e Study
. Each resul t i s reporte da

s an Ac t 12 9 Phas e 1 2012-specifi c valu e usin g AM Y weathe r dat afro m2012 , an da general Ac t

12 9 Phas e I I valu e usin g TM Y weathe r data
. Navigan t

calculate dan IEFL

- abov e 1. 0 fo r gas-heate d homes , an da n lEF e belo w 1.0 fo r electricall y heate d homes
. Thi s i s becaus e th e HVA C heatin g penalt y i s highe r tha n th e coolin g benefi t provide di n electricall y heate d home s wit h efficien t lightin g installations
. Navigan t weighte dthes e result s base d o n HVA C type , fo r aweighte dIEF * o f

1.01 0 (TMY ) an d1.02

0 (201 2 AMY) , show n i n Tabl e B-l
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | PageB- 6Tabl e B-l . Energ y Interactiv e Effect s Facto r Result s 

### U&b(fu M 

# mm Singl e Famil y - Ga s 1.04 6 1.05 8 59 % Singl e Famil y - Heat

Pum p 0.865 0.90 3 11 % Multifamil y - Ga s 1.04 2 1.05 3 24 % Multifamil y - Electri c Resistanc e 0.62 0 0.66

0 4% Multifamil y - Heat

Pum p 0.86 8 0.90 4 1 % Weighte dAverag e 1.01 0 1.02 0 100 % Source: Nnvigant

anah/sis Navigan t

calculate daweighte daverag e summe r IEF dfo r al l homes
. Th e presenc e o f centra l an d roo mA C wa s determine dfro mth e baselin e stud y dat ashow n i n Tabl e B-2
.

Tabl e B-2 . PEC O Baselin e Stud y Ai rConditionin g Prevalenc e Weighting s IMtTftmrrn % 

# %m Centra l A C 76% 45% Roo mA C 13 % 41 % Unknow n 11 % 14 % Source; Navigant

nnnh/sis Becaus e BEop t

i s unabl e t o accuratel y mode l th e presenc e o f roo mA C units , al l home s wer e modele dwit h centra l AC
. T o accoun t fo r th e presenc e o f

roo mAC , one-thir do f th e mode l outpu t wa s use d as aconservativ e estimat e o f th e consumptio n o f

aroo mA C uni t

relativ e t o a centra l unit
. Th e mode l output s wer e therefor e adjuste daccordin g t o th e followin g formula : Adjuste dOutpu t

= Modele dA

C - ( % o f

eachmode l tha t

i s roo mA

C * Modele dAC ) * (2/3 ) Applicatio n o f

thi s adjustmen t

yielde daweighte dsumme r IEF do f 1.228 (TMY ) an d1.19

4 (201 2 AMY) , a s show n i n Tabl e B-3
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e B- 7

### Tabl e B-3. Summe r Deman d Interactiv

e Effect s Facto r Result s 

# w^fiiBaffiteai©%f© \mmm ss 

# ^^ msgm®^ Singl e Family-Ga s 1.23 9 1.20 5 59 % Singl e Famil y - Heat

Pump 1.24 1 1.20 2 n % Multifamily-Ga s 1.17 6 1.16 9 24 % Multifamily-Electri c Resistanc e 1.170 1.16 8 4 % Mu 11 i fa m i ly - Hea t

Pu mp 1.171 1.167 1 % Weighte d1.228 1.19 4 100 % Source : Nnvignn

tnnnh/si s 

### Recommendation

s Base d o n th e result s of

thi s analysi s o

f th e PEC O residentia

l CFL/LE

D lightin g HVA C interactiv e effect s factors , the Navigant evaluatio n tea

mrecommends us

e of th e followin g interactiv e effect s factor s when determinin g PECO' s verifie dsaving s fo r Ac t 12 9 complianc e fo r Phas e 1 an dPhas e 11
. Tabl e B-4 . PECO-Verifie d Residentia l CFL/LE D Lightin g HVA C Interactiv e Effect s Factor s

Phas e I (June 1 , 2012-May 31 , 2013 ) (Based o n 201 2 AM Y weathe r

file ) Phas e H (June 1 , 2015-May 31 , 2016 ) (Based

. 1 r- l \1.01 0 1.22 8
on TMY weather file) Source: Nnvignnt

nnnh/sis 

### Navigan t als o recommends th

e nex t versio n of

th e P A TR M b e update dt

o us e th e abov e liste d Phas e I I IEF , an

dIEF dvalue s fo r

PECO
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e B- 8Tabl e B-5 . Lis to f PEC O Mode l Input s 

# • 

# JS L S S

Baselin e Weigh t 59*1 6 11 % 24 % 4 % 1 % Siz e <sq . ft. ) 2,50 4 1,42 3 Floor s 1. 5 1. 5 Wal l Heigh t(ft) 8 8 Age 4 5 6 1 Bed s 3 2 Heatin g SetPoin t(F ) 6 6 Coolin g SetPoin t 71. 8 Wal l Insulatio n R-8. 2 R-6. 9 Atti c Insulatio n R- l 9 R- l 2. 6 Crawlspac e Insulatio n Uninsulated , Vente d Windo w Are a (F/B/L/ Rsq . ft. ) 16,16,18,1 9 50 , 50 , 0 , 0 Windo w Characteristic s (U value , SHGC ) .53 , .5 5
Infiltratio n 8 ACH5 0 I0ACH5 0 Lightin g (%CFL , %LED , %LFL ) 0.19,0.0,0.0 8 0.34,0.0 , 0.0 5
Ai rConditionin g Centra l AC , SEE R1 2 Hea

t Pump , SEE R1 2 Centra l AC ,

SEE R1 2 Centra l AC ,

SEE R1 2 Heat

Pump , SEE R1 2 Heatin g Furnace ,

78 % AFU E ASHP , 7. 7

HSP F Furnace , 78 %

AFU E Electri c

Baseboar d ASHP , 7. 7

HSP F Duc tLocatio n Crawlspac e Duc tLeakag e 15 % DH W Electric , 0.9 2 E F Additional notes : PEC O Energ y Compan y 1 PageB-

9• Al l home s wer e modele dwit h apartia

l finishe dbasemen

t an dpartia l crawlspace
. • A M appliance s ar

e Huilding Americ aHenchmar k Standards
. • Twenty-eigh

t percen t o f all home s ha delectric wate

r heating ; all models wer

e create dusin g 100 % electric wate

r heatin g an d a djuste daccordingl

y Source: PECO 2011 Baseline Study

PEC O Energy Compan

y | Pag e B-1 0

## Appendi

x C Deman

d Reductio

n fro m Smar tLightin g Discount Lamp s Installe d i n Non-residentia l Facilitie s I n accordanc e wit h th e requirement s i n Sectio n 2.A.llo f Ac t 129 , whic h preclude s cross subsidizatio n o f

measure incentive s acros s custome r classes , th e evaluatio n tea mrecognize s th e nee d t o accoun t

fo r th e non-residentia l installation s o f CF L bulb s rebate d throug h PECO' s SL D program . Base d o n in-stor e survey s o f customer s a

t th e tim e o f

purchase s ("in-stor e intercepts" ) durin g th e PY2 evaluation , th e evaluatio n determine dasignifican t portio n o f

SLD bulb s hav e been installe di n commercia l an dindustria l settings
. Bulb s use d i n nonresidentia l setting s hav e a substantiall y highe r

pea k loa dcoincidenc e facto r an dhour s o f

us e tha n bulb s use d i n residentia l settings
. CPITD-verifie dpea k deman dreductio n a

s o f th e en do f

PY3 ha s bee

n adjuste dt o reflec t

thi s fact
. I n previou s complianc e reporting , pea k deman dreductio n fro mal l progra mbulb s wa s calculate dpe r

th e applicabl e Pennsylvani aTR M usin g th e deeme d residentia l pea k loa d coincidenc e facto r

o f 5 percen t

an ddeman din-servic e rate (ISRCFL ) o f 8 4 percen t

fo r PY3
. Th e dat acollecte dfro mth e in-stor e intercep t custome r

survey s i n PY

2 indicate dtha t

approximatel y 12. 2 percen t

o f SLD progra mbulb s were installe di n commercia l settings
. Not e tha t thi s 12. 2 percen t represent s th e mea

n estimate o f

C& I installation s usin g aweighte daverag e o f numbe r o f bulb s installe di n commercia l application s an dno t th e percentag e o f

customer s purchasin g bulbs
. Thi s proportio n wa s relativel y consisten t acros s standar d CF L an dspecialty CF L installations
. Th e evaluatio n tea

mdevelope dverifie dsaving s estimate s o f savings , addressin g comment s b y th e Pennsylvani aSW

E that , usin g th e 12. 2 percen t mea n estimat e o f

th e C& I installations , coul d overestimat e savings
. 

## C. l Magnitud

e o f Percen to f Installatio

n Th e estimate s o f

installation s i n C& I application s ar e base d o n finding s fro mth e in-stor e intercep t survey s tha t

were complete di n PY2
. O f th e 14 4 respondent s tha t

purchase d CFL s an d confirme dthe y woul db e installe di n PECO' s servic e territory , 9 indicate dthe y woul db e installin g a

t leas t som e o f the mi n acommercia l application
. O f thes e nine , thre e indicate dtha t al l purchase d CFL s woul db e installe di n acommercia l facilit y an dsi x indicate dsom e woul dbe installe di n thei r

residenc e an dsom

e i n acommercia l facility
. O f thes e si x customers , fo r thos e tha t purchase d u p t o twic e th e averag e numbe r o f bulb s purchase d b y residentia l customers ,

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e C- lcalculation s assum e 5 0 percen t

o f bulb s woul db e installe di n th e commercia l facilit y an d5 0 percen t woul db e installe di n th e residence
. Fo r th e commercia l customer s purchasin g mor e tha n twic e th e averag e numbe r o f CFL s purchase db y residentia l onl y customer s (5.1 4 CFLs) , calculation s assum

e tha t onl y 5.1 4 CFL s woul db e installe di n thei r residence , an dth e res t woul db e installe di n th e commercia l facility
. Finding s yiel dan estimate dmean installatio n rat e i n C& I application s o f

12. 2 percent . Th e SW E note dtha t

othe r studie s hav e show n alowe r percentag e o f

utilit y upstrea mbuy-dow n progra mbulb s ar

e installe di n commercia l o r industria l applications
. Th e evaluatio n tea m conducte daliteratur e revie w t o compar e wha t th e installation s i n C& I application s ar e i n othe r jurisdictions
. Typica l finding s showe dC& I installatio n rate s close r t o 6 percent . Althoug h i t

i s industr y standar dpractic e t o appl y th e mea n estimat e o f

evaluatio n finding s t o determin e verifie dsavings , i n thi s cas e th e evaluatio n tea magree s wit h th e SW E tha t th e 12. 2 percen t may overestimat e th e percentag e o f bulb s bein g installe di n C& I applications
. A t a9 0 percen t confidence , th e 12. 2 percen t estimat e ha s an interva l o f plu s o r minu s 4. 5 percent , resultin g i n arang e o f 7. 7 percen t

u p t o 16. 7 percen t

C& I installations
. Th e evaluatio n tea m believe s th e 7. 7 percen t i s likel y close

r t o th e real valu e o r

a t leas t provide s aconservativ e estimat e o f

th e rea l value
. Fina l verifie ddeman dreduction s ar e base d o n th e lowe r

boun do f

7. 7 percen t C& I installatio n rate . 

## C.2 Determining C& I EFL H an d C F Th e SW E commente dtha t

installatio n rate s an deffectiv e full-loa dhour s (EFLH ) an dC F shoul d b e calculate dusin g aweighte daverag e approach
. Th e evaluatio n tea magrees , an dthi s metho d wa s use d t o calculat e C& I EFL H an dC F values
. C& I EFL H an dC F wer e determine dusin g a weighte daverag e base d o n numbe r o f CF L purchase s an dth e stipulate dvalue s fro mth e TRM
. For th e thre e customer s indicatin g al l CFL s woul db e installe di n acommercia l facility , th e one custome r wit h th e larges t

purchas e o f

thes e thre e di dno t

provid e abusines s typ e tha t coul dbe easil y mappe dt o th e TR M busines s types . Thi s custome r wa s include di n th e calculation s fo r determinin g tota l C& I bul b installatio n percentages , bu t wa s exclude dfro mth e calculation s fo r averag e buildin g hour s o f us e an dC

F s o a s no t t o ske w th e result s wit h informatio n tha t i s base d o n an unknow n buildin g type . Usin g pea k loa dcoincidenc e factor s fo r CFL s b y commercia l buildin g typ e fro mth e TRM , an dweightin g thes e coincidenc e factor s b y th e reporte dproportion s o f installatio n i n restaurants , offices , industrial/agricultural , an dhealth car e buildings , yielde daC& I pea k loa dcoincidenc e facto r o f 7 9 percen t

an dEFL H o f

4,532
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y J Pag e C- 2

## C.

3 Verified Deman

d Reduction

s T o provid e verifie dprogra msaving s fo r

PECO' s SL

D progra mandaccounting fo r

al l C& I installation s whil e addressing th e SW E comments , th

e evaluatio n tea

mapplie dthes

e PY 2 finding s usin g th

e lower boun dof 7.7 % fo r proportio n o

f bulb s goin g int o C& I facilitie s andth e associate d pea k loadcoincidenc e factor

t o progra mbulb sales fro mPY1-PY3
. Th e residentia

l pea k perio dlin e los s factor

of 1.191 6 was applie dt

o th e residentia

l proportio n of

installations , whil e th e small C& I pea

k lin e los s factor

of 1.11 1 was applie dt

o th e C& I installations
. Further , becaus e th e C& I algorithm s d

o no t includ e a

n IS Rfactor , th

e evaluatio n tea

mapplie dth

e verifie dPEC

O Smar t Equipmen

t Incentive s (SEI

) C& I progra

mrealizatio n rate s fo r

eac h progra myea r to th e saving s calculation s fo r th e C& I portio n of

th e rebate d CFLs
.

PEC O Energ y Compan y | Pag e C- 3

### Pag e 1 o f

From : (215

) 841-577 6 Ann a Migliacci o Exelon 230 1 Marke

t Stree t S15- 2 Philadelphia , P

A 1910 3 Origi n ID : RED A f^f ^

Exprts s

J132015te3a)32 6 SHI P TO : (717

) 772-777 7 BIL L SENDE R 

### Rosemar y Chiavetta , Secretar

y P a Publi c Utility Commissio n 40 0 NORT H S T FL 2 COMMONWEALT

H KEYSTON E BLD

G HARRISBURG , P

A 1712 0 Shi p Date : 15NOV1 3 ActWgt: 2. 0 L

B CAD: 9876187/INET343

0 Deliver y Addres s Ba rCod e

Ref # Invoic e # PO # Dept#



### ^ t , 797 1 715

3 155 9 020 1 

## MO N -1 8 NO V A A STANDARD OVERNIGH

T 

# S H MDT A 17120 PA-O S 

## MD T

SIAGMWefi/IAEH * Afte rprintin g thi s label : 1
. Us e th e 'Print ' butto n o n thi s pag e t o prin t you rlabe l t o you rlase ro rinkje t printer
. 2
. Fol d th e printe d pag e alon g th e horizonta l line
. 3
. Plac e labe l i n shippin g pouc h an d affi x i t t o you rshipmen t s o tha t th e barcod e portio n o f th e labe l ca n b e rea d an d scanned
. Warning : Us e onl y th e printe d origina l labe l fo rshipping
. Usin g a photocop y o f thi s labe l fo rshippin g purpose s i s fraudulen t an d coul d resul t i n additiona l billin g charges , alon g wit h th e cancellatio n o f you rFedE xaccoun t number
. Us e o f thi s syste m constitute s you ragreemen t t o th e servic e condition s i n th e curren t FedE xServic e Guide , availabl e o n fedex.com.FedE x wil l no t b e responsibl e fo ran y clai m i n exces s o f $10 0 pe rpackage , whethe rth e resul t o f loss , damage , delay , non delivery.misdelivery.o rmisinformation , unles s yo u declar e a highe rvalue , pa y a n additiona l charge , documen t you ractua l los s an d fil e a timel y claim.Umitation s foun d i n th e curren t FedE x Sen/ic e Guid e apply
. You rrigh t t o recove rfro m FedE xfo ran y loss , includin g intrinsi c valu e o f th e package , los s o f sales , incom e interest , profit , attorney' s fees , costs , an d othe rform s o f damag e whethe rdirect , incidental,consequential , o rspecia l i s limite d t o th e greate ro f $10 0 o rth e authorize d declare d value
. Recover y canno t excee d actua l documente d loss.Maximu m fo ritem s o f extraordinar y valu e i s $1,000 , e.g . jewelry , preciou s metals , negotiabl e instrument s an d othe r item s liste d i n ou rServiceGuide

. Writte n claim s mus t b e file d withi n stric t tim e limits , se e curren t FedE xSen/ic e Guide

. 

# RECEIVE D NO V 1 5 20f 3 P A PUBLI C UTILITY COMMISSIO N SECRETARY' S BUREA U



### https://www.)alex.eom/shippin^/htiril/en//PrintIFrame.hlm l 1/15/201 3