Richard G. Webster, Jr. 

Vice President 

Rcfjulatory Policy arid Slrateyy 

PECO 

2301 Market St reel. S15 

Philadelphia, PA njio-? 

Telephone 215.841.4000 t:xt 5777 

Fax 215.841.6208 

www.peco.corn 

dick.websterffppeoo-eneujy.cnm 

An Exelon Company 

November 15, 2013 

Rosemary Chiavetta, Secretary 

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission 

Commonwealth Keystone Building 

400 North Street 

Second Floor 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 

Re: PUC Docket No. M-2008-2069887 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Program Final Annual Report 

June 1, 2012 through May 31, 2013 

Dear Secretary Chiavetta: 

In accordance with the Commission's Secretarial Letter dated May 25, 2011, enclosed is 

PECO's 2013 Final Annual Energy Efficiency & Conservation Report for the program year of 

June 1, 2012 through May 31, 2013. 

PECO is providing a copy ofthe report to the Act 129 Statewide Evaluator (GDS Associates, 

Inc.) and is also posting the report on the PECO website. 

Please acknowledge receipt of the foregoing on the enclosed copy of this letter. 

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please call me at 215-841-5777. " 

Sincerely, 

cc: C. Walker-Davis, Director, Office of Special Assistants 

P. T. Diskin, Director, Bureau of Technical Utility Services 

D. P. Hosier, Director, Bureau of Audits 

J. E. Simms, Director, Bureau of Investigation & Enforcement 

Office of Consumer Advocate 

Office of Small Business Advocate 

McNees, Wallace & Nurick 

RECEIVED 

NOV 1 5 2013 

PA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION 

SECRETARY'S BUREAU 

enclosures 
Final Annual Report for the 

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission 

For the Period 

June 2012 through May 2013 

Program Year 4 

For Pennsylvania Act 129 of 2008 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Plan 

Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

For 

PECO Energy Company 

November 15, 2013 
Table of Contents 

ACRONYMS VH 

REPORT DEFINITIONS X 

1 OVERVIEW OF PORTFOLIO 1 

1.1 SUMMARYOI;PROCRKSSTOWARDCOMPUANCI;TARCI-:TS 2 

1.2 SUMMARY OI-' ENKRGY IMPACTS 10 

1.3 SUMMARY OFFUJ-J, SWITCHING IMPACTS 16 

1.4 SUMMARY OF DKMAND IMPACTS 17 

1.5R!-:CONCII.lATiON WITI I PRIOR ANNUAL RliPORTS 27 

1.6 SUMMARY OP PY4 NPT-TO-GROSS RATIOS 33 

1.7 SUMMARY OP PORTI-OLIO FINANCES AND COST-EFFPCTIVI-NPSS 33 

1.8 SUMMARYorCosr-EimrnviwHss KY PROGRAM 36 

2 SMART LIGHTING DISCOUNTS 39 

2.1 PROGRAM UPDATPS 39 

2.2 IMPACT EVALUATION GROSS SAVINGS 39 

2.3 IMPACT EVALUATION NHT SAVINGS 46 

2.4 PROCLSS EVALUATION 47 

2.5 FINANCIAL RI-PORTING 49 

3 SMART APPLIANCE RECYCLING 52 

3.1 PROGRAM UPDATES 52 

3.2 IMPACT EVALUATION GROSS SAVINGS 52 

3.3 IMPACT EVALUATION NF.T SAVINGS 56 

3.4 PROCHSS EVALUATION 59 

3.5 FINANCIAL RUPORTING 62 

PECO Energy Company | Page ii 
4 SMART HOME REBATES 64 

4.1 PROGRAM UPDATES 64 

4.2 IMPACT EVAI .UATION GROSS SAVINGS 64 

4.3 IMPACT EVALUATION NIJTSAVINGS 69 

4.4 PROCHSS EVALUATION 70 

4.5 FINANCIAL RP.PORTING 73 

5 LOW-INCOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM 75 

5.1 PROGRAM UPDATIB 76 

5.2 IMPACT EVALUATION GROSS SAVINGS 76 

5.3 IMPACT EVALUATION Nirr SAVINGS 90 

5.4 PROCISS EVAI .UATION 90 

5.5 FINANCIAL RLPORTINC 95 

6 SMART EQUIPMENT INCENTIVES: COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROGRAM 98 

6.1 PROGRAM UPDATPS 99 

6.2 IMPACT EVALUATION CROSS SAVINGS 99 

6.3 IMPACT EVALUATION NP.T SAVINGS 108 

6.4 PROCPSS EVALUATION Il l 

6.5 FINANCIAI , RLPORTINC 115 

7 SMART EQUIPMENT INCENTIVES - GOVERNMENT, NONPROFIT, INSTITUTIONAL 

PROGRAM 117 

7.1 PROGRAM UPDATES 117 

7.2 IMPACT EVAI .UATION GROSS SAVINGS 117 

7.3 IMPACT EVALUATION NLT SAVINGS 127 

7.4 PROCLSS EVALUATION 130 

7.5 FINANCIAL RLPORTINC 134 

PECO Energy Company | Page iii 
8 SMART CONSTRUCTION INCENTIVES PROGRAM 135 

8.1 PROGRAM UPDATKS 135 

8.2 IMPACT EVALUATION GROSS SAVINGS 135 

8.3 IMPACT EVALUATION NI T SAVINGS 139 

8.4 PROCPSS EVALUATION 141 

8.5 FINANCIAL RLPORTINC .• 143 

9 CONSERVATION VOLTAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM 145 

9.1 PROGRAM UPDATES 145 

9.2 IMPACT EVALUATION GROSS SAVINGS 145 

9.3 IMPACT EVALUATION Nirr SAVINGS 145 

9.4 FfNANCiAi. RLPORTINC 146 

10 RESIDENTIAL SMART A/C SAVER PROGRAM 148 

10.1 PROGRAM UPDATIS 148 

10.2 IMPACT EVALUATION GROSS SAVINGS 148 

10.3 IMPACT EVALUATION NLT SAVINGS 153 

10.4 PROCHSS EVALUATION : 153 

10.5 FINANCIAL RHPORTING 157 

11 COMMERCIAL SMART A/C SAVER PROGRAM 159 

11.1 PROGRAM UPDATPS 159 

11.2 IMPACT EVALUATION GROSS SAVINGS 159 

11.3 IMPACT EVALUATION NHT SAVINGS 163 

11.4 PROCHSS EVALUATION 163 

11.5 FINANCIAL RHPORTING 166 

12 PERMANENT LOAD REDUCTION 168 

12.1 PROGRAM UPDATPS 168 

PECO Energy Company f Page fv 
12.2 IMPACT EVALUATION GROSS SAVINGS 168 

12.3 IMPACT EVALUATION NLT SAVINGS 171 

12.4 PROCLSS EVALUATION 171 

12.5 FINANCIAL RLPORTINC 171 

13 DEMAND RESPONSE AGGREGATORS 173 

13.1 PROGRAM UPDATPS 173 

13.2 IMPACT EVALUATION GROSS SAVINGS 173 

13.3 IMPACT EVALUATION NLT SAVINGS 179 

13.4 PROCLSS EVALUATION 179 

13.5 FINANCIAL RLPORTINC 179 

14 DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES 181 

14.1 PROGRAM UPDATHS 181 

14.2 IMPACT EVALUATION GROSS SAVINGS 181 

14.3 IMPACT EVALUATION NLT SAVINGS 186 

14.4 PROCHSS EVALUATION 186 

14.5 FINANCIAL RLPORTINC 186 

APPENDIX A SELECTION OF RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING COINCIDENCE FACTOR A-l 

APPENDIX B RESIDENTIAL CFL/LED INTERACTIVE EFFECTS/WASTE HEAT FACTOR 

ANALYSIS B-l 

B.l MLTHODOLOCY B-l 

B.2 ENLRCYPLUS SIMULATION B-2 

B.3 BEOPT MODEL INPUTS AND CALIBRATION PROCLSS B-2 

B.4 CALCULATIONS/ANALYSIS B-3 

APPENDIX C DEMAND REDUCTION FROM SMART LIGHTING DISCOUNT LAMPS 

INSTALLED IN NON-RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES C-l 

PECO Energy Company | Pagev 
C.l MAGNITUDI- orPI-:RCI:NTOI--

 INSTAI.I.A-HON C-l 

C.2 OVJKRMININC C&l EFLH ANDCF C-2 

C.3 Vi-RiiiiiiD DHMAND RI;DUCTIONS C-3 

PECO Energy Company | Pagcvi 
Acronyms 

AMY Actual Meteorological Year 

BAS Building Automation System 

BEopt Building Energy Optimization 

C&I Commercial and Industrial 

CATI Computer-Aided Telephone Interview 

CF Coincidence Factor 

CFL Compact Fluorescent Lamp 

CHP Combined Heat and Power 

CPITD Cumulative Program/Portfolio Inception to Date 

CPITD-Q Cumulative Program/Portfolio Inception through Current Quarter 

CSP Conservation Service Provider or Curtailment Service Provider 

CVR Conservation Voltage Reduction 

CVRf Conservation Voltage Reduction factor 

DCU Digital Cycling Units 

DEER Database for Energy-Efficient Resources 

DER Distributed Energy Resources 

DLC Direct Load Control 

DR Demand Response 

DRA Demand Response Aggregator 

EDC Electric Distribution Company 

EE&C Energy Efficiency and Conservation 

EFLH Effective Full-Load Hours 

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act 

EM&V Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification 

EMS Energy Management System 

ETO Energy Trust of Oregon 

FCM Forward Capacity Market 

FPL Federal Poverty Level 

GNI Government, Nonprofit, Institutional 

GNI NC GNI New Construction 

HOU Hours of Use 

PECO Energy Company | Pagevii 
HVAC 

IEF 

IMP 

IQ 

kW 

kWh 

LED 

LEED 

LEEP 

LIURP 

M&V 

MW 

MWh 

NERC 

NTG 

PA PUC 

PCT 

PEG 

PLR 

POP 

PY1 

PY2 

PY3 

PY4 

PYX QX 

PYTD 

SAA 

SAE 

SAR 

SEER 

SCI 

SEI 

SHR 

SLD 

SSMVP 

Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning 

Interactive Effects Factor 

Interim Measure Protocol 

Incremental Quarter 

Kilowatt 

Kilowatt-hour 

Light-Emitting Diode 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 

Low-Income Usage Reduction Program 

Measurement and Verification 

Megawatt 

Megawatt-hour 

North American Electric Reliability Corporation 

Net-to-Gross 

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission 

Programmable Communicating Thermostats 

Program Evaluation Group 

Permanent Load Reduction 

Point of Purchase 

Program Year 2009, from June 1, 2009 to May 31, 2010 

Program Year 2010, from June 1,2010 to May 31, 2011 

Program Year 2011, from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2012 

Program Year 2012, from June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013 

Program Year X, Quarter X 

Program Year to Date 

Symmetric Additive Adjustment 

Statistically Adjusted Engineering 

Smart Appliance Recycling 

Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating 

Smart Construction Incentive 

Smart Equipment Incentives 

Smart Home Rebates 

Smart Lighting Discounts 

Site-Specific M&V Plan 

PECO Energy Company | Pageviii 
SWE Statewide Evaluator 

T&D Transmission and Distribution 

TMY Typical Meteorological Year 

TRC Total Resource Cost 

TJ^M Technical Reference Manual 

WTA Willingness to Accept 

PECO Energy Company | Page ix 
Report Definitions 

Note: Definitions provided in this section are limited to terms critical to understanding values presented 

in this report. 

REPORTING PERIODS 

Cumulative Program Inception to Date (CPITD) 

Refers to the period of time since the start of the Act 129 programs. CPITD is calculated by 

totaling all program year results, including the current program year to date results. For 

example, CPTID results for PY4 Q3 is the sum of PY1, PY2, PY3, PY4 Ql, PY4 Q2, and PY4 Q3 

results. 

Incremental Quarter (IQ) 

Refers to the current reporting quarter only. Activities occurring during previous quarters are 

not included. For example, IQ results for PY4 Q3 will only include results that occurred during 

PY4 Q3 and not PY4 Q2. 

Program Year to Date (PYTD) 

Refers to the current reporting program year only. Activities occurring during previous 

program years are not included. For example, PYTD results for PY4 Q3 will only include results 

that occurred during PY4 Ql, PY4 Q2, and PY4 Q3. It will not include results from PY1, PY2, 

and PY3. 

SAVINGS TYPES 

Preliminary 

Qualifier used in all reports except the final annual report to signify that evaluations are still in 

progress and that results have not been finalized. Most often used with "realization rate" or 

"verified gross savings". 

Reported Gross 

Refers to results of the program or portfolio determined by the program administrator (e.g., the 

EDC or the program implementer). Also known as ex ante, or "before the fact" (using the 

annual evaluation activities as the reference point). 

Verified Gross 

Refers to results of the program or portfolio determined by the evaluation activities. Also 

known as ex post, or "after the fact" (using the annual evaluation activities as the reference 

point). 

PECO Energy Company | Pagex 
1 Overview of Portfolio 

Pennsylvania Act 129, signed on October 15, 2008, mandated energy savings and coincident 

peak demand reduction goals for the largest electric distribution companies (EDCs) in 

Pennsylvania. Each EDC submitted energy efficiency and conservation (EE&C) plans—which 

were approved by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PA PUC)—pursuant to these 

goals. This report documents the progress and effectiveness of the EE&C accomplishments for 

PECO in Program Year four (PY4), defined as June 1, 2012 through May 31, 2013, as well as the 

cumulative accomplishments of the programs since inception. 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. (Navigant) has evaluated the programs, which included 

measurement and verification of the savings. The final verified savings for PY4 and the 

cumulative verified savings since inception of the programs are included in this final annual 

report. 

The next section of this report provides an overview of activities for the entire portfolio. This 

includes summary information and portfolio-level details regarding the progress towards 

compliance goals, energy and demand impacts, net-to-gross (NTG) ratios, finances, and costeffectiveness. The following sections include program-specific details, including program 

updates, impact evaluation findings, and process evaluation findings. 

Navigant has followed the Technical Reference Manual (TRM) in almost all respects. Navigant 

applied two types of alternate parameters in estimating savings from residential compact 

fluorescent lamps (CFLs), because it has found these to more accurately reflect actual savings. 

Throughout this report, savings from residential CFLs will be presented in two ways. Navigant 

has calculated "TRM Verified" savings from residential CFLs precisely as dictated by the TRM. 

In calculating "Evaluation Verified" savings from residential CFLs, Navigant has used an 

alternate coincidence factor and has applied interactive effects factors (lEFs) for both energy and 

demand, as presented in Table 1-1. Navigant has used these factors in calculating Evaluation 

Verified savings for PECO's Smart Lighting Discounts (SLD) and Low-Income Energy 

Efficiency Program (LEEP). In all cases, Navigant also presents TRM Verified savings for these 

programs. 

Table 1-1. Alternate Parameters Used in "Evaluation Verified" Savings 

Pennsylvania TRM Evaluation Verified 

Coincidence Factor 0.05 0.117 

Interactive Effects Factor for Energy (lEFe) 1.00 1.02 

Interactive Effects Factor for Demand (lEFd) 1.00 1.19 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company [ Page 1 
The derivation of the higher coincidence factor and justification for its application are presented 

in Appendix A. Similar information is presented in Appendix B for the interactive effects 

factors. 

1.1 Summary of Progress Toward Compliance Targets 

The energy savings1 compliance target for PECO was 1,181,550 megawatt-hours (MWh) and 

was required to be achieved by May 31, 2013 per Act 129. Based on Cumulative 

Program/Portfolio Inception to Date (CPITD) TRM Verified gross energy savings,2 PECO has 

achieved 118 percent of the energy savings compliance target. Based on Evaluation Verified 

savings, PECO achieved 119 percent of its target. These figures are shown in Figure 1-1. Tlie 

PUC will determine compliance using CPITD verified gross energy savings. 

Figure 1-1. Portfolio CPITD Energy Savings 

140% 

120% 

•«-> v 

60 

fa 100% 

H 

5

 80 % 

g 60% 

o 

U 

*S 40% 

JL25%. JJ.8%. 

1,472,811 MWh 1,399,166 MWh 

20% 

0% 

119% 

1,406,957 MWh 

May 31,2013 Compliance Target: 1,181,550 MWh 

CPITD Reported Gross CPITD TRM Verified Gross CPITD Evaluation Verified 

Gross 

Source: Nnvigfinl mwU/sfc 

1

 I (erein, energy savings refers to annualized energy savings and is measured in kWh/year or MWh. Energy savings are reported at 

the meter. 

1

 See the "Report Definitions" section for an explanation of how CPITD verified gross savings are calculated. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 2 
Demand savings are reported at the system level. Table 1-2 shows the line loss adjustment 

factors that were used to gross up demand savings from the meter level to the system level. 

Table 1-2. Line Loss Factors 

Line Loss Factor Used 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program 1.192 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 1.192 

Smart Home Rebates/Program U 9 2 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 1.192 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Retrofit 1.111 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-Tenant 1.111 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Appliance Recycling 1.111 

Smart Construction Incentives 1.111 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Retrofit 1.117 

Smart Equipment incentives - Multi-Tenant 1.117 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Applianct: Recycling 1.117 

Smarl Equipment Incentives - New Construction 1.117 

Residential Direct Load Control 1.192 

Commercial Direct Load Control 1.192 

Permanent Load Reduction 1.111 

Demand Response Aggregators Varies by participant: 1.070 to 1.192 

Distributed Energy Resources Varies by participant: 1.070 to 1.193 

SoHrcc: PECOdaln 

PECO Energy Company | Page 3 
The system peak demand reduction3

 compliance target for PECO is 355 MW per Act 129 and 

was required to be achieved by May 31.2013. PECO has achieved 119 percent of the demand 

reduction compliance target during the Top 100 Hours of 2012 based only on installations in 

place and generating demand reductions during those hours, based on TRM Verified demand 

reduction. Evaluation Verified demand reduction during PECO's Top 100 Hours was 130 

percent of the target. Including demand reductions occurring after the Top ]00 Hours, PECO 

achieved 124 percent and 136 percent of the demand reduction compliance target, respectively, 

for CPITD TRM Verified and CPfTD Evaluation Verified gross demand reduction" achieved 

through the end of PY4, as shown in Figure 1-2. The PUC will determine compliance using 

CPfTD verified gross demand reduction during the Top 300 Hours. 

Figure 1-2. Portfolio CPITD Peak Demand Reduction 

126% 

4471VIW124% 

-439-MW-

-136%— 

482MW -1-1-9-%-

423 MW 

May 31,2013 Compliance Target: 355 MW 

130% 

•461-MWCPITD CPITD TRM CPITD TRM Verified Evaluation 

Reported Gross Verified Gross Evaluation Top 100 Hours Verified Top 

Verified Gross 100 Hours 

^ Herein, demand reduction refers to (he liDC's system peak demand reduction in the UDC'sTop 100 Hours of highest demand, as 

defined by the PA PUC, and is measured in kW or MW. 

4

 See the "Report Definitions" section for an explanation of how CPITD verified gross savings are calculated. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 4 
1.1.1 Performance in the Low-Income Sector 

Act 129 mandates that the number of measures offered to the low-income sector be 

proportionate to the low-income sector's share of total energy usage.5 There are 17 measure 

groups targeted to the Jow-income sector, and another 27 measure groups offered by other 

programs in the residential sector (which are also available to low-income customers). These 44 

measure groups offered to the low-income sector therefore comprise 35 percent of the total of 

124 measure groups offered across PECO's portfolio. As required by Act 129, this exceeds the 

fraction of electric consumption of Hie utility's low-income households divided by the total 

electricity consumption in the PECO service area (3.1 percent). These values are shown in Table 

1-3. 

Table 1-3. Low-Income Sector Compliance Metrics 

Low-Income 

Sector 

All Sectors 

% LowIncome 

Number of Measures Offered 17 124 14 

Electric Consumplion (MWh) 1,215,463 38,644,120 3.1% 

Soura:: Navigattt analysis 

The CPITD reported gross energy savings for low-income sector programs (excluding lowincome participation in non-low-income programs) is 108,916 MWh; this is 7.4 percent of the 

CPITD total portfolio reported gross energy savings. 

Including low-income customer participation in non-low-income programs, the CPITD reported 

gross energy savings achieved is 112,072 MWh; this is 7.6 percent of the CPITD total portfolio 

reported gross energy savings. 

The CPITD verified gross energy savings achieved for low-income programs (excluding lowincome participation in non-low-income programs) is 104,558 MWh; this is 7.5 percent of the 

CPITD total portfolio TRM Verified gross energy savings.6 

15

 Act 129 includes a provision requiring electric distribution companies to offer a number of energy conservation measures lo lowincome households thai are "proportionate to those households' share of the total energy usage in the service lerritory." 66 Pa.C.S. 

§2806.1 (b)(i)(C). The legislation contains no provisions regarding targets for participation, or energy or demand savings. 

^ See the "Report Definitions" section for an explanation of how CPITD verified gross savings are calculated. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 5 
Including low-income customer participation in non-low-income programs, the CPITD reported 

verified energy savings achieved is 107,665 MWh; this is 7.7 percent of the CPITD total portfolio 

TRM Verified energy savings.7" 

1.1.2 Performance in the Government, Nonprofit, and Institutional Sector 

Act 129 mandates that a minimum of 10 percent of the required energy and demand targets be 

obtained from units of federal, state, and local governments, including municipalities, school 

districts, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit entities. Herein, this group is referred 

to as the government, nonprofit, and institutional (GNI) sector. 

The energy savings compliance target for the GNI sector for PECO is 181,155 MWh, which was 

required to be obtained by May 31, 2013. Based on CPITD TRM verified gross energy savings,9 

PECO achieved 164 percent of the target. These values are shown in Figure 1-3. 

7

 Low-income participation in non-low income programs was estimated by surveys conducted for PHCO's Smart Lighting 

Discounts, Smart Appliance Recycling, and Smart Home Rebates (SHR) programs. Lvaluators asked respondents to provide 

number of residents in the household, and then asked if household income exceeded the low-income threshold based on household 

size. 

6

 The estimated cost of low-income savings from non-low-income programs is $568,508 in PY4. This value was calculated by 

applying program-specific iow-income participation percentages to PY4 Total LDC Costs for each program. 

9

 See the "Report Definitions" section for an explanation of how CPITD verified gross savings are calculated. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 6 
Figure 1-3. GNI CPITD Energy Savings 

200% 

180% 

_ 160% 

OJ 

S 140% 

H 

g 120% 

ci 

a ioo% 

| 80% 

U 

60% 

5 5

 ' 40% 

20% 

0% 

183% 

215,984 MWh 

464%-

193,957 MWh 

May 31, 2013 Compliance Target: 118,155 MWh 

CPITD Reported Gross CPITD TRM Verified Gross 

The peak demand reduction compliance target for the GNI sector for PECO is 35.5 MW. Based 

on CPITD TRM verified gross demand reduction,"1 PECO achieved 167 percent of the target. 

These values are shown in Figure 1-4. Note that the values shown include GNI participation in 

the DRA and DER programs. 

1 0

 See the "Report Definitions" section for an explanation of how CPITD verified gross savings are calculated. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 7 
Figure 1-4. GNI CPITD Peak Demand Reduction 

EX 

B o 

(J 

200% 

180% 

160% 

140% H 

120% -

100% • 

80% -

60% -

40% -

20% -

0% -

-174%. 

61.9 MW 

—167%— 

.59.2.MW149% 

-52r7-MWMay 31, 2013 Compliance Target: 35.5 MW 

CPITD Reported Gross CPITD TRM Verified 

Gross 

Top 100 Hours MW 

Achieved 

1.1.3 Carry-Over Savings 

According to the Phase II Implementation Order, PECO is ai lowed by the PUC to "carry over" 

MWh savings into Phase II of Act 129. Table 1-4 below shows how much savings from PY4 

PECO will be carrying over into Phase II. Values in the "CPITD Unverified Savings" column are 

the gross reported savings from three combined heat and power projects that received rebates 

from the Smart Equipment Incentives program (one in the C&I sector, two in the GNI sector). 

These three projects have a "commercial date of operation" (CDO) prior to June 1, 2013, but 

they were completed too late in the program year to be fully verified by Navigant prior to this 

report. Per the SWE's September 13, 2013 guidance memo on reporting unverified savings, 

PECO is presenting reported savings for these projects in this report, and will present their final 

verified savings in the PY5 Q2 report.11 All verified savings values presented in this report 

exclude savings from these three projects. 

1 1

 Statewide Evaluator, Guidance Memo GM-021, Reporting Unverified Energy nnd Peak Demand Savings for 

Phase I Projects in the Act 729 Phase I Final Report (September 13, 2013). 

PECO Energy Company | Page 8 
Table 1-4. Savings from PY4 Carried into Phase II 

CPITD Verified 

Savings (MWh) 

CPITD 

Unverified 

Savings (MWh) 

Savings Carried 

into Phase 11 

(MWh) 

TRM Verified Savings 217,616 27,063 244,679 

Evaluation Verified Savings 225,407 27,063 252,470 

Source: Nnvigant mwh/sis 

PECO Energy Company J Page 9 
1.2 Summary of Energy Impacts 

A summary of the reported, verified, and unverified energy savings by program for PY4 is 

presented in Figure 1-5. The "Unverified Gross Savings" values refer to projects that were 

reported in PY4, but have not been verified at the time of this report. 

Figure 1-5. PYTD Gross Energy Savings by Program 

Distributed Energy Resources 

Demand Response Aggregators 

Permanent Load Reduction 

Commercial Direct Load Control 

Residential Direct Load Control 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 

Smart Construction Incentives 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 

Smart Equipment Incentives - C&J 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 

Smart Home Rebates 

Smart Appliance Rebates 

Smart Lighting Discounts 

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 

MWh/yr 

• Unverified Gross Savings 

• TRM Verified Gross Savings 

• Evaluation Verified Gross Savings 

El Reported Gross Savings 

PECO Energy Company | Page 10 
A summary of the cumulative reported, verified, and unverified energy savings by program is 

presented in Figure 1-6. 

Figure 1-6. CPITD Gross Energy Savings by Program 

Distributed Energy Resources 

Demand Response Aggregators 

Permanent Load Reduction 

Commercial Direct Load Control 

Residential Direct Load Control 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 

Smart Construction Incentives 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 

Smart Equipment Incentives - C&I 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 

Smart Home Rebates 

Smart Appliance Rebates 

Smart Lighting Discounts 

100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 

MWh/yr 

• Unverified Gross Savings 

• TRM Verified Gross Savings 

• Evaluation Verified Gross Savings 

• Reported Gross Savings 

A summary of energy impacts by program through the fourth quarter of PY4 is presented in 

Table 1-5 through Table 1-7. Note that Table 1-6 applies an lEFe of 1.02 to lighting measures 

installed in the SLD and LEEP programs. Table 1-7 presents the same information, but adheres 

strictly to the TRM algorithm for residential lighting. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 11 
Table 1-5. EDC Reported Participation and Gross Energy Savings by Program 

Participants 

Reported Cross Impact 

(MWh/Year) 

Program IQ PYTD CFU'D IQ PYTD CPITD 

Residential 3,242 12,344 322,501 6,899 26,202 563,856 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program1 

61,485 259,187 7,675,726 2,994 12,440 363,480 

Reduction due to Non-residential Participation -4,734 -19,957 -591,031 -231 -958 -27,988 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 517 2,830 30,573 756 4,138 47,431 

Smart Home Rebates Program2 

2,725 9,514 291,928 3,379 10,582 75,210 

Residential Conservation Voltage Reduction N/A N/A N/A 0 0 105,723 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program Total3 2,844 10,106 32,240 5,632 29,548 108,916 

Low-Income Energy Effidencv Program 2,844 10,106 32,240 5,632 29,548 83,286 

Low-Income Conservation Voltage Reduction N/A N/A N/A 0 0 25,630 

Non-Residential 716 1,099 5,193 97,390 197,793 799,839 

Commercial and Industrial Total 571 774 4,064 68,829 112,938 583,855 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Retrofit 499 659 ' 3,533 60,603 98,746 264,539 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant4 

16 44 405 219 506 645 

Smart Equipment Incentives -Appliance Recycling 6 14 23 13 77 93 

Smart Construction Incentives 50 57 103 6,721 8,323 13,554 

C&I Conservation Voltage Reduction N/A N/A N/A 0 0 150,575 

Non-Residential Participation in Smart Lighting Discounts 4,734 19,957 591,031 1,272 5,286 154,449 

Government / Nonprofit Total 145 325 1,129 28,561 84,855 215,984 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Retrofit 124 273 975 24,921 74,041 157,582 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant4 

1 8 82 10 11 155 

Smart Equipment Incentives -Appliance Recycling 0 0 5 0 0 33 

PECO Energy Company | Page 12 
Participants 

Reported Gross Impact 

(MWh/Year) 

Program IQ PYTD CPITD IQ PYTD CP11U 

Smart Equipment Incentives - New Construction 20 44 67 3,629 10,803 19,769 

GIN Conservation Voltage Reduction N/A N/A N/A 0 0 38,445 

Demand Reduction -1,134 -1,756 79,341 0 201 201 

Residential Smart A/C Saver -1,097 -1,675 76,976 0 0 0 

Commercial Smart A/C Saver -37 -277 2,169 0 0 0 

Permanent Load Reduction 0 1 1 0 201 201 

Demand Response Aggregators 0 193 193 0 0 0 

Distributed Energy Resources 0 2 2 0 0 0 

Total Portfolio 5,668 21,793 439,275 109,922 253,745 1,472,811 

NOTES: 

'Participation numbers shown are the numbers of discounted lamps sold. These are excluded from total portfolio participation numbers. The CPITD participant value reported here 

includes 17,856 lamps that were inadvertently removed from PY2 cumulative participation values, although their costs and savings were reported correctly in all previous reports. 

Participant values exclude sales of EnergyStar lighting fixtures and LED lamps, for which upstream rebates are provided. 

3Act 129 includes a provision requiring electric distribution companies to offer a number of energy efficiency measures to low-income households that are "proportionate to those 

households' share of the total energy usage in the service territory." 66 Pa.C.S. §2806.1(b)(i)(G). The legislation contains no provisions regarding targets for participation, or energy or 

demand savings. Participation includes only those receiving the VVeatherization Audit. 

''The participation values shown here reflect the number of project IDs reported in the tracking data, rather than the number of billing account IDs. The values reported here better 

reflect the number of participating households, rather than the number of multi-family buildings in which the participants live. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 13 
Table 1-6. Evaluation Verified Gross Energy Savings by Program 

Program 

PYTD 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh/Year) 

PYTD 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

PYTD 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh/Year) 

PYTD 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh/Year) 

PYTD 

Achieved 

Precision 

at 90% 

Confidence 

CPITD 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh/Year) 

cpii 0 

Achieved 

Predsion 

at 90% 

Confidence 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program 16,997 0.96 16,257 0 0.0% 494,640 0.0% 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 4,138 0.94 3,873 0 0.6% 46,628 0.9% 

Smart Home Rebates Program 10,582 1.00 10,584 0 0.0% 74,119 0.0% 

Residential Conservation Voltage Reduction 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 105,723 0.0% 

Low-Income Energy Effidencv Program 29,548 0.92 27,270 0 0.7% 79,892 3.7% 

Low-income Conservation Voltage Reduction 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 25,630 0.0% 

Smart Equipment Incentives-C&I 99,329 0.86 64,530 24,386 11.9% 222,366 4.5% 

Smart Construction Incentives 8,323 1.02 8,494 0 6.5% 13,341 3.9% 

C&l Conservation Voltage Reduction 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 150,575 0.0% " 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 84,855 0.95 77,817 2,677 11.7% 155,512 7.8% 

GNI Conservation Voltage Reduction 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 38,445 0.0% 

Residential Smart A/C Saver 0 N/A 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Commerdal Smart A/C Saver 0 N/A 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Permanent Load Reduction 201 0.44 88 0 0.0% 88 0.0% 

Demand Response Aggregators 0 N/A 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Distributed Energy Resources 0 N/A 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

TOTAL PORTFOLIO 253,973 0.82 208,912 27,063 5.6% 1,406,957 1.1% 

Source: Nnvigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 14 
Table 1-7. TRM Verified Gross Energy Savings by Program 

Program 

PYTD 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

PYTD 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

PYTD 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

PYTD 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

PYTD 

Achieved 

Precision 

at 90% 

Confidence 

CP11D 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

CPITD 

Achieved 

Precision 

at 90% 

Confidence 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program 16,768 0.96 16,028 0 0.0% 487,813 0.0% 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 4,138 0.94 3,873 0 0.6% 46,628 0.9% 

Smart Home Rebates Program 10,582 1.00 10,584 0 0.0% 74,119 0.0% 

Residential Conservation Voltage Reduction 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 105,723' 0.0% 

Low-Income Energy Effidencv Program 29,548 0.91 26,876 0 0.7% 78,928 3.7% 

Low-Income Conservation Voltage Reduction 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 25,630 • 0.0% 

Smart Equipment Incentives - C&l 99,329 0.86 64,530 24,386 11.9% 222,366 4.5% 

Smart Construction Incentives 8,323 1.02 8,494 0 6.5% 13,341 3.9% 

C&I Conservation Voltage Reduction 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 150,575 0.0% 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 84,855 1 77,817 2,677 11.7% 155,512 7.8% 

GNI Conservation Voltage Reduction 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 38,445 0.0% 

Residential Direct Load Control 0 N/A 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Commerdal Direct Load Control 0 N/A 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Permanent Load Reduction 201 0.44 88 0 0.0% 88 0.0% 

Demand Response Aggregators 0 N/A 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

Distributed Energy Resources 0 N/A 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

TOTAL PORTPOLIO 253,744 0.82 208,289 27,063 5.6% 1,399,166 1.1% 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 15 
1.3 Summary of Fuel Switching Impacts 

PECO customers conducted a small number of projects in PY4 in which services originally 

provided by electricity were converted to run on natural gas. Table 1-8 summarizes the 

numbers and electricity savings resulting from these projects. The only fuel switching projects 

in PY4 were conversions to gas furnaces and gas water heaters. These were conducted in 

PECO's SHR program. 

Table 1-8. Fuel Switching Project Summary 

Program Name Technology 

Number 

of 

Projects 

Electric 

Consumption 

Savings 

(kWh) 

Rebates 

Paid 

SHR 

High-Efficiency Gas Furnaces 39 1,132,899 $24,150 

SHR ENERGY STAR Gas Storage 

Tank Water Heaters 

10 41,040 $2,500 

SoHrce: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 16 
1.4 Summary of Demand Impacts 

A summary of the reported and verified demand reduction by program within the Top 100 

Hours for the program year is presented in Figure 1-7. 

Figure 1-7. PYTD Demand Reduction by Program (Top 100 Hours) 

Distributed Energy Resources 

Demand Response Aggregators 

Permanent Load Reduction 

Commercial Direct Load Control 

Residential Direct Load Control 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 

Smart Construction Incentives 

Smart Hquipment Incentives - GNI 

Smart Equipment Incentives - C&l 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 

Smart Home Rebates 

Smart Appliance Rebates 

Smart Lighting Discounts 

20 40 60 

MW 

80 100 120 

• Evaluation Verified Gross Savings • TRM Verified Gross Savings • Reported Gross Savings 

PECO Energy Company | Page 17 
A summary of the reported, verified, and unverified demand reduction by program including 

all MW savings for the program year is presented in Figure 1-8. The impacts below reflect the 

line loss factors presented in Table 1-2. 

Figure 1-8. PYTD Demand Reduction by Program (All MW Savings) 

Distributed Energy Resources 

Demand Response Aggregators 

Permanent Load Reduction 

Commercial Direct Load Control 

Residential Direct Load Control 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 

Smart Construction Incentives 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 

Smart Equipment Incentives - C&I 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 

Smart Home Rebates 

Smart Appliance Rebates 

Smart Lighting Discounts p 

2 

0 20 40 60 

MW 

80 100 120 

• Unverified Gross Savings • Evaluation Verified Gross Savings 

D TRM Verified Gross Savings GJ Reported Gross Savings 

PECO Energy Company | Page 18 
A summary of the cumulative reported and verified demand reduction by program within the 

Top 100 Hours is presented in Figure 1-9. 

Figure 1-9. CPITD Demand Reduction by Program (Top 100 Hours) 

Distributed Energy Resources 

Demand Response Aggregators 

Permanent Load Reduction 

Commercial Direct Load Control 

Residential Direct Load Control 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 

Smart Construction Incentives 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 

Smart Equipment Incentives - C&I 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 

Smart Home Rebates 

Smart Appliance Rebates 

Smart Lighting Discounts 

20 40 60 

MW 

80 100 120 

• Evaluation Verified Gross Savings • TRM Verified Gross Savings • Reported Gross Savings 

A summary of the cumulative reported, verified, and unverified demand reduction by program 

including all MW savings for the program year is presented in Figure 1-10. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 19 
Figure 1-10. CPITD Demand Reduction by Program (All MW Savings) 

Distributed Energy Resources 

Demand Response Aggregators 

Permanent Load Reduction 

Commercial Direct Load Control 

Residential Direct Load Control 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 

Smart Construction Incentives 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 

Smart Equipment Incentives - C&I 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 

Smart Home Rebates 

Smart Appliance Rebates 

Smart Lighting Discounts 

W... -.TWiT.'Jl^.J-l l!t--.r Jl,-

!UIL.!m;tJ'.lM7l"l-l.LY

 Jl

-

U 

20 40 60 

MW 

80 700 120 

• Unverified Gross Savings 

• TRM Verified Gross Savings 

• Evaluation Verified Gross Savings 

B Reported Gross Savings 

Table 1-9 presents participation and reported gross demand reduction in PY4 and throughout 

Phase I. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 20 
Table 1-9. EDC Reported Participation and Gross Demand Reduction by Program 

Program 

Participants 

Reported Gross Impact 

(MW) 

Program IQ PYTD CFUD IQ PVTD CPUU 

Residential 3,242 12,344 322,501 _ 1.4 4.3 53.0 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program1 61,485 259,187 7,675,726 0.2 0.7 23.3 

Reduction due to Non-residential Participation -4,734 -19,957 -591,031 0.0 -0.1 -1.8 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 517 2,830 30,573 0.1 0.6 9.7 

Smart Home Rebates Program2 2,725 9,514 291,928 1.1 3.6 21.8 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program Total 3 2,844 10,106 32,240_ 0.3 1.6 6.7 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 2,844 10,106 32,240 0.3 1.6 6.7 

Non-Residential 716 1,099 5,193 14.8 31.4 115.7 

Commercial and Industrial Total 571 774 4,064 12.0 20.1 90.3 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Retrofit 499 659 3,533 10.5 17.3 45.6 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant4 16 44 405 0.0 0.1 0.2 

Smart Equipment Incentives -Appliance Recycling 6 14 23 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Smart Construction Incentives 50 57 103 1.2 1.5 2.4 

Non-Residential Participation in SLD 4,734 19,957 591,031 0.3 1.2 42.1 

Government / Nonprofit Total 145 325 1,129 2.8 11.3 25.4 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Retrofit 124 273 975 2.0 9.4 22.3 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant4 1 8 82 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Smart Equipment Incentives -Appliance Recycling 0 0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Smart Equipment Incentives - New Construction 20 44 67 0.8 1.9 3.1 

Demand Reduction -1,134 -1,756 79,341 0.0 182.8 272.1 „ 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 0 0 93 0.0 0.0 89.3 

PECO Energy Company | Page 21 
Program 

Particjpaiiis 

Reported Gross Impact 

(MW) 

Program IQ PYTD CPITD IQ PY1U CPITD 

Residential Smart A/C Saver5 -1,097 -1,675 76,976 0.0 51.3 51.3 

Commercia] Smart A/C Saver* -37 -277 2,169 0.0 1.6 1.6 

Permanent Load Reduction 0 1 1 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Demand Response Aggregators 0 193 193 0.0 113.4 113.4 

Distributed Energy' Resources 0 2 2 0.0 16.4 16.4 

Total Portfolio 5,668 21,793 .439,275 16.4 220.6 . 4473 _ 

NOTES: 

'Participation numbers shown are the numbers of discounted lamps sold. These are excluded from total portfolio participation numbers. The CPUU participant value reported here 

includes 17,856 lamps that were inadvertently removed from PY2 cumulative participation values, although their costs and savings were reported correctly in all previous reports. 

Participant values exclude sales of EnergyStar lighting fixtures and LED lamps, for which upstream rebates are provided. 

3Act 129 includes a provision requiring electric distribution companies to offer a number of energy efficiency measures to low-income households that are "proportionate to those 

households' share of the total energy usage in the service territory." 66 Pa.C.S. §2806.1 (b)(i)(G). The legislation contains no provisions regarding targets for participation, or energy or 

demand savings. Participation includes only those receiving the VVeatherization Audit 

4

The participation values shown here reflect the number of project IDs reported in the tracking data, rather than the number of billing account IDs. The values reported here better 

reflect the number of participating households, rather than the number of multi-family buildings in which the participants live. 

TTie negative IQ and PYTD participation values sho^vn for the Residential and Commercial Direct Load Control programs reflect participants that have left the programs. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 22 
Table 1-10 presents PY4 and Phase I Evaluation Verified demand reduction during the Top 100 Hours for each program and for the 

portfolio. Table 1-11 presents the same information, but uses the coincidence factor specified in the TRM for residential lighting, and 

does not apply the lEFd to residential lighting. 

Table 1-10. PYTD Evaluation Verified Gross Demand Reduction in the Top 100 Hours by Program 

Program 

PYTD 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(MW) 

PYTD 

Demand 

Reatization 

Rate 

PYTD 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(MW) 

PYTD 

Achieved 

Precision at 

90% 

Confidence 

CPFTD 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(MW/Year) 

CP11D 

Achieved 

Predsion at 

90% 

Confidence 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program 0.4 92% 0.3 0.0% 99.3 0.0% 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 0.1 94% 0.1 0.5% 9.1 0.9% 

Smart Home Rebates Program 0.9 100% 0.9 0.0% 18.9 0.0% 

Low-Income Energy Effidencv Program 0.4 202% 0.9 0.6% 8.0 3.9% 

Smart Equipment Incentives-C&l 6.3 80% 5.0 18.7% 34.4 7.8% 

Smart Construction incentives 0.7 120% 0.8 1.8% 2.7 30.6% 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 4.9 106% 5.2 4.2% 16.2 9.6% 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0% 89.3 0.0% 

Residential Smart A/C Saver 51.3 100% 51.3 9.7% 51.3 9.7% 

Commerdal Smart A/C Saver 1.6 100% 1.6 3.5% 1.6 3.5% 

Permanent Load Reduction 0.1 167% 0.2 0.0% 0.2 0.0% 

Demand Response Aggregators 113.4 100% 113.4 0.0% 113.4 0.0% . 

Distributed Energy Resources 16.4 100% 16.4 0.0% 16.4 0.0% 

TOTAL PORTFOLIO 196.5 100% 196.2 2.7% 461.0 1.3% 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 23 
Table 1-11. PYTD TRM Verified Gross Demand Reduction in the Top 100 Hours by Program 

Program 

PY1D 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(MW) 

PYTD 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

PYTD 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(MW) 

PYTD 

Achieved 

Precision at 

90% 

Confidence 

CPITD 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(MW/Year) 

CPITD 

Achieved 

Predsion at 

90% 

Confidence 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program 0.2 87% 0.2 0.0% 62.0 0.0% 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 0.1 94% 0.1 0.5% 9.1 0.9% 

Smart Home Rebates Program 0.9 100% 0.9 0.0% 18.9 0.0% 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 0.4 84% 0.4 1.5% 7.5 4.2% 

Smart Equipment ihcentives-C&I 6.3 80% 5.0 18.7% 34.4 7.8% 

Smart Construction Incentives 0.7 120% 0.8 1.8% 2.7 30.6% 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 4.9 106% 5.2 4.2% 16.2 9.6% 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0% 89.3 0.0% 

Residential Smart A/C Saver 51.3 100% 51.3 9.7% 51.3 9.7% 

Commercial Smart A/C Saver 1.6 100% 1.6 3.5% 1.6 3.5% 

Permanent Load Reduction 0.1 167% 0.2 0.0% 0.2 0.0% 

Demand Response Aggregators 113.4 100% 113.4 0.0% 113.4 0.0% 

Distributed Energy Resources 16.4 100% 16.4 0.0% 16.4 0.0% 

TOTAL PORTTOLIO 196.4 100% 195.5 2.7% 423.1 1.4% 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 24 
Table 1-12 and Table 1-13 present gross and verified demand reduction through the end of PY4 and throughout Phase I (i.e., not just 

the Top 100 Hours). 

Table 1-12. PYTD Total Evaluation Verified Gross Demand Reduction by Program 

PY1D PYTD PYTD PY1D 

Achieved 

Predsion at 

90% 

Confidence 

CPllD CPttD 

Achieved 

Predsion at 

90% 

Confidence 

Program 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(MW) 

PYTD 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(MW) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(MW) 

PY1D 

Achieved 

Predsion at 

90% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(MW) 

CPttD 

Achieved 

Predsion at 

90% 

Confidence 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program 2.9 92% 2.7 0.0 0.0% 101.8 0.0% 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 0.6 94% 0.6 0.0 0.5% 9.6 0.9% 

Smart Home Rebates Program 3.6 100% 3.6 0.0 0.0% 21.6 0.0% 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 1.6 202% 3.3 0.0 0.6% 10.4 2.8% 

Smart Equipment Incentives-C&I 17.4 80% 11.0 3.6 18.7% 40.4 6.6% 

Smart Construction Incentives 1.5 120% 1.8 0.0 1.8% 3.7 22.7% 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 11.3 106% 11.7 0.3 4.2% 22.7 6.9% 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 0.0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0% 89.3 0.0% 

Residential Smart A/C Saver 51.3 100% 51.3 0.0 9.7% 51.3 9.7% 

Commercial Smart A/C Saver 1.6 100% 1-6 0.0 3.5% 1.6 3.5% 

Permanent Load Reduction 0.1 167% 0.2 0.0 0.0% 0.2 0.0% 

Demand Response Aggregators 113.4 100% 113.4 0.0 0.0% 113.4 0.0% 

Distributed Energy Resources 16.4 100% 16.4 0.0 0.0% 16.4 0.0% 

TOTAL PORTFOUO 221.7 98% 217.5 3.9 2.5% 482.3 1.2% 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 25 
Table 1-13.:PYTP Total TRM Verified Gross Demand Reduction by Program 

Program 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 

Smart Home Rebates Program 

Low-income Energy Efficiency Program 

Smart Equipment Incentives-C&l 

Smart Construction Incentives 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 

Residential Smart A/C Saver 

Commercial Smart A/C Saver 

Permanent Load Reduction 

Demand Response Aggregators 

Distributed Energy Resources 

TOTAL PORTFOLIO 

Sonrce: Navigant analysis 

PYTD 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(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 

PYTD 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

87% 

94% 

100% 

84% 

80% 

120% 

106% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

167% 

100% 

100% 

97% 

PYTD 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(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 

PYTD 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(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 

PYTD 

Achieved 

Precision at 

90% 

Confidence 

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% 

CPITD 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Savings 

(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 

CPITD 

Achieved 

Precision at 

90% 

Confidence 

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% 

PECO Energy Company | Page 26 
1.5 Reconciliation with Prior Annual Reports 

Table 1-14 and Table 1-15 present gross Reported and Verified energy savings, respectively,, as 

presented in the final annual reports for PY1 through PY3. The CPITD Reported and Verified 

Gross energy savings values presented in this report use the values in these tables with the 

following exceptions: 

• Reported and Verified energy savings from the SLD program reflect non-residential 

participation in that program in all four years of Phase I . Tlie cumulative increase in 

TRM Verified energy savings for PY1 through PY3 is 120,862 MWh. PECO first 

presented details on the justification for this adjustment in its preliminary demand 

response filing. The justification and methodology are presented in Appendix C of this 

report. 

• When the PY1 report was submitted, there was no approved protocol for evaluation of 

savings from the LEEP program, so although there were Reported savings for that 

program in PY1, the program was not credited with Verified savings for PY1 until the 

PY2 report was submitted. The verified savings for the PYl LEEP program have been 

included in the program's CPITD verified savings in all PECO annual reports since PY2. 

TRM Verified energy savings from the PYl LEEP program amount to 3,407 MWh. 

• The SCI program began operation late in PY2. As there were only four completed 

projects (two in the C&I sector and two in the GNI sector) as of the close of PY2, no 

impact evaluation was conducted for the program in that year, and no Verified savings 

were reported. Instead, the realization rates developed through the PY3 evaluation of 

SCI were applied to the four PY2 projects, and the resulting savings were added to the 

CPITD Verified savings presented in both the PY3 annual report and this report. The 

CPITD Verified savings presented in this report and the PY3 report include 463 MWh in 

the C&I sector (reported under the SCI program) and 745 MWh in the GNI sector (which 

is included in Verified savings for the SEI GNI program) resulting from new 

construction projects completed in PY2. 

• As noted previously, the Evaluation Verified (as opposed to TRM Verified) savings 

presented in this report reflect the application of an interactive effects factor of 1.02 to 

savings from the SLD program and the components of the LEEP program that provide 

CFLs. Appendix B presents the justification for and methodology for calculating the IEF 

for energy. 

PECO Energy Company j Page 27 
Table 1-14. Gross Reported Energy Savings from PYl through PY3 Annual Reports 

Program 

Gross Reported Savings (MWh) 

Program 

PYl PY2 PY3 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program 133,212 189,248 28,580 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 4,538 25,908 12,848 

Smart Home Rebates Program 2,971 40,701 20,948 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 3,407 24,664 25,667 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Retrofit 11,446 88,244 66,094 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant 0 0 139 

Smart Equipment Incentives -Appliance Recycling 0 0 16 

Smart Construction Incentives 0 1,031 4,688 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Retrofit 1,383 42,058 39,440 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant 0 0 144 

Smart Equipment Incentives -Appliance Recycling 0 0 33 

Smart Equipment Incentives - New Construction 0 0 8,479 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 20,8T9 320,372 0 

Residential Direct Load Control 0 0 0 

Commercial Direct Load Control 0 0 0 

Permanent Load Reduction 0 0 0 

Demand Response Aggregators 0 0 0 

Distributed Energy Resources 0 0 0 

Total 177,776 732,226 207,076 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 28 
Table 1-15. Gross TRM Verified Savings from PYl through PY3 Annual Reports 

Program 

Gross Verified Savings (MWh) 

Program 

PYl PY2 PY3 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program 133,212 189,248 28,580 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 4,487 25,908 12,309 

Smart Home Rebates Program 2,963 40,701 20,819 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program n/a 24,543 24,652 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Retrofit 14,444 76,022 68,255 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant 0 0 139 

Smart Equipment Incentives-Appliance Recycling 0 0 15 

Smart Construction Incentives 0 0 4,385 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Retrofit 1,708 36,519 29,737 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant 0 0 144 

Smart Equipment Incentives -Appliance Recycling 0 0 32 

Smart Equipment Incentives - New Construction 0 0 9,242 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 0 320,372 0 

Residential Direct Load Control 0 0 0 

Commercial Direct Load Control 0 0 0 

Permanent Load Reduction 0 0 0 

Demand Response Aggregators 0 0 0 

Distributed Energy Resources 0 0 0 

Total 156,814 713,313 198,309 

Source: Nnviganl nmti/sis 

Table 1-16 and Table 1-17 present Reported and Verified Gross demand reduction as presented 

in the final annual reports for PYl through PY3. The CPITD Reported and Verified Gross 

energy savings values presented in this report use the values in these tables with the following 

exceptions: 

• Reported and Verified demand reduction from the SLD program reflect non-residential 

participation in that program in all four years of Phase I. The cumulative increase in 

TRM Verified demand reduction for PYl through PY3 is 39.2 MW. PECO first presented 

details on the justification for this adjustment in its preliminary demand response filing. 

The justification and methodology are presented in Appendix C of this report. 

© When the PYl report was submitted, there was no approved protocol for evaluation of 

savings from the LEEP program, so although there was a Reported demand reduction 

for that program in PYl, the program was not credited with Verified demand reduction 

for PYl until the PY2 report was submitted. The 0.2 MW of Verified demand reduction 

PECO Energy Company | Page 29 
for the PYl LEEP program have been included in the program's CPITD verified savings 

in all PECO annual reports since PY2. 

The SCI program began operation late in PY2. As there were only four completed 

projects (two in the C&I sector and two in the GNI sector) as of the close of PY2, no 

impact evaluation was conducted for the program in that year, and no Verified demand 

reductions were reported. Instead, the realization rates developed through the PY3 

evaluation of SCI were applied to the four PY2 projects, and the resulting demand 

reductions were added to the CPITD Verified savings presented in both the PY3 annual 

report and this report. The CPITD Verified demand reduction presented in this report 

and the PY3 report include less than 0.1 MW in both the C&I and GNI sectors resulting 

from new construction projects completed in PY2. 

Adjustments for line losses changed over the course of Phase I. In the PYl annual report, 

PECO made no line loss adjustments to demand reduction values. In the PY2 report, 

PECO applied an average line loss factor of 1.076 to all demand reduction values. 

Beginning with the PY3 annual report, PECO applied program-specific line loss factors 

reflecting the rate class of participating customers. These values are presented in Table 

1-2. In this report, the CPITD demand reduction values reflect the application of 

program-level line loss factors to demand reduction throughout all four years of Phase I. 

As noted previously, the Evaluation Verified (as opposed to TRM Verified) demand 

reductions presented in this report reflect the application of a coincidence factor of 0.117 

to demand reductions from the SLD program and the components of the LEEP program 

that provide CFLs. Appendix A presents the justification and methodology for 

calculating this alternate CF. 

As noted previously, the Evaluation Verified (as opposed to TRM Verified) demand 

reductions presented in this report reflect the application of a demand interactive effects 

factor of 1.19 to demand reductions from the SLD program and the components of the 

LEEP program that provide CFLs. Appendix B presents the justification for and 

methodology for calculating the IEF for energy. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 30 
Table 1-16. Gross Reported Demand Reduction from PY l through PY3 Annual Reports 

Program 

Gross Reported Savings (MW) 

Program 

PYl PY2 PY3 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program 7.3 11.2 1.7 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 0.9 5.1 2.2 

Smart Home Rebates Program 0.7 10.5 5.7 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 0.3 2.1 7.5 

Smart Equipment Incentives-C&I 2.3 13.2 13.0 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Smart Equipment Incentives -Appliance Recycling 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Smart Construction Incentives 0.0 0.1 1.9 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI 0.2 7.1 4.3 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Smart Equipment Incentives -Appliance Recycling 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Smart Equipment Incentives - New Construction 0.0 0.0 1.3 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 0.0 89.3 0.0 

Residential Direct Load Control 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Commercial Direct Load Control 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Permanent Load Reduction 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Demand Response Aggregators 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Distributed Energy Resources 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total 11.7 138.6 31.7 

Source: Nnvigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 31 
Table 1-17. Gross TRM Verified Demand Reduction from PYl through PY3 Annual Reports 

Program 

Cross Verified Savings (MW) 

Program 

PYl PY2 PY3 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program 7.3 11.2 1.7 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program 0.9 5.1 2.2 

Smart Home Rebates Program 0.7 10.5 5.7 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 0.0 2.1 1.5 

Smart Equipment fncentives - Retrofit 2.2 13.4 13.0 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Smart Equipment Incentives,-Appliance Recycling 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Smart Construction Incentives 0.0 0.0 1.9 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Retrofit 0.2 5.1 3.7 

Smart Equipment Incentives - Multi-tenant 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Smart Equipment Incentives -Appliance Recycling 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Smart Equipment Incentives - New Construction 0.0 0.0 7.9 

Conservation Voltage Reduction 0.0 89.3 0.0 

Residential Direct Load Control 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Commercial Direct Load Control 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Permanent Load Reduction 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Demand Response Aggregators 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Distributed Energy Resources 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Total 11.3 136.7 31.7 

Source: Nnviganl nnaiysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 32 
1.6 Summary of PY4 Net-to-Gross Ratios 

Per the 2011 TRC Order, EDCs are required to conduct NTG research. NTG ratios are not 

applied to gross savings and are not used for compliance purposes, but are used for future 

program planning purposes. Table 1-18 presents a summary of NTG ratios by program. 

Table 1-18. PY4 NTG Ratios by Program 

Program Name ! 

NTG Ratio , 

PY4 NTG Categories Included 

Smarl Lighting Discounts Program 38% Free riders, spillover 

Smart Appliance Recycling program 56% Free riders 

Smart-Mome Rebates Program 49% Free riders, spillover 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program1 

100% 

Assumed. Low-income customers 

typically do not have the resources to 

install energy efficiency measures. 

Smart Equipment Incentives C&I 78% Free riders, spillover 

Smart Equipment Incentives GIN 64% Free riders, spillover 

Smart Construction Incentives 44% Free riders 

PORTFOLIO 69% 

Source: Navigant analysis 

1.7 Summary of Portfolio Finances and Cost-Effectiveness 

Table 1-19 presents portfolio-level costs and benefits for PY4 and cumulatively for Phase I. In 

this table, benefits are calculated using TRM Verified savings, meaning that all energy savings 

and demand reduction values were calculated in strict accordance with the TRM. Note that the 

portfolio was cost effective in both PY4 and throughout Phase I. 

Table 1-20 presents the same information as Table 1-19, except that in this table, Navigant 

calculated lifetime benefits assuming Evaluation Verified savings. As described previously, in 

calculating Evaluation Verified savings, Navigant made use of the alternate parameters 

presented in Table 1-1 for residential lighting savings. Doing so increased the energy and 

demand savings from lighting measures in the SLD and LEEP programs, increasing lifetime 

benefits and resulting in the higher TRC ratios presented in Table 1-20. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 33 
Table 1-19. Summary of Portfolio Finances Using TRM Verified Savings 

IQ19I 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 10,214 20,416 62,337 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies -368 14 8,334 

Subtotal ED C Incentive Costs 9,846 20,430 70,671 

Design & Development 0 0 

Administration"' 4,040 21,542 67,279 

Management'2' 1,316 4,544 27,651 

Marketing1 3 1 1,434 14,869 33,185 

Technical Assistance 712 3,377 13,304 

Subtotal ED C Implementation Costs 7,502 44,332 141,420 

EDC Evaluation Costs 1,987 3,678 9,015 

SWE Audi t Costs 0 0 0 

Total EDC Costs"' 19,335 68,440 221,106 

Participant Costs'5' N/A 109,112 297,002 

Total TRC Costs'61 N/A 157,123 447,438 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 185;791 1,183,070 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 30,041 154,241 

Total TR C Benefits'7' N/A 217,320 1,287,485 

TRC Ratio'8' N/A 1.38 2.88 

NOTES 

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\j 28, 2011. Please see the "Report Definitions" section of this report for more details. 

\ 1 ] Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

[2] Includes HOC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

|31 Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs. 

|4| Per the 2011 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the Total I:DC Costs refer to EDC incurred expenses only. 

|5| Per the 2011 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use customer or program costs 

that arc proxies for participant costs. These include incentives paid lo appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

|6| Tolal TRC Costs includes HDC Lvalualion Costs, HOC Implementation Costs, and Participant Costs. There may be residual 

evaluation costs incurred from transitional Phase I evaluation activity, those costs will be identified and footnoted in the PY5Q2 

report. 

[7] Total TRC henefits equals the sum ot Total Lifetime Energy Henefits and Total LifetimeCapacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due to the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Based upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduction 

in costs of electric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued al marginal cost for periods 

when there is a load reduction. 

[81 TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Costs. 

19] Post PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

[101 i^ 1' Phase roll-up, nil values are discounted back to the beginning of PYl using the PY4 discount rate of 7.60%. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 34 
Table 1-20. Summary of Portfolio Finances Using Evaluation Verified Savings 

IQI91 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 10,214 20,416 62,337 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies -368 14 8,334 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 9,846 20,430 70,671 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration1" 4,040 21,542 67,279 

Management121 1,316 4,544 27,651 

Marketing131 1,434 14,869 33,185 

Technical Assistance 712 3,377 13,304 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 7,502 44,332 141,420 

EDC Evaluation Costs 1,987 3,678 9,015 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 0 

Total EDC Costs'4" 19,335 68,440 221,106 

Participant Costs'5' N/A 109,112 297,002 

Total TRC Costs'6' N/A 157,123 447,438 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N /A 186,241 1,188,057 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 31,058 168,272 

Total TRC Benefits'7' N/A 218,788 1,385,319 

TRC Ratio'81 N/A 1.39 3.10 

NOTES 

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. 

|11 Includes theadministrnliviiCSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

|2| Includes LDC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

|3| Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs. 

|4| Per the 2011 Total Resource* Cost Test Order, the Total EDC Costs refer to EDC incurred expenses only. 

|5| Per the 20! 1 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use customer or program costs 

that are proxies for participant costs. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and'Demand Response participants. 

|6| Total TRC Costs includes liDC livaluation Costs, LDC Implementation Costs, and Participant Costs. 

|7] Total TRC Henefits equals the sum of Total Lifetime linergy Henefits and Tolal Lifetime Capacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due to the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including Ihe reduction 

in costs of electric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued at marginal cosl for periods 

when there is a load reduclion. 

|8| TRC Ratio equals Tolal TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Costs. 

|9| Post PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

110| Por Phase roll-up, all values are discounted back lo the beginning of PYl using the PY4 discount rate of 7.60%. 

Source: Nnvignnt analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 35 
1.8 Summary of Cost-Effectiveness by Program 

TRC ratios are calculated by comparing the total TRC benefits and the total TRC costs. Per the 

2009 Order, TRC benefits are the avoided energy and capacity costs. TRC costs are net 

participant costs and EDC program costs. Participant incentives are not included in the TRC test 

except per the 2011 TRC Order, in the case of demand response (DR) programs. 

Table 1-21 shows the TRC ratios by program and other factors used in the TRC ratio calculation. 

For the entirety of Phase 1, the TRC ratio based on CPITD values was 2.88. The TRC ratio for the 

portfolio in PY4 was 1.38. The PY4 ratio is lower than in the previous years in Phase I. One 

primary reason for this decrease is that multiple programs reduced their level of activity in PY4 

as Phase I savings goals were approached or exceeded. This resulted in lower savings and 

therefore lower TRC benefits. At the same time, fixed costs or an explicit market maintenance 

strategy often prevented TRC costs from falling at a comparable rate. 

The discount rate used in the PY4 cost-effectiveness calculations was 7.60 percent. This is 

equivalent to the rate used in PY3, but slightly higher than the rate of 7.45 percent used in PYl 

and PY2. For programs that achieved TRC benefits due to the value of avoided replacement 

incandescent light bulbs, these benefits were assigned at the measure level based on primary 

market research performed during the middle of PY4. The annual cost of avoided energy was 

calculated separately for each of four periods during which energy savings were achieved: 

summer on-peak, summer off-peak, winter on-peak, and winter off-peak. A single value was 

calculated for the annual value of avoided demand. Separate residential and commercial and 

industrial (C&I) values were used for the annual value of avoided transmission and distribution 

(T&D) and line loss factors. For C&I line loss factors, the value ranged from 1.0760 to 1.1172 

depending on the estimated mix of savings from small C&I and large C&I participants. 

Multiple programs that had the primary aim of achieving demand savings (rather than energy 

savings) had no T&D benefits included in the total resource cost (TRC) calculations, including 

the Demand Response Aggregator (DRA), Distributed Energy Resources (DER), and Direct 

Load Control (DLC) programs. This is because, in Phase I, T&D benefits were calculated using 

avoided costs expressed in dollars per kilowatt-hour (kWh). These programs did not claim any 

kWh savings. In Phase II, T&D benefits for programs with the primary aim of achieving 

demand savings will be calculated using avoided costs expressed in dollars per kW, as used in 

PECO's Revised Phase II EE&C Plan and discussed in PECO direct testimony in Docket P-2012-

PECO Energy Company | Page 36 
2320344'!.n

 The TRC calculations for these programs would have been significantly improved 

had this methodology been utilized in the Phase I TRC calculations. 

Table 1-21. PYTD TRC Ratios by Program Using TRM Verified Savings 

Total TRC 

Benefits 

Total 

Program 

Total TRC 

Benefits 

TRC 

Costs 

($1,000) 

TRC 

Ratio 

Discount 

Rate 

Line Loss Factor 

($1,000) 

TRC 

Costs 

($1,000) 

TRC 

Ratio 

Discount 

Rate 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program $13,147 $2,897 4.54 7.60 1.19 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program $2,810 $823 3.41 7.60 1.19 

Smart Home Rebates Program $15,292 $20,236 0.76 7.60 1.19 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program $20,099 $5,323 3.78 7.60 1.19 

Smart Equipment Incentives - C&I $75,909 $42,181 1.80 7.60 1.11 

Smart Construction Incentives $9,165 $4,670 1.96 7.60 1.11 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI $71,780 $52,145 1.38 7.60 1.12 

Conservation Voltage Reduction $0 $310 0.00 7.60 1.00 

Residential Direct Load Control $2,618 $15,294 0.17 7.60 1.19 

Commercial Direct-Load Control $82 $1,470 0.06 7.60 1.19 

Permanent Load Reduction $221 $2,067 0.11 7.60 1.11 

Demand Response Aggregators 

$5,409 $7,791 0.69 7.60 

Varies by 

participant: 1.070 

to 1.192 

Distributed Energy Resources 

$788 $1,915 0.41 7.60 

Varies by 

participant: 1.070 

to 1.192 

TOTAL PORTFOLIO $217,320 $157,122 1.38 7.60 

Source: Nnvignnt nmh/sts 

Table 1-22 presents the same information as Table 1-21, but reflects the higher Evaluation 

Verified savings in the SLD and LEEP programs. 

1

 Direct testimony, Frank Jimska. September 5, 2012. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 37 
Table 1-22. PYTD TRC Ratios by Program Using Evaluation Verified savings 

Program 

Total TRC 

Benefits 

($1,000) 

Total 

TRC 

Costs 

($1,000) 

TRC 

Ratio 

Discount 

Rate 

Line Loss Factor 

Smart Lighting Discounts Program $13,753 $2,897 4.75 7.60 1.19 

Smart Appliance Recycling Program $2,810 $823 3.41 7.60 1.19 

Smart Home Rebates Program $15,292 $20,236 0.76 7.60 1.19 

Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program $20,961 $5,323 3.94 7.60 1.19 

Smart Equipment Incentives-C&l $75,909 $42,181 1.80 7.60 1.11 

Smart Construction.Incentives $9,165 $4,670 ' 1.96 7.60 1.11 

Smart Equipment Incentives - GNI $71,780 $52,145 1.38 7.60 1.12 

Conservation Voltage Reduction $0 $310 0.00 7.60 1.00 

Residential Direct Load Control $2,618 $15,294 0.17 7.60 1.19 

Commercial Direct Load Control $82 $1,470 0.06 7.60 1.19 

Permanent Load Reduction $221 $2,067 0.11 7.60 i.n 

Demand Response Aggregators 

$5,409 $7,791 0.69 7.60 

Varies by 

participant: 1.070 

to 1.192 

Distributed Energy Resources 

$788 $1,915 0.41 7.60 

Varies by 

participant: 1.070 

to 1.192 

TOTAL PORTFOLIO $218,788 $157,122 1.39 7.60 

Source: Nnvigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 38 
2 Smart Lighting Discounts 

The PECO SLD Program is an upstream-incentive program started in October 2009 that 

encourages and facilitates the adoption of CFLs and helps PECO's residential customers become 

conscious about their energy use. The program achieves this goal by providing incentives to 

manufacturers to increase the market share of ENERGY STAR-qualified CFLs sold through 

retail sales channels, as well as by distributing educational materials that increase customer 

awareness, acceptance, and understanding of energy-efficient lighting technology. 

2.1 Program Updates 

In the first two years of Phase I, the SLD Program was responsible for the largest proportion of 

total PECO portfolio savings among all of the Act 129 PECO programs. In the early months of 

PY3, PECO reduced the SLD Program in size by approximately 95 percent to align overall Phase 

I savings with the previously established EE&C Plan targets. PECO also shifted the focus of the 

program from standard spiral CFLs to an almost exclusive focus on specialty CFLs. PECO 

maintained the program at approximately the same reduced size for PY4, Average monthly 

bulb sales were approximately 22,000 in PY4. Similar to PY3, the focus of the program in PY4 

was on the sale of specialty CFLs. 

There were modest changes to program offering, sales channels, and marketing approach in 

PY4. Several additional specialty CFL models were added to the program, which increased the 

offerings for reflector lamps, candelabras, and dimmabie CFLs. Program sales took place 

almost exclusively through Home Improvement stores, whereas in past program years there 

was a significant minority of sales taking place through warehouse stores and big-box stores. 

Program messaging shifted in PY4 from emphasizing the incentives to emphasizing the more 

significant savings that one can achieve over the lifetime of a bulb by switching to energyefficient lighting. 

2.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

2.2.1 Methodology 

The PY4 SLD Program evaluation draws upon several evaluation methods designed in light of 

the significant reduction in the program's size and the specific focus on specialty CFLs. The 

primary data sources for PY4 included PECO PY4 tracking data analysis, shelf-stocking surveys 

at a sample of participating retailers, and in-depth phone interviews with PECO program staff 

and the Ecova program implementers. Additional research activities that spanned the PY4 SLD 

PECO Energy Company | Page 39 
evaluation as well as informed updates to the 2013 PA TRM included deriving updated savings 

parameter values for Peak Load Coincidence Factor and Lighting-Heating, Ventilating, and Air 

Conditioning (HVAC) Interactive Effects Factors for energy and demand. Details on the 

methods and results of these parameter value updates are provided in separate memos sent to 

PECO. 

fn addition to tlie above activities, the evaluation team undertook an effort to conduct surveys 

with PY4 SLD Program participants and non-participant lighting purchasers regarding their 

lighting choices, through the use of in-store tear-off sheets displayed in the lighting aisle of 

participating stores. These business-card-sized tear-off sheets, which invited shoppers to 

participate in the survey and be entered for a chance to win a $500 gift card, presented the 

shopper with three ways of accessing the survey: a phone number, uniform resource locator, 

and quick response code for a cell phone scanner. Unfortunately, the response rate was 

extremely low, with only 20 total surveys completed over the six-week period in which the tearoff sheets were in the stores. Eighteen of the respondents did the online version of the survey, 

and 2 respondents did the phone-based version of the survey. Of these 20 survey respondents, 

only 3 were purchasing program bulbs. This response rate is too low to be used for meaningful 

analysis of the PY4 SLD Program. As a result, parameter values for cross-sector installation of 

program bulbs and NTG ratio were developed from the PY2 intercepts. 

2.2.2 Reported Savings 

The number of bulbs distributed through the program is derived from the Residential Lighting 

tracking database provided to the evaluation team as part of the PECO Smart Data System 

extract. In the case of the Smart Lighting Discounts Program, the calculation of gross energy 

and demand savings consists of two steps: 1) verifying program tracking data against scanned 

manufacturer invoices for program bulb sales, and 2) calculating gross energy and demand 

savings by applying the savings parameter values described above to each record in the 

tracking data and summing across all records. 

A total of 248,548 CFLs were sold as part of the PY4 program. The products included in this 

program are all partially deemed measures in the 2012 TRM1 3 for PY4. Program-reported 

13 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. 2012. Technical Refcrcuce Manual for Pennsylvania Act 129 Energy Efficiency and 

Conservation Program and Act 213 Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 40 
savings are based on deemed values for all savings parameters with the, exception of Displaced 

Watts (or Delta Watts), which is derived on a per-bulb basis as the difference between the CFL 

wattage and the incandescent replacement wattage. The evaluation team verified all program 

bulb sales and deemed savings calculations in the PY4 compliance reporting process, and the 

verified program-reported gross energy and demand savings are shown as the ProgramReported savings in Table 2-1 below. Bulb sales were highest in Q2 and Q3, but did not show 

remarkable variation across quarters. Gross demand reduction in the Top 100 Hours was 0.1 

MW, and all took place during Ql. Gross summer peak demand reduction attributed to bulbs 

sold throughout the year was 0.6 MW. 

On the incentives side, it is important to note that in PY4 Q4, there were $75,000 paid in 

incentives, but in that same quarter $624,000 in incentive costs were moved from SLD to the 

Smart Equipment Incentives (SEI) program in recognition that a portion of overall portfolio 

incentive dollars were going to customers that were installing SLD program bulbs in nonresidential sockets. The result was -$549k in SLD incentives for PY4 Q4, and -$265k in SLD 

incentives for PY4 overall. 

Table 2-1. PY4 SLD Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting Period Participants 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh/yr) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

PY4 Ql 53,324 2,518 0.1 0.1 79 

PY4 Q2 69,274 3,305 0.0 0.2 97 

PY4Q3 75,104 3,623 0.0 0.2 107 

PY4Q4 61,485 2,994 0.0 0.2 -533 

PY4 Total 259,187 12,440 0.1 0.7 -250 

CPITD Total 7,675,726 363,389 22.7 23.3 7,856 

Source: Navigant analysis 

Although the in-store tear-off sheet survey conducted in PY4 included questions designed to 

inform an estimate of low-income participation in Smart Lighting Discounts and cross-sector 

installation of program bulbs in non-residential sockets, there was not a sufficient number of 

completed surveys to enable this analysis based on PY4 primary data. As was specified in the 

PY4 evaluation plan in anticipation of this possible outcome, the low-income participation rate 

from Smart Home Rebates (12%) is used as a proxy for low-income participation in SLD. The 

estimate of cross-sector installation of program bulbs derived from the PY2 in-store intercepts 

PECO Energy Company | Page 41 
(7.7%) is used to calculate commercial and industrial participation and savings. Results are 

shown in Table 2-2 below. Appendix C presents detailed information on the estimation of nonresidential participation in the SLD Program. 

Table 2-2. PY4 SLD Reported Results by Sector 

Sector Participants

 ; 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy ; 

Savings 

(MWh/yr) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

Residential 210,522 13,619 0.2 1.5 ($220) 

Low-income 28,708 1,857 0.0 0.2 ($30) 

Commercial and Industrial 19,957 1,291 0.0 0.1 $624 

Government and Nonprofit 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 

PY4 Total 259,187 16,768 0.2 1.8 $374 

CPITD Total 7,675,726 489,941 62.0 63.6 $7,856 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnli/sis 

2.2.3 Verified Savings 

Because the verification process consists of checking the program tracking data against 

manufacturer invoices, rather than performing savings measurement and verification activities 

for a subset of participants, there are no sampling methodology or strata designations 

associated with the Smart Lighting Discounts Program savings verification. There is also no 

coefficient of variation. Consequently, Table 2-3 shows that both the target sample size and the 

achieved sample size are the whole population size of program bulbs for the year. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 42 
Table 2-3. SLD Sampling Strategy for PY4 

Stratum 

i 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& Precision 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Smart 

Lighting 

Discounts 

All 

program 

bulbs 

259,187 N/A 90%/+0.00% 259,187 259,187 Verify program 

bulb sales against 

manufacturer 

invoices, apply 

deemed savings 

parameters to 

calculate savings. 

Program 

Total 

259,187 N/A 90%/±0.00% 259,187 259,187 

Source: Navigant analysis 

In addition to the program-reported energy and demand savings, which were based strictly on 

savings parameters from the TRM, the evaluation team calculated savings by two other 

methods: 

1. TRM-Verified savings and Evaluation Verified savings. These calculation methods 

differed from the Program-Reported energy and demand savings. The TRM-Verified 

approach to savings calculations used the same savings parameters from the TRM as 

program-re ported savings, but was modified to reflect the fact that 7.7 percent of 

program bulbs are going into commercial installations. 

2. The Evaluation Verified savings incorporated the 7.7 percent cross-sector installations, 

an updated peak load coincidence factor of 11.7 percent based on literature review, and 

lighting-HVAC interactive effects factors for energy (1.02) and demand (1.19) based on 

building energy simulation modeling. 

Coincidence Factor 

Prior to the PY4 Q3 report, demand reduction impacts for residential lighting measures had 

been calculated using the Peak Load Coincidence Factor (CF) of 5 percent in the 2012 

Pennsylvania TRM. This value comes from a 2007 report by RLW Analytics, entitled 

"Development of Common Demand Impacts for Energy Efficiency Measures/Programs for the 

PECO Energy Company | Page 43 
ISO Forward Capacity Market (FCM)."14

 As the 5 percent CF has been acknowledged by both 

tlie statewide evaluator (SWE) and the technical utility staff of the PUC to be erroneous,15 

Navigant has used a residential lighting load shape developed through the 2009 Northeast 

residential lighting logger study conducted by Nexus Market Research, RLW Analytics, and 

GDS Associates (the NMR 2009 study) to calculate a revised CF of 11.7 percent over PECO's 

Top 100 Hours during the summer of 2012.,6 Details on the derivation of this CF are presented 

in Appendix A. 

Lighting Interactive Effects Factor 

Navigant constructed building energy computer simulation models to determine the HVAC 

impacts from efficient lighting installations in the PECO service territory. Navigant used these 

models to calculate energy and demand lEFs, which are used to adjust the program lighting 

savings to account for the additional impacts on HVAC energy and demand. Navigant has not 

applied energy and demand interactive effects in previous evaluations of PECO's residential 

programs because these were not included in the TRM. However, the evaluation team believes 

that by not including this factor, the TRM is significantly underestimating demand savings from 

efficient lighting installations. Details on the derivation of the lEFs are presented in Appendix B. 

Reported PY4 gross energy savings that reflected the 7.7 percent commercial installation of 

program bulbs were 16,768 MWh, as shown in Table 2-4. However, in that calculation, the 

evaluation team did not apply the PY4 realization rate for non-residential program bulbs, 0.86, 

calculated in the SEI evaluation. When this factor is applied, TRM-verified gross energy savings 

are 16,028 MWh, and the resulting energy realization rate for SLD is 95.6 percent. 

M

 RLW Analytics, 2007. "Development of Common Demand Impacts for Energy Efficiency 

Measures/Programs for the ISO Forward Capacity Market (FCM)", prepared for the New England State 

Program Working Group (SPWG), March 25, 2007, p. IV. 

1 5

 See the minutes of the Program Evaluation Group meeting from March 20, 2013 (forwarded to all EDCs 

and evaluators on March 29, 2013). 

1 6

 Nexus Market Research, Inc., RLW Analytics, Inc., and GDS Associates, 2009. Residential Lighting 

Markdown Impact Evaluation. Prepared for Markdown and Buydown Program Sponsors in Connecticut, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. January 20, 2009. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 44 
Table 2-4. PY4 SLD TRM-Verified Summary of Evaluation Results for Energy 

Stratum 

Smart Lighting 

Discounts 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

16,768 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

96% 

Observed 

Coefficient i 

of 

Variation 

(Cv)or 

_Pro portion 

0 

Relative 

Precision 

at85% 

Confidence 

0 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

16,028 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

0 

Program Total 16,768 96% 0 0 16,028 0 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnh/sis 

Using the calculations that include the 7.7 percent cross-sector installations, the updated peak 

load coincidence factor of 11.7 percent, and the lighting-HVAC interactive effects factors for 

energy and demand, reported PY4 gross energy savings were 16,997 MWh, as shown in Table 

2-5 . However, similar to the TRM-based calculations above, the evaluation team did not apply 

the PY4 realization rate for non-residential program bulbs, 0.86, calculated in the Smart 

Equipment Incentives evaluation. When this factor is applied, TRM-verified gross energy 

savings are 16,257 MWh, and the resulting energy realization rate for SLD is 95.6 percent. 

Table 2-5. PY4 SLD Evaluation-Verified Summary of Evaluation Results for Energy 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Smart Lighting 

Discounts 

16,997 96% 0 0 16,257 0 

Program Total 16,997 96% 0 0 16,257 0 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnh/sfc 

Table 2-6 and Table 2-7 show the peak demand savings calculations using the TRM approach 

and the Navigant approach described above for energy. As discussed for energy savings above, 

non-residential savings parameters were applied to the 7.7 percent of program bulbs that were 

installed in non-residential sockets. Reported PY4 gross energy savings using this method were 

1.8 MW, and when adjusted to incorporate the SEI demand realization rate yielded verified 

gross demand savings of 1.6 MW. The demand realization rate is 87 percent. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 45 
Table 2-6. PY4 SLD TRM-Verified Summary of Evaluation Results for Demand 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(C) or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Smart Lighting 

Discounts 

1.8 87% 0 0 1.6 0 

Program Total 1.8 87% 0 0 1.6 0 

Source: Navigant analysis 

Reported PY4 gross energy savings were 2.9 MW when applying the 7.7 percent cross-sector 

installations, the 11.7 percent peak coincidence factor, and the lighting-HVAC demand 

interactive effects factor of 1.19. After adjusting to incorporate the SEI demand realization rate, 

Navigant verified gross demand savings are 2.7 MW. The demand realization rate is 92 percent. 

Table 2-7. PY4 SLD Evai uation-Verified Summary of Evaluation Results for Demand 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(O) or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Smart Lighting 

Discounts 

2.9 92% 0 0 2.7 0 

Program Total 2.9 92% 0 0 2.7 tl 

Source: Navigant analysis 

2.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

Due to the insufficient number of in-store tear-off survey completes, it was not feasible to 

develop an estimated NTG ratio based specifically on PY4 sales. Instead, the PY2 salesweighted NTG ratio was used to calculate PY4 net savings. The PY2 NTG ratio was calculated 

as the simple average of the values arising from four NTG methods: General population 

telephone survey (NTG 0.44 for standard CFLs, 0.40 for specialty CFLs), in-store intercept 

survey (NTG 0.35 for all CFLs), trade ally surveys (NTG 0.40 for standard CFLs, 0.35 for 

specialty CFLs), and revealed preference purchase modeling (NTG 0.35 for all CFLs). 

Of the four NTG estimation methods employed in PY2, the only method that specifically 

captures spillover is the general population telephone survey. Two types of spillover were 

estimated for the PY2 general population self-report method: participant and non-participant 

PECO Energy Company | Page 46 
spillover. Spillover for both participants and non-participants includes all adoptions of energyefficient lighting measures that are influenced by the program, but are not done through the 

program (i.e., are not rebated). 

The PY2 participant spillover rate was calculated by summing the spillover adoptions over all 

program participants and then dividing it by the total number of purchases made through the 

program. The PY2 non-participant spillover rate was calculated in a similar manner as 

participant spillover except the spillover adoptions were divided by the number of surveyed 

customers. This value then was applied to the appropriate population of non-participating 

customers to estimate the number of spillover adoptions occurring in that population. 

To generate the PY4 overall NTG estimate, the evaluation team applied each of the PY2 NTG 

estimates by bulb type to the PY4 distribution of standard and specialty CFL sales. The salesweighted NTG ratio for PY4 arising from these values is 0.38, the same as the sales-weighted 

value from PY2. 

2.4 Process Evaluation 

The process evaluation used information from the in-depth program manager and implementer 

interviews and shelf surveys to assess process-related aspects of the SLD Program. The in-depth 

interviews provided information about the program strategy and focus in comparison with 

prior program years. The shelf surveys gave the evaluation team insight into the current state 

of the lighting market through an inventory of the types of bulbs available in stores for 

purchase. 

Two in-depth program manager and implementer interviews were conducted as part of the PY4 

evaluation. The interview with program managers featured three senior-level PECO staff with 

decision-making power over the program and who know the history of the program's 

implementation, operation, successes, and failures. These interviews were completed over the 

phone in January and February of 2013. 

Interviewees verified that the program design has been generally consistent from PY3 into PY4. 

Discount levels for each type of bulb featured in the program were not changed significantly 

from prior program years. A small number of additional specialty CFL models were added to 

the program and resulted in increasing the program offerings for reflector lamps, candelabras, 

and dimmabie CFLs. In PY4 the program focused almost completely in Home 

Improvement/DIY stores with a minimal presence in small hardware stores, whereas in PYl 

and PY2 it also featured prominently in big-box stores and warehouse/club stores. While the 

signage and other point-of-purchase (POP) materials in participating stores have not been 

PECO Energy Company | Page 47 
substantially modified, the general messaging of the program has shifted from emphasizing the 

incentives on CFLs as a source of savings to emphasizing the more significant savings that one 

can achieve over the lifetime of a bulb by switching to energy-efficient lighting. Store visits and 

lighting demonstrations were conducted by two field staff that helped answer customers' 

questions about the specific lighting types that would meet their needs. The PECO website, bill 

inserts, and radio advertisements remain the primary marketing tools for the program. 

The evaluation team conducted shelf surveys at a sample of eight stores across two retailers that 

were participants in the PY4 program. As a point of comparison, the evaluation team compared 

the Pennsylvania shelf survey data against shelf survey data from several stores at those same 

retailers in California. Because California has an accelerated schedule of adoption of Energy 

Independence and Security Act (EISA) legislation by one year compared with the rest of the 

country, this comparison offers a look one year ahead in terms of the sell-through of traditional 

incandescent bulbs of certain wattages whose manufacture and import are no longer permitted 

under EISA, and the resulting influence on the availability of products on the shelves. 

The shelf surveys documented the presence of a variety of information materials related to 

energy-efficient lighting in the lighting aisles of participating stores. 

Overall, the shelf surveys revealed a lighting market in transition, as retailers, manufacturers, 

and PECO all focus on the increasing array of energy-efficient lighting options available. The 

focus of SLD on specialty CFLs in PY4 is evident from the shelf survey data. Traditional 

incandescent bulbs affected by EISA are on an expected trend of reduced presence on store 

shelves, though at a somewhat slower time trajectory than expected. PECO incentives on 

program bulbs are typically $1.50 per bulb across most bulb types and represent a discount of 

17 to 38 percent. 

Process recommendations listed in Table 2-8 are largely carried forward from the PY3 

evaluation, reinforced by the findings from the PY4 program manager and implementer 

interviews and shelf surveys. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 48 
Table 2-8. Status Report for SLD Process Evaluations 

Recommendations 

EDC Status Report for Process Evaluations 

(Implemented, Being Considered, Rejected AND 

Explanation of Action Taken by EDC) 

Prioritize in-store intercept surveys using field staff in the 

aisles of participating stores to collect information for key 

evaluation parameters 

Implemented. EDC is working with program 

implementer to facilitate logistics and permission for 

these in PY5 participating stores. 

Use a Segmented Marketing Approach for PECO 

Customers Based on Socket Saturation 

Being considered. PECO managers and the evaluation 

team are scheduling a call to discuss options. 

Eocus education and marketing efforts on the wide 

variety of specialty CFLs that are available 

Being considered. PECO managers and the evaluation 

team are scheduling a call to discuss options. 

Use the phase-out under EISA of traditional incandescent 

60-W and 40-W bulbs as of January 2014 as an 

opportunity to emphasize growing diversity and 

excellent performance of energy-efficient lighting options 

Being considered. PECO managers and the evaluation 

team are scheduling a call to discuss options. 

Expect the education process around lumen awareness to 

take a long time, and sustain education efforts 

Being considered. PECO managers and the evaluation 

team are scheduling a call to discuss options. 

Increase the Coordination of Community Outreach and 

In-Store TabI i ng Even ts Across PECO's Portf ol i o of 

Energy Efficiency Programs 

Being considered. PECO managers and the evaluation 

team are scheduling a call to discuss options. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

2.5 Financial Reporting 

Table 2-9 and Table 2-10 present program finances. The costs are the same in both tables; 

however, Table 2-9 presents benefits based on TRM Verified savings, whereas Table 2-10 

presents benefits based on Evaluation Verified savings. The program was highly cost effective 

during both PY4 and all of Phase I in both scenarios. In PY4 Q4, there were $75,000 paid in 

incentives however, in that same quarter, $624,000 in incentive costs were moved from SLD to 

the Smart Equipment Incentives Program in recognition that a portion of overall portfolio 

incentive dollars were going to customers that were installing SLD Program bulbs in nonresidential sockets. The CPITD TRC for the duration of Phase I was 11.77 (15.45 using 

PECO Energy Company | Page 49 
Evaluation Verified savings), due to the larger program size in PY1-PY3, which generated larger 

savings benefits set against the relatively fixed nature of some program costs. 

Table 2-9. Summary of SLD Finances Using TRM Verified Savings 

IQ' 9' 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 0 0 0 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies -533 -249 7,857 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs -533 -249 7,857 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration111 135 485 2,599 

Management121 131 360 1,142 

Marketing131 476 882 4,116 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 742 1,727 7,857 

EDC Evaluation Costs 217 416 1,110 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC CostsW 426 1,893 16,823 

Participant Costs15' N/A 755 17,379 

Total TRC Costs'6' N/A 2,897 26,346 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 11,675 339,330 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 609 22,382 

Total TRC Benefits'7" N/A 13,147 310,001 

TRC Ratio'1" N/A 4.54 11.77 

NOTES 

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 11 Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

|2| includes LDC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

13| Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs. 

|4| Per the 2011 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the Total HOC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

151 Per the 2011 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use customer or program costs 

that are proxies for participant costs. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

|6| Total TRC Costs includes LDC Lvalualion Costs, EDC Implementation Costs, and Participant Costs. 

|7| Total TRC Henefits equals the sum of Total Lifetime linergy Henefits and Total Litetime Capacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due to the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

. baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduction 

in costs of eleclric energy, generation, Iransmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued at marginal cosl for periods 

when there isa load reduction. 

J8] TRC Ratio equals Total TRC HenefiW divided by Total TRC Costs. 

|9| Post PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Navigant anah/sis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 50 
Table 2-10. Summary of SLD Finances Using Evaluation Verified Savings 

1 

IQM 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 0 0 0 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies -533 -249 7,857 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs -533 -249 7,857 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration"1 135 485 2,599 

Management121 131 360 1,142 

Marketing131 476 882 4,116 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 742 1,727 7,857 

EDC Evaluation Costs 217 416 1,110 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC CostsW 426 1,893 16,823 

Participant Costs151 N/A 755 17,379 

Total TRC Costs'6! N/A 2,897 26,346 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 11,858 344,051 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 1,032 35,819 

Total TRC Benefitsi" N/A 13,753 406,973 

TRC Ratio18' N/A 4.75 15.45 

NOTES 

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 ] Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

[2| Includes LDC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

[31 Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs. 

|4| Per the 2011 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the Total LDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

|5| Per the 2011 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-uso customer or program costs 

that are proxies for participant costs. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

|6| Total TRC Costs includes LDC Evaluation Costs, LDC Implementation Costs, and Participant Costs. 

|7| Total TRC henefits equals Ihe sum of Tolal Lifetime Energy Henefits and Tolal Lifetime Capacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due to the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared lo the 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduction 

in costs of electric energy, generation, Iransmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued at marginal cost for periods 

when there is a load reduclion. 

18] TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Costs. 

|9] Post PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnli/sis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 51 
3 Smart Appliance Recycling 

The Smart Appliance Recycling (SAR) program offers free pickup and recycling services for 

older, working refrigerators and freezers that households no longer want. Program savings are 

based on the accelerated removal, dismantling, and recycling of these older, inefficient units. In 

exchange for participating in the program, PECO pays participants an incentive for each 

removed unit (up to a maximum of two recycled refrigerators or freezers). 

The program has two components, JACO recycling and retailer pickups. The JACO recycling 

component concentrates on removal of existing secondary units from homes and apartments. 

The retailer component of the program focuses on preventing former primary refrigerators and 

freezers from being retained and used as secondary units when customers purchase new units. 

Through the program, units are removed from customers' homes and retailers' facilities to a 

collection facility and disassembled for environmentally responsible disposal and recycling. 

There is no charge to the customer for the appliance pickup and recycling. 

3.1 Program Updates 

The design of the Smart Appliance Recycling program has remained largely the same as in 

previous program years, with the exception of the program incentive level and elimination of 

the room air conditioner measure. On November 1, 2011, the incentive was reduced from 

$35/unit to $15/unit and the room air conditioner measure was eliminated from the program. 

This was part of a broader strategy by PECO to reduce incentives across most of its programs. 

The lower incentive level has resulted in a significant drop in participation levels, which are 

now less than one-third of the levels seen prior to this incentive reduction. 

3.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

3.2.1 Methodology 

The impact evaluation of the Appliance Recycling program is based on an in-depth review and 

analysis of tracking data, application of the deemed savings factors approved by the SWE and 

published in the TRM or a related work paper, and a separate verification of units being picked 

up by the program via a telephone survey. The verification was based on a screening question 

in tlie telephone survey to verify the appliances were picked up as reported in the program 

tracking database. The first and second waves of participant telephone surveys, for all PY4 

participants, were completed in early March and July 2013, respectively. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 52 
The energy and demand savings for this program are straightforward. All values in the 

calculation are deemed, with the exception of the verification factor, which is derived from the 

telephone survey. Per the TRM, separate savings factors are applied for replaced units 

{reflecting somewhat lower savings) and non-replaced units (incorporating somewhat higher 

savings). In addition, replaced units are differentiated by whether the unit is ENERGY STAR 

certified or non-ENERGY STAR certified. ENERGY STAR-certified units have a somewhat 

higher deemed savings value than non-ENERGY STAR certified units. Verified savings are 

equal to the number of recycled units times the TRM savings per unit times the verification 

factor. 

3.2.2 Reported Savings 

Table 3-1 presents program participation, savings, and incentives on a quarterly basis. Table 3-2 

indicates how program participation, savings, and incentives through the end of PY4 are 

distributed across customer sectors. Low-income savings was calculated by applying a 

percentage of low-income participants times overall program MWh and MW savings. The 

percentage of low-income participants was based on survey findings to a question regarding 

family income levels. These income levels were tailored to each respondent based on the 

number of persons they indicated in their household. The threshold used to define low income 

was 200 percent of Federal Poverty Levels (FPLs). Based on these findings, 18.6 percent of 

participants in the program are defined as low income. 

Table 3-1. PY4 Smart Appliance Recycling Program Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting Period Participants 

Reported Gross 

Energy Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 Hours 

Reported 

Gross Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Cross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

PY4 Ql 1,070 1,550 0.1 0.2 17 

PY4 Q2 732 1,051 0 0.2 12 

PY4 Q3 511 781 0 0.1 8 

PY4 Q4 517 756 0 0.1 8 

PY4 Total 2,830 4,138 0.1 0.6 45 

CPITD Total 30,573 47,431 9.2 9.7 1,077 

Source: Program tracking data, reviewed in/ Navigant team 

PECO Energy Company | Page 53 
Table 3-2. PY4 Smart Appliance Recycling Program Reported Results by Sector 

Sector Participants 

Reported 

Gross Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

Residential 2,304 3,368 0.1 0.5 36 

Low-In come 526 770 0.0 0.1 8 

Commercial and 

Industrial 

0 0 0 0 0 

Government and 

Nonprofit 

0 0 0 0 0 

PY4 Total 2,830 4,138 0.1 0.6 45 

CPITD Total 30,573 47,431 9.2 9.7 1,077 

Source: Nnvignnt anali/sis 

The sample for the telephone survey of program participants was drawn to achieve 90/10 

confidence/precision levels on an annual basis. As shown in Table 3-3, the target sample size 

for the telephone survey in PY4 was 250 completed surveys. In total, 256 surveys were 

completed, slightly higher than the target. In addition, surveys were conducted with the three 

largest retailers associated with units replaced by participants after the program had removed 

their units. These retailer survey results are factored into the NTG ratio calculation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 54 
Table 3-3. Smart Appliance Recycling Program Sampling Strategy for PY4 

Stratum 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Population N/A 2,972 0.35 85/15 250 256 

Participant 

survey: Part-use 

factor, NTG, 

Process 

Attempted 

census of 

largest 

firms 

N/A 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Retailer survey. 

NTG 

Program 

Total 

N/A 2,972 0.35 85/15 250 256 

Participant 

survey: Part-use 

factor, NTG, 

Process 

Source: Nnviganl nnaiysis 

3.2.3 Verified Savings 

Table 3-4 and Table 3-5 present evaluation results for energy and demand, respectively. Results 

are significantly down from prior years,17 reflecting the results of the significant drop-off in 

participation levels. In addition, the energy and demand realization rates of 94 percent, 

resulting from the phone survey conducted, reflects the fact that not all customers were able to 

verify that PECO's program had, in fact, collected their unit. Some 6 percent did not. 

1 7

 For example, PY3 savings were 12,309 MWh and in PY2 they were 16,749 MWh. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 55 
Table 3-4. PY4 Smart Appliance Recycling Program Summary of Evaluation Results for 

Energy 

Stratum 

Reported 

Cross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Population 4/138 94.0% 0.184 0.49% 3,873 0 

Program Total 4,138 94.0% 0.184 0.49% 3,873 0 

Source: Navigant team anah/sis 

Table 3-5. PY4 Smart Appliance Recycling Program Summary of Evaluation Results for 

Demand 

Stratum 

Population 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

" 0.6 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

94% 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(C) or 

Proportion 

0.253 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

0.14% 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

0.564 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0 

Program Total 0.6 94% 0.253 0.14% 0.564 0 

Source: Nnvignnt team analysis 

3.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

The NTG assessment of retailer-sou reed units has been expanded in PY4 to assess program 

influence in all cases where an existing unit has been replaced. Such an inquiry involves 

investigating the used appliance disposal practices of most of the major retailers associated with 

unit replacements.. Navigant used responses from the participating customer survey to 

determine the analytical approach for the retailer associated units, as well as the non-replaced 

units picked up by JACO at customers' homes. The NTG ratio has been calculated using a twostep process: first, to the participant survey for information on unit disposal absent PECO's 

program; second, for those participants that replaced existing units and that indicated they 

would have had their unit removed by the dealer that they got their replacement unit from. The 

results from the retailer interviews are used directly to calculate the NTG ratio. 

The NTG ratio thus encompasses free ridership from each of these segments in terms of the 

following: 

» Retailers associated with new unit purchases who indicated they would have otherwise: 

PECO Energy Company | Page 56 
o Deconstructed the unit (including re-selling and/or recycling its component 

parts) 

o Taking the unit to a landfill/dump/scrap dealer 

» Participating customers who indicated they would have otherwise: 

o Sent the unit to a recycling facility, or 

o Taken the unit to a landfill/dump/scrap dealer 

Because the program approach does not support a theory for how meaningful spillover might 

occur, and because it does seem unlikely to be significant, Navigant did not estimate spillover. 

The program NTG ratio for PY4 is thus a weighted average based on responses from each 

participating retailer interviewed and each participating customer surveyed for units sourced 

from each source, respectively. 

Of those survey respondents that replaced their units, some 54 percent (94 of 174) indicated they 

would have had their unit removed by the dealer. The remaining 46 percent (80 of 174) would 

have used various other methods such as donating it to a charity, hauling it to the dump and 

recycling center, hiring someone to haul it away, and keeping it stored, unplugged. 

Participating Customer Findings. In total, 63 out of 224 refrigerator respondents (28%) and 14 of 

38 freezer respondents (37 %) revealed they would have used a method to dispose of their unit 

that would have permanently destroyed it, indicating they are free riders. Note that the total 

number of refrigerator and freezer respondents of 262 exceeds the total number of survey 

completes (N = 256). This is because a small number of respondents, six in total, had both types 

of units. Resulting NTG ratios for non-replacer recycling customers and those that replaced a 

unit are 0.72 for refrigerators, and 0.63 for freezers. These values were applied to both nonreplaced units, and those who would have used a method not involving the retailer from whom 

they bought the replacement unit in calculating the NTG ratio. 

Program-Induced Replacements. The NTG ratio also reflects the impact of program-induced 

replacements. This accounts for the role played by PECO's SAR program and incentive in 

inducing a customer to replace their unit after the old unit was removed by the program and 

recycled. Such inducement could result from the program incentive, the convenience of the 

home pickup, or some other factor named by the respondent. The program-induced 

replacement effect on the NTG ratio is extremely small—+0.01 in magnitude—and is added to 

the final NTG ratio after all other calculations are done. 

PECO Energy Company J Page 57 
Retailer Findings. A total of three retailers that provided replacement units to participating 

customers were interviewed thoroughly to learn of their appliance disposal practices in the 

absence of PECO's program. Retailers were asked a series of questions regarding the following: 

» Pickup and disposal services for replaced units 

o Charges, if any for such services 

o Percentage of customers that receive such services 

» Recycling and/or deconstruct!on of units picked up by the retailer 

o Approach for units outside of PECO's program - percentage of units affected 

o Approach prior to the start-up of PECO's program - percentage of units affected 

» Other disposition of units 

o Percentage that are picked up by a hauler/third party and resold (i.e., remain 

grid connected) 

Each retailer provided specific answers to each of these topic areas. In general, a high 

percentage of units turned over to retailers are being disposed of via a method that permanently 

removes them from the grid. Only small percentages—the newest units in the best condition — 

are resold and therefore, remain grid connected. 

From this information, we were able to construct a retailer-specific NTG ratio, representing 1 

minus the percentage of units that would otherwise have been recycled or deconstructed in the 

absence of PECO's program. The results, by retailer, are shown in Table 3-6. 

Table 3-6. PY4 Net-to-Gross Ratios by Retailer 

Retailer 

Retailer ffl - national chain 

Free Rider %** NTG ratio 

Percentage of 

Respondents 

Retailer 

Retailer ffl - national chain 59% 0.41 25% 

Retailer #2 - regional chain 79% 0.21 4% 

Retailer #3 - national chain 70% 0.30 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 

Responses from the participating customer survey were used in all cases to determine the basis 

for the NTG ratio. The NTG ratio was calculated using a two-step process. First the participant 

survey provided information on unit disposal absent PECO's program. Second, for those 

participants that replaced existing units and that indicated they would have had their unit 

PECO Energy Company | Page 58 
removed by the dealer that they got their replacement unit from, the results from the retailer 

interviews were used directly to calculate the NTG ratio. Some 30 percent of respondents fell 

into this category. The remaining 70 percent of respondents provided answers not related to 

retailer disposal. Their NTG ratios are based on answers such as giving the unit to a friend or 

neighbor, reselling it, giving it to a charity, taking it to a landfill, or having a recycler haul it 

away. The latter two response categories are considered free riders. 

Thus, the NTG ratio is a weighted average of retailer-associated responses and non-retailerassociated responses1

. Once this weighted average was computed, the impact of the programinduced replacement factor of +0.01 was then incorporated. 

Based on this weighted average, the verified NTG ratios for PY4 of 0.58 for refrigerators and 

0.43 for freezers (or 0.56 across the entire program), are somewhat lower than the verified NTG 

values in PY3 of 0.64 for refrigerators and 0.65 for freezers. A primary cause of this reduction is 

the high percentage of units, some 70 percent in the program, that were recently replaced, 

triggering the retailer NTG results in many cases. In general, the retailer NTG ratio values are 

significantly lower than the values obtained from traditional phone survey response categories 

(e.g., taking the unit to a landfill, giving to a friend or neighbor). Retailer values are low 

because the retailers' existing disposal practices already remove the vast majority of units from 

the grid using methods such as recycling units or permanently deconstructing them. 

3.4 Process Evaluation 

3.4.1 Methodology 

The process evaluation component of the SAR evaluation focuses on program 

awareness/marketing, reasons for participation, and satisfaction with program processes, 

including sign-up, appliance pickup, incentive levels, and receipt of the refund check. Data 

sources for the process evaluation include the telephone survey of program participants (N = 

256) and discussions with program staff. 

3.4.2 Process Findings 

Process findings, based on survey results, are below. 

Sources of infonnation about the Program. When asked, unprompted, where they had heard of 

the program, slightly less than half of the participants (44%) recalled seeing the program 

mentioned in a bill insert with just over one-third (35%) saying that was where they first 

PECO Energy Company | Page 59 
learned of the program. Other sources where participants heard of the program include word of 

mouth (32%), the retailer that they purchased a new unit from (11%), and the PECO website 

(9%), among others. The retailer and PECO website sources have increased in influence relative 

to previous years. 

Reasons for participating. Participants were asked, unprompted, why they chose the PECO 

SAR Program to dispose of their appliance instead of some other disposal method. The 

convenience of the home pickup was the main selling point of the program for more 

participants (36%) than any other reason. An additional 10 percent cited it as a secondary reason 

for why they participated. This was somewhat of a contrast to previous years' evaluations 

where the cash incentive was the most compelling reason. More than likely, the reduction in the 

incentive amount is leading to it being of lesser importance. The second most frequently given 

reason was the cash incentive provided by the program, which was cited by 30 percent as a 

main reason for participating, and another 23 percent as a secondary reason. The third most 

popular reason was the environmentally responsible disposal option provided by the program, 

with 16 percent saying it was the main reason and an additional 13 percent a secondary reason. 

Finally, some were just happy they did not have to pay for the pickup (5 % main, 6% 

secondary). 

Satisfaction with the Program. Overall, 90 percent of customers were satisfied with their 

experience with the Smart Appliance Recycling Program, as indicated by scores of 8, 9, or 10 on 

a 0 to 10-point satisfaction scale. Nearly two-thirds (60%) scored the program a perfect 10, 

indicating they were highly satisfied with it. This is down somewhat from previous years, more 

than likely reflecting the effects of the incentive reduction, and general scaling back of the 

program. 

Customer satisfaction with the sign-up process is very high, with 95 percent of participants 

rating their satisfaction as an 8, 9 or 10 on a 0 to 10-point scale, where 0 is very dissatisfied and 

10 is very satisfied. Only 6 of 209 customers surveyed (3%) rated their experience lower than a 6 

on the 0 to 10-point satisfaction scale. Participants who signed up via the phone said that the 

representative was polite and courteous (100%) answered all of their questions about the 

program (98%), and that they only needed to call once to successfully sign up for the program 

(91%). Participants who signed up online reported that the sign-up screen was easy to find (99 

%), and that they received confirmation that the sign-up had been successful (99%). 

Program records indicated that appliance pickup wait time during PY4 averaged just less than 

12 days, as most customers were able to schedule a pickup date that was within two weeks of 

the initial contact (95%) and were generally very satisfied with the amount of time between the 

PECO Energy Company | Page 60 
time they made the appointment and the pickup date. (85% gave scores of 8, 9 or 10 on a 0 to 10-

point satisfaction scale.) Most importantly, 97 percent of participants said they were able to 

schedule a pickup date that was convenient for them. 

Overall, 91 percent of participants were satisfied with the collection team who came to pick up 

the appliance, as indicated by scores of 8, 9, or 10 on a 0 to 10-point satisfaction scale. Only two 

respondents said they were dissatisfied, citing that the collection team was rude. 

While down from previous program years, a majority of participants still reported the incentive 

payment to be a key reason why they participated in the program. Furthermore, less than twothirds of participants (61%) said that they were very satisfied with the payment, as indicated 

by satisfaction scores of 8, 9, or 10 on a 0 to 10-point satisfaction scale. This is significantly lower 

than in PY3, when 75 percent of participants reported high satisfaction with the size of the 

incentive payment. However, given the significant reduction in the size of the incentive starting 

in November 2011, it is somewhat surprising that satisfaction with the incentive level generally 

remains relatively high. Twenty participants (8%) reported being dissatisfied with the size of 

the incentive payment they received as a result of their participation in the program, as 

indicated by their very low satisfaction scores of 1, 2, or 3. This is approximately triple the level 

in PY3; however, it is still a very small percentage of participants. 

Only one-third of participants (33%) indicated they have noticed a reduction in their energy bill 

since their appliance was removed. Nearly 4 percent of customers said it was too soon to tell, 

while another 15 percent said they were not sure if they had seen any savings. These responses 

may indicate that people are not that attentive to changes in their electric bill. It is also possible 

that given seasonal variations in electric use, customers have a difficult time attributing changes 

in their bills to their own behaviors. 

Additional actions to improve energy efficiency. Participants were asked, unaided, whether 

they had taken additional actions to save energy at their home since participating in the SAR 

Program. Well over half (58%) of the participants surveyed said they had. The most common 

changes that people have made are behavioral in nature—turning off lights and appliances 

when not in use (83%), adjusting thermostat set-points for heating and cooling (90%), and using 

dimmer switches (93%). Tlie percentages of participants undertaking these behaviors is about 

the same as in PY3, but much higher than in PY2, when only 20 to 30 percent reported taking 

these actions. 

Table 3-7 provides a summary of the recommendations made to improve the program delivery 

processes and the current status of their implementation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 61 
Table 3-7. Status Report for Smart Appliance Recycling Program Process Evaluations 

Recommendations 

EDC Status Report for Process Evaluations 

(Implemented, Being considered. Rejected AND 

Explanation of Action Taken by EDC) 

Recommendation 1: Synchronize marketing 

elements to throttle program participation up or 

down, as desired to meet goals. 

Implemented. Current marketing strategy is 

expanded from PY4 due to significantly increased 

program goals in PY5. 

Recommendation 2: Continue to reinforce the value 

of recycling older appliances, since there continues 

to.be a large stock of secondary units out'there. 

Implemented. PECO's marketing messages 

include information on the annual cost of 

operating an old refrigerator or freezer. 

Recommendation 3: Educate customers on how 

much money they could save each month by taking 

different energy-saving actions, including recycling 

an old appliance. When customers see the monetary 

savings and are able to attribute them to their 

behaviors, they will be more likely to make 

additional changes in the future. 

Implemented. PECO's marketing messages 

include information on the annual cost of 

operating an old refrigerator or freezer. 

Recommendation 4: Continue to provide 

information about PECO's other residential 

programs when the contractors come to pick up the 

appliance and on PECO's website. 

Implemented. JACO crew members distribute 

energy efficiency program collateral when they 

visit homes to pick up appliances for recycling. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

3.5 Financial Reporting 

The Smart Appliance Recycling program remains highly cost effective, with a benefit-cost ratio 

during PY4 of 3.63. The benefit-cost ratio for the CPITD period is higher, at 6.02. During PY4, 

program costs totaled $697,000, while life-cycle program benefits are $2,820,000. A breakdown 

of the program finances is presented in Table 3-8. 

PECO Energy Company ) Page 62 
Table 3-8. Summary of Smart Appliance Recycling Program Finances 

IQI9I PY4 CPITD 

($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 0 0 0 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 0 0 0 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration111 46 253 2,788 

Management121 44 217 963 

Marketing131 111 227 1,818 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 201 697 5,569 

EDC Evaluation Costs 67 126 304 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC CostsHt 268 823 5,873 

Participant Costs'51 N/A 0 1,032 

Total TRC Costs'"' N/A 823 6,905 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 2,626 38,119 

Total LifetimeCapacity Benefits N/A 183 3,167 

Total TRC Benefits'" N/A 2,810 41,287 

TRC Ratio"" N/A 3.41 5.98 

NOTES 

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 Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

[2| Includes LDC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

[31 Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs, 

[41 Per the 2011 Total Resource Cosl Tesl Order, the Tolal LDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

|5| Per the 2011 Total Resource Cosl Tesl Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use cuslomer or program costs 

that are proxies for participant costs. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

|6| Tolal TRC Costs include LDC Evaluation Costs, LDC Implementation Cosls, and Participant Costs. 

|7| Tolal TRC Henefits equals the sum of Total Lifetime Energy Henefits and Tolal Lifetime Capacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due to the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduction 

in cosls of electric energy, generation, Iransmission, and distribution capacity, and nalural gas valued nl marginal cost for periods 

when there is a load reduclion. 

JS] TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Cosls. 

|9| Posl PY4 cosls and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Nnvignnt analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 63 
4 Smart Home Rebates 

The Smart Home Rebates Program offers PECO residential customers rebates for the purchase 

of qualifying energy-efficient appliances, heating and cooling equipment, and light-emitting 

diode (LED) lamps and lighting fixtures. The program provides promotional and marketing 

materials and support to participating retailers and contractors to encourage their promotion of 

rebated products. For non-lighting measures, customers submit applications via web or mail. 

Each application includes accompanying proof-of-purchase receipts or invoices. For qualifying 

lighting measures, PECO provides manufacturers with a cost buy-down, which is passed on to 

the customer as a discounted price. 

Program measures include the following: high-efficiency electric water heaters; LED lamps; 

ground source heat pumps; room air conditioners; central air conditioning (>15 Seasonal Energy 

Efficiency Rating [SEER]); refrigerators; clothes washers; heat pump water heaters; highefficiency gas water heaters (fuel switching); and high-efficiency gas furnaces (fuel switching 

from electric resistance baseboard or heat pump). 

4.1 Program Updates 

The Smart Rebates Program remained largely unchanged in PY4. The primary focus of the 

program was a market maintenance strategy and overall ramp-down of activity in the final year 

of Phase I. Further, the program did not offer rebates for consumer electronics at all in this 

program year and continued to shift its focus to heating, ventilating, and air conditioning 

equipment. 

4.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

4.2.1 Gross Impact Methodology 

All PY4 savings for the Smart Home Rebates program are from deemed or partially deemed 

measures as established by the 2012 TRM. For gross impacts, Navigant staff conducted an 

engineering review in which staff calculated energy savings and demand reduction per the 

algorithms of the TRM using data from the program's tracking system and compared the results 

with PECO's claimed savings. This was the same practice as applied by the evaluation of PY2 

and PY3 savings. As an added level of rigor for the evaluation of PY3 and PY4, however, 

Navigant staff reviewed a sample of project files to confirm that this documentation matched 

the data in the tracking system and made follow-up calls to those participants to confirm 

installation and type of replacement (replace on burnout or early replacement). Table 4-1 

PECO Energy Company | Page 64 
details energy and demand savings as well as incentive payments by quarter for this program 

year. 

Table 4-1. PY4 Smart Home Rebates Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting 

Period Participants 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh/yr) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

PY4Q1 3,473 2,544 0.9 1.0 $638 

PY4Q2 1,958 2,611 0 0.8 $557 

PY4 Q3 1,358 2,048 0 0.6 $400 

PY4Q4 2,725 3,379 0 1.1 $727 

PY4 Total 9,514 10,582 0.9 3.6 $2,323 

CPITD 

Total 291,928 75,210 19.1 21.8 $22,733 

Source: Nnvigant analysis 

For ENERGY STAR lighting measures, the PYl and PY2 evaluations did not include the number 

of installed measures in the totals for participation. The justification for this exclusion was that 

PECO paid the rebates "upstream" to manufacturers and it was not possible to ascertain how 

many participants benefited from the multi-pack fixtures and bulbs. The previous evaluations 

did not apply this practice to Consumer Electronics measures because PECO paid "mid-stream" 

rebates to retailers for products that were unitary (i.e., not multi-pack) and the previous 

evaluations could reasonably designate each rebated sale as one unit of participation. In the 

evaluation of gross savings for PY3 and PY4, Navigant has continued these practices. For these 

reasons, the total number of measures does not match the total level of participation (9,089) for 

the program year. 

As shown in Table 4-2, participation, energy savings, and demand reduction are all residential 

in nature. Based on participant telephone survey responses to a battery of questions developed 

by the LEEP evaluation team, Navigant estimates that 5 percent of SHR participants are below 

150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). Interpolating this finding, Navigant provides an 

estimate of SHR low-income participation, savings, and incentive spending in Table 4-2, as well. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 65 
Table 4-2. PY4 Smart Home Rebates Reported Results by Sector 

Sector Participants 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh/yr) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Grass 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

Residential (less Low-Income) 9,038 10,053 0.8 3.4 $2,207 

Low-Income 476 529 0.0 0.2 $116 

Commercial and Industrial 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 

Government and Nonprofit 0 0 0.0 0.0 $0 

PY4 Total 9,514 10,582 0.9 3.6 $2,323 

CPITD Total 291,928 75,210 19.1 21.8 $22,733 

Source: Navigant analysis 

4.2.2 Gross Impact Sampling Strategy 

For the impact evaluation, Navigant stratified by measure type as described in Table 4-3. 

Navigant reviewed the tracking data for each measure in the database and recalculated the 

savings based on the TRM. In addition, Navigant randomly selected 67 project files for HVAC, 

ground source heat pumps, and appliances for review to confirm equipment and installation 

details. For HVAC and ground source heat pumps, Navigant also randomly selected a subset of 

the project files for follow-up telephone calls to review installation details with participants. 

Since no customer information is available for the 2,203 lighting measures, Navigant did not 

sample these measures but only conducted the review and recalculation of tracking data. 

Table 4-3. Smart Home Rebates Sampling Strategy for PY4 

Stratum 

HVAC 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Measure 

category 

Population 

Size 

5,597 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(CO or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

0.5 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

85/15 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

25 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

85 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Process: 

Participant Phone 

Survey 

Ground Source 

Heat Pumps 

Measure 

category 

306 0.5 85/15 24 29 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Process: 

Participant Phone 

Survey 

ENERGY STAR 

Appliances 

Measure 

category 

3,186 0.5 85/15 25 86 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Process: 

Participant Phone 

Survey 

Activity 

Subtotal 

9,089 85/15 74 200 

PECO Energy Company | Page 66 
Assumed , 

Stratum 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Coefficient! 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

HVAC 

Measure 

category 

5,597 0.5 85/15 10 31 

Ground Source 

Heat Pumps 

Measure 

category 

306 0.5 85/15 20 15 

Impact: File 

Review 

ENERGY STAR 

Appliances 

Measure 

category 

3,186 0.5 85/15 10 21 

Activity 

Subtotal 

9,089 85/15 40 67 

HVAC 

Measure 

category 

5,597 0.5 85/15 10 10 Impact: Phone 

Survey (Partially 

Ground Source 

Heat Pumps 

Measure 

category 

306 0.5 85/15 5 5 

Deemed 

Measures) 

Activity 

Subtotal 5,903 85/15 15 15 

Program Total 24,081 85/15 129 282 

Source: Nnvigant nnaiysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 67 
4.2.3 Energy Savings and Demand Reduction by Stratum 

The differences between ex ante and ex post savings were less than 1 percent for both energy 

and demand. This minimal difference is due to the deemed and partially deemed nature of the 

program's measures as well as accurate accounting of these measures. The realization rate for 

energy savings was 100.04 percent (see Table 4-4) and the realization rate for demand was 

100.35 percent (see Table 4-5). 

This is not an unexpected result since the evaluation of gross energy savings and demand 

reduction'is a comparison of PECO's calculation of claimed savings to Naviganf s computation 

of savings based on the application of tracking data to the 2012 TRM algorithms. 

This review found no significant difference between tracking system data and file data for the 

HVAC, ground source heat pump, and ENERGY STAR appliance strata. While ENERGY STAR 

Lighting did have a realization rate greater than 1.00 (due to a recalculation of base watts per 

TRM requirements), these measures constituted less than 1 percent of total energy savings and 

so did not significantly affect the program's overall realization rate. 

Table 4-4. PY4 Smart Home Rebates Summary of Evaluation Results for Energy 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

HVAC 7,713 100% 0 0% 7,713 0 

Ground Source Heat 

Pumps 

1,697 100% 0 0% 1,697 0 

ENERGY STAR 

Appliances 

1,050 100% 0 0% 1,050 0 

ENERGYSTAR 

LiRhting 

m 102% 0 0% 124 0 

Program Total 10,582 100% 0 0% 10,584 0 

Source: Nnvignnt nmh/sts 

PECO Energy Company ( Page 68 
Table 4-5. PY4 Smart Home Rebates Summary of Evaluation Results for Demand 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(C) or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

HVAC 3.1 100% 0 0% 3,1 0 

Ground Source Heat 

Pumps 

0.3 100% 0 0% 0.3 0 

ENERGY STAR 

Appliances 

0.2 100% 0 0% 0.2 0 

ENERGY STAR Lighting 0.0 102% 0 0% 0.0 0 

Program Total 3.6 100% 0 0% 3.6 0 

Source: Navigant analysis 

4.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

As detailed in the next section, the evaluation team conducted a telephone survey of 200 PY4 

participants. Tlie survey included a battery of NTG questions. 

4.3.1 Free Ridership 

Navigant used a method of calculating free ridership in PY4 similar to earlier years and also a 

more detailed method. 

The single input method used in PY2 and PY3 identified free riders as respondents to the 

participant telephone survey who stated that they had purchased or ordered rebated appliances 

or HVAC equipment before learning about the rebate. In PY4, out of the 200 participants 

surveyed, 30 participants (15%) reported that they had purchased the measure before hearing 

about the PECO Smart Home Rebate. Another two respondents (1%) had ordered the measure 

before learning about the rebate. Using this single input method of calculating free ridership as 

in PY3, these findings would suggest a PY4 free-ridership rate of 0.16, consistent with the 

findings of 0.16 in PY3 and 0.15 in PY2. 

However, the energy efficiency industry is moving towards more rigorous approaches to 

estimate free ridership and the SWE has provided guidance towards methods that rely on more 

than a single input for Phase II. Greater rigor tends to require additional inputs for freeridership calculation as well as provision for "partial" free riders per the scoring process. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 69 
The SWE has recently recommended the use of the Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO's) method to 

determine free ridership.18 The approach focuses on only two inputs: 

• Intent to purchase/install in the absence of the program 

• Program influence 

Applying this method to the PY4 responses to the participant telephone survey, yielded a range 

of 0.38 to 0.875 with a mid-point of 0.63. 

4.3.2 Spillover 

Fifty-six (28%) of the 200 survey respondents reported installing a total of 411 additional 

energy-efficient measures without receiving a rebate because of the influence of the program 

upon their purchase decision. Compared to PY3, where 58 (29%) of survey respondents 

installed 206 additional measures, PY4 respondents installed nearly double the number of unincented measures. Of the 411 additional measures installed by PY4 survey respondents, 27 

percent were CFLs, 25 percent were windows, and 18 percent were LEDs. 

Navigant estimates a spillover rate of 0.12. This spillover rate, which is nearly double the rate 

using PY3's methodology, suggests that the program is having influence on participants' 

decisions to purchase un-incented measures, even when a rebate is not involved. 

4.3.3 Net-to-Gross 

Although this analysis used an NTG value of 1.0 for compliance purposes for PY4, based on the 

customer survey estimates of free ridership and applied to the ETO methodology of 0.63 and 

self-reported spillover of additional measures of 0.12, the Navigant team estimates that the NTG 

ratio is 1.00 - 0.63 (free ridership) + 0.12 (spillover) = 0.49. 

4.4 Process Evaluation 

The data collection activities for this program evaluation were the following: 

» Program-Tracking Database: Navigant relied upon quarterly extracts from the tracking 

database to both conduct the review of tracking data for the impact evaluation and to 

develop a sample frame for the participant surveys. 

1 8

 Phil Degens and Sarah Castor, August 2013. Energy Trust Free Ridership Methodology, Energy Trust of 

Oregon. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 70 
» Staff Interviews: Navigant conducted in-depth interviews with the PECO program 

manager and the Ecova program manager. The interviews focused on marketing and 

outreach activities, implementation strategies, data tracking, and program management 

and identified areas for program improvement. 

» Participant Surveys: A subcontracted telephone survey house collected data from 200 

Smart Home Rebates program participants to support the net impact and process 

analyses. Participants provided feedback regarding program delivery, program 

awareness, overall satisfaction, free ridership, spillover, and areas for improvement. 

» Trade Ally (HVAC) Interviews: Navigant interviewed 11 HVAC contractors who were 

selected based on their overall participation levels in the program. The interviews 

focused on program marketing and participation questions, and administration and 

delivery questions. 

» Mystery Shopping: Navigant conducted mystery shopping of 106 retailer visits based 

on store participation levels in the program. 

4.4.1 Process Evaluation Findings 

In general, the process evaluation found the program to be effective and well run. Specific 

findings include the following: 

» Survey respondents learned about the Smart Home Rebates program in a variety of 

ways. Of note, the percentage of PY4 respondents mentioning the PECO website nearly 

doubled from PY3 while the percentage mentioning store staff deceased by half from 

PY3. 

» Tlie trend toward fewer respondents learning about the program from 

installers/contractors was even more dramatic in PY4, with only 5 percent citing this 

source vs. 28 percent in PY3 and 43 percent in PY2. 

» Sixty-five percent of PY4 respondents were not aware of other PECO programs, 

suggesting that the disconnect between PECO's Smart Home Rebates program and other 

offerings needs to be addressed and overcome in future marketing and outreach 

activities. 

» The telephone survey respondents indicated their overall satisfaction with PECO was 

high. The average rating, using alO-point scale, was 8.3. 

» The Smart Home Rebates program appears to be tracking program information 

adequately and processing rebates just as rapidly as in PY3. Navigant's review of 

tracking data and interviews with program staff did not reveal significant errors or 

systemic problems. 

» Per the participant survey, motivation for purchases has changed from PY3 to PY4 with 

replacement of "old or outdated equipment" declining from 67 percent to 52 percent 

while respondents citing "energy efficiency" as their primary motivation increased from 

8 percent to 23 percent. 

PECO Energy Company ] Page 71 
Mystery shoppers reported that retailers mentioned the PECO rebate without 

prompting in only 11 percent of their visits. 

Only 14 percent of participant survey respondents for PY4 cited sales staff influence as a 

reason for purchase, whereas 30 percent of PY3 respondents cited this reason. 

HVAC contractor satisfaction was high for all aspects of the Smart Home Rebates 

program. However, these same contractors expressed the opinion that they would have 

offered the same level of efficiency to program participants in the absence of their 

program. These contractors further expressed that the program rebates and materials 

were not the most significant drivers of customer choice. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 72 
Table 4-6 presents Navigant's recommendations for program improvement, based on the above 

findings, along with the implementation status for these recommendations. 

Table 4-6. Status Report for Smart Homes Rebates Process Evaluations 

Recommendations 

EDC Status Report for Process Evaluations 

(Implemented, Being Considered, Rejected AND 

Explanation of Action Taken by EDC) 

Develop agreements with HVAC contractors to assure 

promotional efforts identify PECO's contribution to the 

delivery of high-efficiency equipment to residential 

customers. 

PECO is considering the most effective approach to 

achieve this recommendation. 

Re-engage retailers and HVAC contractors to promote 

rebates and better coordinate PECO activities with trade 

ally marketing plans 

PECO plans to implement this recommendation in PY5. 

PECO should continue to identify ways to link more 

closely its successful Smart Home Rebates program with 

other PECO efficiency activities to encourage broader 

participation across all programs: 

PECO is considering this recommendation. 

Source: Nnvignul anah/sis 

4.5 Financial Reporting 

This program achieved a TRC of 0.89 for PY1-PY2 and 1.53 for PY3. This increased costeffectiveness was due to an emphasis on the most efficient appliance and HVAC measures. 

However, in PY4, the TRC fell to 0.75 as the program ramped down activity while maintaining 

overhead costs as part of its market maintenance strategy. The overall TRC for this program in 

Phase I was 0.97. 

A breakdown of the program finances is presented in Table 4-7. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 73 
Table 4-7. Summary of Smart Home Rebates Finances 

IQ'" 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 727 2,323 22,733 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 727 2,323 22,733 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration111 693 1,618 8,399 

Management121 150 677 2,753 

Marketing13' 273 667 3,084 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 1,116 2,962 14,236 

EDC Evaluation Costs 257 480 1,158 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC Costs'4) 2,101 5,765 38,127 

Participant Costsl5! N/A 16,793 91,217 

Total TRC Costs!6' N/A 20,236 106,612 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 12,914 90,573 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 2,378 12,794 

Total TRC Benefits'7' N/A 15,292 103,443 

TRC Ratio'*" N/A 0.76 0.97 

NOTES 

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. 

[ IJ Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

|2] Includes LDC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

|3| Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs. 

|4| Per the 2011 Total Resource Cost Test Order, the Total LDC Costs refer to EDC incurred expenses only. 

|5| Per the 2011 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use customer or program costs 

that arc proxies for participant costs. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response port id pants. 

[6) Total TRC Costs include LDC Evaluation Costs, EDC Implementation Cost.';, and Participant Costs. 

|7| Tolal TRC henefits equals the sum of Total Lifetime Energy henefits and Total LifetimeCapacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due lo the longer useful life of energy-etficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduction 

in cosls of electric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued at marginal cost for periods 

when there is a load reduction. 

|8| TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Costs. 

J9| Post PV4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

SoHrce: Nnvignnt analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 74 
5 Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program 

The purpose of the LEEP is to educate and assist eligible residential customers in making their 

homes more energy efficient. The program builds upon the Low-Income Usage Reduction 

Program (LIURP) objective: to make low-income customers' energy bills more affordable by 

helping to reduce energy usage. LEEP was built on the existing LIURP infrastructure for 

outreach and delivery of services. The same contractor (CMC Energy Services) delivers both 

LIURP and LEEP. Tlie direct install portion of LEEP is identical to LIURP from a customer 

standpoint, because the funding source is the primary difference between the two programs. 

Additionally, LEEP distributes additional CFLs to low-income customers. LEEP primarily 

targets households below 150 percent of the FPL, with some additional targeting of households 

between 150 and 200 percent of the FPL. The program consists of four primary components: 

» Component 1: In-home Audits, Education, and Direct Install Measures 

o On-site inspections and tests used to identify energy savings opportunities 

o Education of residents about ways to reduce energy usage 

o Direct installation of energy efficiency measures to address savings opportunities 

identified during the audit 

o Installation of minor safety-related measures, including smoke alarms 

o All services and measures are provided at no charge to participants. 

» Component 2: Direct Installation of CFLs for LIURP Participants 

o Increase the number of direct installations of CFLs for LIURP participants 

» Component 3: Distribution of CFLs to Low-Income Customers 

o Participation in low-income community events and distribution of CFL bulbs to 

low-income customers 

» Component 4: Direct Installation of Refrigerators and Freezers 

o Removal of old, inefficient working refrigerators and freezers 

o Direct installation of new ENERGY STAR® refrigerators and freezers 

o Target low-income customers that do not meet the usage requirement for 

Component 1 participation 

Component 1 is broken into four measure groups, defined as follows: 

» Electric Baseload - Basic Measures: including measures such as CFL bulbs, faucet 

aerators, showerheads, water heater pipe insulation, and water heater tank insulation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 75 
» Electric Baseload - Major Measures: including measures such as AC replacement, 

refrigerator replacement, electric water heater replacement, and water heater timers in 

addition to measures included in Electric Baseload - Basic Measures. 

» Electric Heat - Basic Measures: including measures such as duct and pipe insulation in 

addition to measures included in Electric Baseload - Basic Measures. 

» Electric Heat - Major Measures: including measures such as blower door guided air 

sealing, heat pump installation or replacement, programmable thermostats, and 

insulation installation in addition to measures included in Electric Baseload - Major 

Measures. 

5.1 Program Updates 

There were no changes to the LEEP design during PY4. All audits were Electric Baseload, with 

no Electric Heat audits conducted in PY4. The majority of participants received basic measures 

and CFLs. The number of bulbs installed decreased from PY3 to PY4, indicating reduced 

opportunity for generating savings from the installation of standard CFLs. 

5.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

This section describes the methodology and results of the impact evaluation. 

5.2.1 Evaluation Methodology 

Navigant employed a billing analysis to quantify energy savings for Component 1 measures. 

Savings for Components 2 through 4 were determined in accordance with the 2012 TRM and 

the program-tracking database. The following is a detailed description of the impact evaluation 

methodology for each component. 

Component 1 - In-home Audits, Education, and Direct Install Measures 

The impact analysis for Component 1 consisted of an integrated billing analysis and 

engineering analysis, per the LEEP protocol.19 The engineering analysis provided customerspecific estimates of energy savings and the basis for demand savings estimates. The 

engineering estimates of energy savings were included in the Statistically Adjusted Engineering 

(SAE) billing analysis, which provided a realization rate on the engineering estimates. 

1 9

 Custom Measure Protocol: Low-Income Energy lifficiency Program (IJ-liP) Component I, Approved September 2010. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 76 
Collectively, these approaches provide significant improvements in accuracy over reliance on 

LIURP estimates. The evaluation team conducted site visits at the homes of 25 participants from 

Component 1. The information gathered during these visits is for research purposes only and 

does not affect verified program savings. 

The billing analysis conducted for the PY4 evaluation included participants from PY2. This is in 

accordance with the custom measure protocol, which states that verified energy savings will be 

based on a four-year rolling average. For PY4, the four-year rolling average comprises the 

results of the PYl and PY2 LEEP billing analyses and the 2008 and 2009 LIURP analyses. Billing 

analyses for weatherization programs such as LEEP perform best when a full 12 months of postinstallation billing data are available. The billing analysis incorporated usage data for monthly 

billing cycles ending between June 1, 2009 and May 31, 2012. 

The billing analysis included 7,279 participants: 476 electric heat participants and 6,803 electric 

baseload participants. This represents approximately 83 percent of the PY2 Component 1 

participants. Program enrollment occurred fairly steadily over the course of the year. A "rolling 

enrollment" of this type provides the opportunity to examine the effect of a program via 

regression analysis, because, except for the first and last months of the study period, each 

month involves a mix of customers who have already enrolled in the program and those who 

have not yet enrolled. Navigant assumed that late participants and early participants are, on 

average, the same in terms of their energy consumption in the absence of the program. Under 

this assumption, the "late" participants effectively serve as unbiased comparison households for 

the "early" participants in the regression analysis. 

Navigant estimated a fixed effects SAE regression model. The regression equation included a 

unique constant term for each participant (the "fixed effect") to implicitly account for 

participant-specific characteristics that affect energy usage but are constant over time, such as 

the square footage of tlie residence and indoor temperature preferences. Average daily usage 

(kWh) is a function of heating and cooling degree days, a binary variable indicating the post 

period for participants with basic measures, a binary variable indicating the post period for 

participants with major measures, interactions between the post and degree day variables, and 

the participant-specific engineering estimate of savings interacted with an indicator variable for 

basic or major measures. This model specification allows both usage and program savings to 

vary with weather conditions. Navigant estimated separate models for electric heat customers 

and electric baseload customers. Because the regression includes the participant-specific 

engineering estimates of savings, this type of regression analysis is called an SAE analysis. 

Formally, the regression equation is given by: 

PECO Energy Company | Page 77 
Equation 5-1. Regression Equation 

ADUtt = ^ + ft * HDDt + ft * CDDt + ft * Postfc * fiastCi + ft * Postit * Ma/o^ + ft * PostiC 

* BastCi * HDDt + ft * Postit * S«35-f'Ci * COZ?,. + ft * Po^tft * Wa/or/ * HDDt + ft 

* Postit * Ma/or, * CDD£ + ft * Postu * Basici * EngEsti + ft0 * Posttt * Mayor,-

* EngEsti +G, t 

where / indexes the participant and t indexes the billing cycle and: 

ADUii = Average daily usage (kWh) for participant / in billing cycle t 

HDDi = Average daily heating degree days (base temperature 650F) during billing 

cycle t 

CDDi = Average daily cooling degree days (base temperature 650F) during billing 

cycle t 

Postii = A binary variable taking a value of 1 if participant /' is in the postinstallation period during billing cycle t and 0 otherwise 

Basic = A binary variable taking a value of 1 if participant / has installed basic 

measures during billing cycle t and 0 otherwise 

Major; = A binary variable taking a value of 1 if participant / has installed major 

measures during billing cycle t and 0 otherwise 

EngEsti = A variable taking a value of 0 in the pre-installation period for participant i, 

otherwise equal to the participant-specific engineering estimate of savings 

per day (kWh) 

Ui = The participant-specific constant term ("fixed effect"), to be estimated in the 

regression 

ft's - Parameters to be estimated in the regression 

Gjc = The cluster-robust error term for participant / in billing cycle ^.Z(, 

Savings, given in average daily kWh, are calculated using all regression terms that involve the 

post variable: 

2 0

 Cluster-robust errors account for heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation at the customer level, Ordinary Least Squares (Ol-S) 

regression models assume the data are homoscedastic and not auto correlated. If either of these assumptions is broken, the resulting 

standard errors of the parameter estimates are likely underestimated. A random variable is heteroscedastic when the variance is not 

constant. A random variable is auto correlated when the error term in this period is correlated with the error term in previous 

periods. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 78 
Equation 5-2. Regression Analysis Savings Calculation - Basic Measures 

Basic Measure Savings = -(J33 + ft * HDD + ft * CDD + ft * EngEst Basi c 

Equation 5-3. Regression Analysis Savings Calculation - Major Measures 

Major Measure Savings = -(f t + ft * HDD + ft * CDD + ft0 * EngEstMajor 

where HDD and CDD are long-term average heating and cooling degree days per day, 

calculated from typical meteorological year (TMY) data.21 EngEst is the average daily 

engineering estimate of savings.22 The parameter estimates are given in Table 5-1. 

Table 5-1. Component 1 Regression Analysis Parameter Estimates 

Electric Baseload Electric Heat 

Estimate 

tstatistic 

Estimate 

tstatistic 

HDD 1.927 50.03 0.436 92.02 

CDD -0.167 -8.11 0.276 75.78 

Post* Basic 0.956 0.53 -0.560 -3.53 

Post^Major -0.061 -0.05 1.588 2.18 

Post'Basic*HDD -0.460 -5.41 0.024 3.31 

Pos!*Basic*CDD 0.011 0.24 0.011 3.24 

Post*Major*HDD 0.048 0.92 0.057 2.82 

Post*Major*CDD 0.016 0.82 -0.039 -3.58 

Note: T-stnlistics greater than 1.645 in magnitude indicate results arc 

statistically significantly different from 0 at the 90% confidence, level. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

The billing analysis captures savings from all measures, including the extra CFLs. Per the 

protocol, verified savings are determined by a four-year rolling average of the available LEEP 

and LIURP billing analysis savings estimates. An important distinction between LEEP and 

LIURP is that the LEEP includes extra CFLs. To appropriately compare the LEEP results to the 

LIURP results, Navigant subtracted savings from extra CFLs from the billing analysis savings 

2 1

 TMY data (1981-2010) for Philadelphia International Airport obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration's (NOAA's) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), available at 

<htlp://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/map/cdo/?thm=themeAnnual>. TMY data indicated annual CDD of 1,301 and annual HDD of 4,613. 

7 3

 Average daily engineering estimates of savings are 1.3135 kWh for electric heal - basic, 8.7427 kWh for electric heat - major, 

1.0359 kWh for electric baseload - basic, and 3.5499 k Wh for electric baseload - major. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 79 
estimates before calculating the four-year rolling average of savings. Savings from the extra 

CFLs are added back in later for each customer.2-

1 

Verified energy and demand savings for the Component 1 extra CFLs were calculated using the 

TRM protocol for CFLs, as described below for Components 2 and 3. Savings were based on the 

delta watts between the actual removed lamp and the installed CFL as recorded in the tracking 

system for each participant. All CFLs were assigned the 3.0 hours of use (HOU) per the TRM 

protocol. Due to the small contribution of these bulbs to overall program savings, Navigant 

applied the deemed coincidence factor (5%) and assumed the lighting Interactive Effects Factor 

to be 1.0 rather than applying the higher CF (11.7%) and lEFs applied to lighting savings in 

Components 2 and 3. 

Navigant calculated demand savings estimates for each participant based on the actual 

measures installed at each individual site based on program-tracking data. After calculating 

site-specific demand savings estimates, Navigant averaged savings estimates across the four 

measure types and groups. The energy realization rate on engineering estimated savings 

determined by the billing analysis was applied to the engineering estimated demand savings to 

determine verified demand savings. 

Components 2 & 3 - Direct Installation of CFLs for LIURP Participants, Distribution of CFLs 

to Low-Income Customers 

Navigant verified the number of measures installed (CFLs) according to the program-tracking 

database. The equations to calculate energy and demand savings for ENERGY STAR CFL bulbs 

are presented below. 

Equation 5-4. Energy Savings Calculation for ENERGY STAR CFL bulbs 

AkWh = (Wattsbase - WattsCFL) x CFL^^ x 365/1000 x ISRCFL x IEFe Pkase } 

Equation 5-5. Demand Savings Calculation for ENERGY STAR CFL bulbs 

AkW = {Wattsbase - WattsCFL)/1000 x CF X ISRCFL x IBFd Phase l 

where: 

Watts bas e = Wattage of baseline lamp 

" Component 1 extra CFLs account for 920,073 kWh and 42 kW of savings. This amounts to 91 kWh and 0.00416 kW of savings per 

audit. This amount is subtracted from the SAL regression results prior to calculating the 4-year rolling average. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 80 
Watts C F L

 = Wattage of installed CFL 

CFL Hour s - Average hours of use per day per CFL; deemed at 3.0 

ISRCFL

 = In-service rate per CFL; deemed at 0.84 . 

CF = Demand coincidence factor, defined as the fraction of the total 

technology demand that is coincident with the utility system summer 

peak, as defined by Act 129; deemed at 0.05; research-verified value of 

0.117 

lEFe_phase , = Lighting Interactive Effects Factor for Energy; research-verified value of 

1.02 

IEFd pi ias e i = Lighting Interactive Effects Factor for Demand; research-verified value 

of 1.19 

Note that Navigant has determined an alternative coincidence factor value of 11.7 percent, 

increased from 5 percent. Additionally, Navigant determined a lighting Interactive Effects 

Factor for energy (1.02) and demand (1.19). The 2012 TRM ignores the IEF, implicitly assuming 

a value of 1.0. These values were applied retroactively to all Component 2 and 3 bulbs during 

Phase I (PY1-PY4). The derivation of these values is described below. 

Coincidence Factor 

Prior to the PY4 Q3 report, demand reduction impacts for residential lighting measures had 

been calculated using the Peak Load Coincidence Factor of 5 percent in the 2012 Pennsylvania 

TRM. This value comes from a 2007 report by RLW Analytics, entitled "Development of 

Common Demand Impacts for Energy Efficiency Measures/Programs for the ISO Forward 

Capacity Market."24 As the 5 percent CF has been acknowledged by both the SWE and the 

technical utility staff of the PUC to be erroneous,25 Navigant has used a residential lighting load 

shape developed through the 2009 Northeast residential lighting logger study conducted by 

Nexus Market Research, RLW Analytics, and GDS Associates (the NMR 2009 study) to calculate 

M

 RLW Analytics, "Development ot Common Demand Impacts for linergy lifficiency Measures/Programs for the ISO Forward 

Capacity Market (PCM)", prepared for the New England State Program Working Croup (SPWG), March 25, 2007, p. IV. 

^ See the minutes of the Program Evaluation Group meeting from March 20, 2013 (forwarded to all EDCs and evaluators on March 

29, 2013). 

PECO Energy Company | Page 81 
a revised CF of 11.7 percent over PECO's Top 100 Hours during the summer of 2012.w

 Details 

on the derivation of this CF are presented in Appendix A. 

Lighting Interactive Effects Factor 

Navigant constructed building energy computer simulation models to determine the HVAC 

impacts from efficient lighting installations in the PECO service territory. Navigant used these 

models to calculate energy and demand lEFs, which are used to adjust the program lighting 

savings to account for the additional impacts on HVAC energy and demand. Navigant has not 

applied energy and demand interactive effects in previous evaluations of PECO's residential 

programs because these were not included in the TRM. However, the evaluation team believes 

that by not including this factor, the TRM is significantly underestimating demand savings from 

efficient lighting installations. Details on the derivation of the lEFs are presented in Appendix B. 

Component 4 - Direct Installation of Refrigerators and Freezers 

Navigant verified the reported number of units installed according to the program-tracking 

database. The installation rate was verified via participant self-reports as part of the participant 

phone survey. Navigant applied the per-unit deemed savings value provided in the 2012 TRM. 

5.2.2 Reported and Verified Savings 

The Component 1 regression analysis indicates that average energy savings generally 

decreased, comparing participants from PYl to PY2. Component 1 savings estimates are 

generally lower than the sum of deemed savings values from the TRM, indicating that behavior 

savings generated by the educational component of the program are likely small and 

indistinguishable from the noise in the billing data. Navigant analyzed the type and quantity of 

measures installed for Component 1 during PYl through PY4 and identified several trends that 

corroborate the decreased savings estimates. These trends are summarized below: 

• The average number of Component 1 bulbs per customer is decreasing. In PY4 the 

average number of bulbs installed was 5.3, down from 6.0 in PY3, 6.1 in PY2, and 8.3 in 

PYl. 

2 6

 Nexus Market Research, Inc., RI.W Analytics, Inc., and GDS Associates, 2009. Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Lvaluation. 

Prepared for Markdown and Huydown Program Sponsors in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. January 20, 

2009. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 82 
• The diversity of Component 1 measures installed has decreased. The primary measures 

installed in PY4 were CFLs, aerators/showerheads, refrigerator/freezers, and water 

heater measures. Installation of air conditioners, duct sealing and insulation, gas 

furnace/boilers, heat pumps, infiltration measures, insulation measures, and thermostats 

was non-existent in PY4 or lower than in previous years. 

• Occasionally, LEEP participants receive an audit but the contractor does not identify any 

opportunities to install program measures. The number of participants with no energysaving measures is increasing. In PY4 approximately 10 percent of Component 1 

participants received no energy-saving measures, up from 8 percent in PY3, 6 percent in 

PY2, and 2 percent in PYl. 

The primary goal of the PY4 site visits was to collect CFL installation information. Navigant 

determined a CFL in-service rate of 97.3 percent for Component 1 direct install bulbs. This is 

significantly higher than the deemed in-service rate of 84 percent in the 2012 TRM. Navigant 

recommends that the Pennsylvania Act 129 Program Evaluation Group (PEG) include in future 

versions of the TRM CFL in-service rates that are specific to program delivery method (i.e., 

direct install, mailings, and giveaways). The majority of bulbs were installed in high-usage 

locations, including bathrooms, dining rooms, kitchens, living rooms, and bedrooms. The 

reported average HOU was 3.2 hours and the reported median HOU was 2.0 hours. 

Ninety-six percent of the Component 4 respondents (n = 24) verified that refrigerators or 

freezers were installed. One respondent reported that a new unit was not installed.27 Per section 

1.11.4 of the 2012 TRM, verified measure counts within 5 percent of reported values are 

considered within reasonable error and do not require an adjustment to the realization rate. 

Therefore, Navigant applied an installation rate of 1.0 when calculating verified savings for 

Component 4 measures. 

Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 in this section summarize the PY4 reported savings for LEEP. Table 5-4 

describes the sampling strategy. Table 5-5 and Table 5-6 show research-verified energy and 

demand savings. Table 5-7 and Table 5-8 show strict TRM verified savings. 

Participation rates were fairly steady during PY4, with approximately 2,500 audits conducted in 

each quarter. 

Navigant attempted to contact this respondent by telephone to obtain additional information, but was not able to reach the 

cuslomer. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 83 
Table 5-2. PY4 LEEP Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting Period Participants 

Reported Gross 

Energy Savings 

(MWh) 

Top lOOHoure 

Reported 

Gross Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

PY4 Ql 2,394 9,171 0.4 0.5 996 

PY4 Q2 2,390 7,532 0 0.4 914 

PY4Q3 2,478 7,213 0 0.4 755 

PY4 Q4 2,844 5,632 0 0.3 712 

PY4 Total 10,106 29,548 0.4 1.6 3,377 

CPITD Total 32,240 83,286 7.8 6.7 1333 

Note: The number of parlicipnnls is equal to the number of Component 3 audits. 

Source: Navigant analysis of PECO LEEP tracking data 

Table 5-3. PY4 LEEP Reported Results by Sector 

Sector Participants 

Reported 

Gross Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

Residential 

Low-Income 10,106 29,548 0.4 1.6 3,377 

Commercial and 

Industrial 

0 0 0 0 0 

Government and 

Nonprofit 

0 0 0 0 0 

PY4 Total 10,106 29,548 0.4 1.6 3,377 

CPITD Total 32,240 83,286 7.8 6.7 13,303 

Note: The number of participants is equal to the number of Component 1 audits. 

Source: Nnvigant analysis of PECO LEEP tracking data 

The billing analysis was conducted on a census of PY2 participant data, per the approved 

protocol. Approximately 17 percent of customers were excluded from the regression model due 

to incomplete or incorrect data. In the billing analysis section of Table 5-4, the Target Sample 

Size is the number of participants in each stratum and the Achieved Sample Size is the number 

of participants included in the model. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 84 
The evaluation team conducted 25 site visits for Component 1 participants. The findings of 

these site visits are for research purposes only and do not impact PY4 verified savings. 

The participant phone survey was conducted for a sample of 92 participants drawn from 

Components 1, 3, and 4. Component 2 consists of direct installation of additional CFLs in the 

homes of LIURP participants. Given that LEEP and LIURP are jointly implemented, Navigant 

expects no difference between LEEP and LIURP participants. Furthermore, LIURP participants 

would not be able to distinguish LEEP and LIURP activities. For these reasons Navigant did not 

survey Component 2 participants. 

Component 3 consists of distribution of CFLs at low-income community events. PECO tracks 

the number of bulbs distributed and asks recipients to provide their name and contact 

information on a sign-in form at each event. The customer information is not converted to an 

electronic format and therefore it is difficult to identify the number of participants in 

Component 3. Therefore, the Population Size is listed as unknown in Table 5-4. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 85 
Table 5-4. LEEP Sampling Strategy for PY4 

Stratum 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& Precision 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Cl -'Electric 

Baseload Heat Type 

8,221 

N/A 85/15 

8,221 6,804 Impact: 

Billing 

Analysis on 

PY2 

Participants 

Cl - Electric 

Heat Heat Type 

568 

N/A 

85/15 568 476 

Impact: 

Billing 

Analysis on 

PY2 

Participants 

Activity 

Subtotal 

8,789 

N/A 

85/15 8,789 7,280 

Component 1 N/A 

10,106 

0.5 

85/15 25 25 Impact: Site 

Visits 

Activity 

Subtotal 

10,106 

N/A 

85/15 25 25 

Component 1 N/A 

10,106 

0.8 

85/15 38 38 

Process: 

Phone 

Survey 

Component 3 N/A 

unknown 

0.8 

85/15 30 30 Process: 

Phone 

Survey 

Component 4 N/A 

536 

0.95 

85/15 24 24 

Process: 

Phone 

Survey 

Activity 

Subtotal 

10,642 

N/A 

85/15 92 92 

Program 

Total 

29,537 

N/A 

85/15 8,906 7,397 

Source: Navigant analysis. 

The research-verified energy and demand savings include the research-verified lighting IEF and 

higher coincidence factor, both applied to Component 2 and 3 bulbs. Research-verified energy 

savings were slightly lower than reported savings (27,270 MWh verified versus 29,548 MWh 

reported), resulting in a realization rate of 92 percent for energy savings. The lower researchverified energy savings are primarily due to a decrease in the Component "1 savings, as 

indicated by the billing analysis. Note that Component 3 CFLs account for approximately 69 

percent of program energy savings in PY4. 

Research-verified demand savings were significantly higher than reported demand savings (3.3 

MW verified versus 1.6 MW reported), resulting in a realization rate of 202 percent for demand 

savings. The higher research verified demand savings are primarily due to an increased 

coincidence factor and application of the lighting IEF to Component 2 and 3 buibs. The low 

PECO Energy Company | Page 86 
realization rates for Component 1 demand savings results from the billing analysis findings. 

Note that Component 3 CFLs account for approximately 85 percent of program demand savings 

in PY4. 

Table 5-5. PY4 LEEP Summary of Evaluation Results for Energy - Research Verified 

Stratum 

Electric Baseload 

Basic 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

7,630 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

71% 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(GO or 

Proportion 

0.14 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

3% 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

5,387 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

0 

Electric Baseload 

Major 

1,568 73% 0.32 8% 1,139 0 

Electric Meat - Basic -1 100% N/A 0% -1 0 

Electric Meat - Major 1 77% N/A 0% 1 0 

Component 2 1,129 102% N/A 0% 1,152 0 

Component 3 18,555 102% N/A 0% 18,926 0 

Component 4 666 100% 0.96 6% 666 0 

Program Total 29,548 92% 0.14 1% 27,270 0 

Note: The program total CV values for LEEP reflect the CV for Compomnt 1 measures only. Navigant did not 

calculate the program total CVduc to differences in units of measurement. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 87 
Table 5-6. PY4 LEEP Summary of Evaluation Results for Demand - Research Verified 

Stratum 

Electric Baseload -

Bask 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0.2 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

49% 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

0.01 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

6% 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

0.1 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0 

Electric Baseload -

Major 

0.2 337, 0.04 25% 0.1 0 

Electric Heat 

Basic 

0.0 100% 0.00 0% 0.0 0 

Electric Heat 

Major 

0.0 71% 0.00 0% 0.0 0 

Component 2 0.1 279% 0.00 0% 0.2 0 

Component 3 1.0 278% 0.00 0% 2.8 0 

Component 4 0.1 100% 0.96 5% 0.1 0 

Program Total 1.6 202% 0.03 1% 3.3 0 

Note: The program total CV values for LEEP reflect the CV for Component 7 measures only. Navigant did not 

calculate the program total CVdue to differences in units of measurement. 

Sowrcc: Navigant analysis 

Strict TRM verified energy savings were slightly lower than reported savings (26,876 MWh 

verified versus 29,548 MWh reported), resulting in a realization rate of 91 percent for energy 

savings. The lower strict TRM verified energy savings are primarily due to a decrease in the 

Component 1 savings, as indicated by the billing analysis. 

Strict TRM verified demand savings were slightly lower than reported savings (1.4 MW verified 

versus 1.6 MW reported), resulting in a realization rate of 84 percent for demand savings. The 

lower strict TRM verified demand savings are primarily due to a decrease in the Component 1 

savings, as indicated by the billing analysis. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 88 
Table 5-7. PY4 LEEP Summary of Evaluation Results for Energy - Strict TRM Verified 

Stratum 

Electric Baseload 

Basic 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

<MWh) 

7630 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

71% 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv)or 

Proportion 

0.14 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

3% 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

5,387 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

0 

Electric Baseload 

Major 

1,568 73% 0.32 8% 1,139 0 

Electric Heat - Basic -1 100% N/A 0% -1 0 

Electric Heat - Major 1 77% N/A 0% 1 0 

Component 2 1,129 100% N/A 0% 1,129 0 

Component 3 18,555 100% N/A 0% 18,555 0 

Component 4 666 100% 0.96 6% 666 0 

Program Total 29;548 91% 0.14 1% 26,876 0 

Note: The program total CV values for LEEP reflect the CV for Component 1 measures only. Navigant did not 

calculate, the program total CVdue to differences in units of measurement. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 89 
Table 5-8. PY4 LEEP Summary of Evaluation Results for Demand - Strict TRM Verified 

Stratum 

Electric Baseload -

Basic 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0.2 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

49% 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

0.01 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

6% 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

0.1 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0 

Electric Baseload -

Major 

0.2 33% 0.04 25% 0.1 0 

Electric Heat 

Basic 

0.0 100% 0.00 0% 0.0 0 

Electric Heat 

Major 

0.0 71% 0.00 0% 0.0 0 

Component 2 0.1 100% 0.00 0% 0.1 0 

Component 3 1.0 100% 0.00 0% 1.0 0 

Component 4 0.1 100% 0.96 5% 0.1 0 

Program Total 1.6 84% 0;03 1% 1.4 0 

Note: The program tola} CV mines for LEEP reflect 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 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

Navigant assumed an NTG ratio of 1.0, as in prior years, because low-income customers 

typically do not have the resources to install energy efficiency measures. Any Component 1 

participant free ridership or spillover that occurs is captured in the billing analysis. To the 

extent that participants were already purchasing program measures or taking energy-saving 

actions, this will be captured in the usage prior to LEEP participation (the baseline). To the 

extent that participants purchase additional measures or take additional actions in response to 

participation in the program, this will be captured in.the usage after LEEP participation. The 

billing analysis compares usage prior to and after LEEP participation, with the difference 

indicating program impacts. This difference incorporates free ridership and spillover, but does 

not allow for separating out these effects. 

5.4 Process Evaluation 

The process evaluation included two primary tasks: in-depth interviews with key program 

personnel and participant telephone surveys. The evaluation team conducted four in-depth 

interviews with key program personnel, including two staff at PECO and two staff at the 

PECO Energy Company | Page 90 
program implementer (CMC Energy Services). The primary goals of the interviews were to 

document changes in the program delivery and gather insight from staff members that work 

closely with the program. The interviews took place in April 2013. The evaluation team 

surveyed a random sample of 92 participants from Components 1, 3, and 4. The primary goals 

of the participant surveys were to gauge satisfaction with the program, gather participant and 

site information, and research measure installation rates. Tlie surveys took place in July 2013. 

5.4.1 Customer Perspectives 

In general, participants are very satisfied with all elements of the program delivery. 

Respondents reported that educational materials were "clear and informative" and awarded an 

average satisfaction rating of 9.34 on a 10-point scale. Respondents were also asked to rate their 

satisfaction with the contractor, scheduling process, installation process, and quality of 

measures installed. Respondents were very satisfied with each of these elements, awarding 

average satisfaction ratings ranging from 9.29 to 9.78. 

In general, participants were able to verify measure installation and were very satisfied with the 

measures installed (see Table 5-9). Note that participant-reported installation rates for 

Components 1 and 3 are for research purposes only and do not affect verified savings. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 91 
Table 5-9. Participant-Reported Installation Rates and Satisfaction with Measures 

Measure Description 

PY4 Reported 

(S Participants) 

PY4 Verified 

(If Participants) 

PY4 % Verified 

(tt Participants) 

PY4 

Average 

Satisfactio 

n Rating 

(0-10 scale) 

PY3 

Average 

Satisfaction 

Rating 

(0-10 scale) 

Componctit 1 (n=38) 

CFLs 34 30 88% 9.73 9.05 (n = 99) 

Aerator 6 4 67% 9.50 9.14 (n = 7) 

Showerhead 5 5 100% 9.60 8.80 (n = 15) 

Refrigerator 4 4 100% 9.50 8.88* 

Water Heater Pipe 

Insulation 

2 2 100% 9.00 9.80 (n = 5) 

Thermostat 1 1 100% 10.00 7.50 (n = 2) 

Water Heater Timer 1 1 100% 10.00 -

All Measures 38 32 84% - -

Omiponenl 3 (n = 30) 

CFLs 30 27 90% 9.10 -

Component 4 (n = 24) 

Ref ri gera tor/Freezer 24 23 96% 8.70 8.88* 

"No base number reported in PY3 

Source: Navigant anah/sis 

Participants reported taking energy-saving actions after the energy audit. Most reported actions 

are the low-cost/no-cost activities emphasized in the program's educational materials, such as 

turning off lights (35%), unplugging appliances (22%), or reducing the use of air conditioners 

(15%) and other appliances (14%). Notably, the proportion of respondents reporting these 

actions generally increased compared to PY3. 

The average square footage of homes reported by PY4 respondents was appreciably smaller 

than for PY3, decreasing from 2,305 square feet in PY3 to 1,259 square feet in PY4. Decreasing 

square footage is likely a driver of the lower energy savings indicated by the regression 

analysis. The large majority of respondents reported household incomes falling below 150 

percent of the FPL. 

PECO Energy Company f Page 92 
Ninety percent of the Component 3 respondents (n = 30) reported receipt of CFLs. On average, 

respondents reported receiving 6.3 bulbs and reported installing 3.8 bulbs. The average 

installation rate was 65 percent.28 Respondents reported that all remaining bulbs were in 

storage at the time of the survey. This suggests that some customers are keeping CFLs provided 

by the program in storage as "backups," but other customers may require further education and 

encouragement to install the CFLs provided to them. The majority (71%) of CFLs installed 

replaced incandescent bulbs; 11 percent of respondents reported that the program CFLs 

replaced existing CFLs. The program CFLs largely replaced 60-watt bulbs (31% of respondents) 

and 75-watt bulbs (18% of respondents). 

Consistent with PY3 findings, PY4 satisfaction with PECO either increased (58%) or stayed the 

same (36%) for LEEP participants. Only a small minority (6%) indicated their satisfaction with 

PECO had decreased. Many respondents had positive comments about the services provided, 

ranging from discounted billing, providing CFLs and refrigerators or adjusting thermostats and 

air conditioners, to just "taking an interest." Several respondents commented that they felt safer 

due to the installation of smoke alarms. 

5.4.2 Program Management and Implementation Staff Perspectives 

In effect, PECO has piggybacked LEEP onto the existing LIURP. While the interviewees noted 

that this has worked well in achieving operational efficiencies and ensuring a smooth 

implementation of LEEP, there was often confusion on both the PECO and IC sides as to how 

the programs and their Components actually overlap. 

Throughout the courtship of potential participants and in the day-to-day workings of the 

program, much emphasis was placed on making sure that the program staff addresses the 

customers' needs. As one respondent put 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." 

The telephone interviewees reported, "There is a lot of poverty" in the region being served, and 

suggested that Phase I (and forthcoming Phase II) qualifying criteria may exclude an 

2 8

 The average installation rate was calculated by: first, calculating the installation rate for each respondent that reported both the 

number of bulbs received and the number of bulbs installed; and second, taking the average of the customer-level installation rates. 

Alternatively, the average installation rate weighted by the number of bulbs received is 58%. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 93 
appreciable proportion of households that would benefit from these programs. All of the 

respondents commented that it would be desirable for Phase II to lower the threshold energy 

usage criterion in order to qualify more customers for the program. Table 5-10 contains 

Navigant's recommendations for revising the participant selection criteria. 

While LEEP has been quite successful in distributing CFLs, as shown in this report and those for 

previous program years, respondents raised concerns as to whether the LEEP market for 

standard CFLs is nearing saturation. 

The respondents indicated that in the past year significant effort has gone into quality assurance 

at the IC level to ensure that the database supplied to PECO is complete, error free, system 

compatible, and easy to access and use. One PECO staff respondent noted that the database has 

those characteristics and noted that, even though occasional errors occur, they are occurring less 

frequently. 

While all the respondents noted that customer feedback has been positive, two key areas for 

program improvement were identified: 

1. Create additional materials to further educate customers about additional ways to 

reduce energy usage 

2. Explain the interactions and differences between LEEP and LIURP and clarify the 

program metrics of success 

Table 5-10 contains the recommendations for program improvement from the process 

evaluation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 94 
Table 5-10. Status Report for LEEP Process Evaluations 

Recommendations 

EDC Status Report for Process Evaluations 

(Implemented, Being considered, Rejected AND 

Explanation of Action Taken by EDC) 

Modify criteria for selection program participants to 

target customers with high energy density instead of 

customers with high usage. Atld a series of questions 

about energy-efficient measures already installed to 

identify customers that have little opportunity for energy 

savings. 

Under consideration 

(For Pennsylvania Act 129 PEG) Include in future 

versions of'the TKM CFL in-service rates that are'specific 

to program delivery (i.e., direct install, mailings, and 

giveaways). 

Under consideration 

Develop additional educational materials for customers, 

especially focusing on consumer electronics. 

Under consideration 

Explain to PECO and IC staff how LEEP and LIURP 

interface and how they differ. 

Under consideration 

Source: Nnviganl analysis 

5.5 Financial Reporting 

LEEP continues to be cost effective, with a PY4 evaluation-verified cost-benefit ratio of 3.94 and 

a PY4 strict TRM-verified cost-benefit ratio of 3.78. The increased cost-benefit ratio is primarily 

driven by an increase in Total Lifetime Energy Benefits and a 19 percent decrease in costs as 

compared to PY3. The PY3 cost-effectiveness analysis aggregated Component 1 savings at the 

measure level; whereas the PY4 cost-effectiveness analysis aggregates Component 1 savings at 

the participant level, which is consistent with the methodology for reporting Component 1 

savings. Additionally, CFLs make up an increasing proportion of program energy savings (63% 

in PY4 compared to 46% in PY3) and are generally cost-effective measures. A breakdown of the 

program finances under each scenario is presented in Table 5-1 land Table 5-12. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 95 
Table 5-11. Summary of LEEP Finances - TRM Verified 

1QI9I 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 0 0 0 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 0 0 0 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration'11 215 873 2,854 

Management12' 76 285 1,276 

Marketing'3' 178 550 922 

Technical Assistance 712 3,377 13,304 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 1,181 5,084 18,355 

EDC Evaluation Costs 132 239 594 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 0 

Total EDC Costs'1' 1,313 5,323 18,949 

Participant Costs'5' 0 0 0 

Total TRC Costs'61 N/A 5,323 18,949 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 19,107 53,788 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 420 2,122 

Total TRC Benefits'" N/A 20,099 57,835 

TRC Ratio'8' N/A 3.78 3.05 

NOTES 

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. 

[ 11 Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

J2) Includes EDC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

|3| Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs. 

|4| Per the 2011 Total Resource Cost Test Order, the Total EDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

J5| Per the 2011 Total Resource Cost Test Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use cuslomer or program costs 

that are proxies for participant costs. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

I6| Total TRC Costs include EDC Evaluation Costs, LDC Implementation Costs, and Participant Costs. 

[7[ Total TRC Henefits equals the sum of Total Lifetime Energy Henefits and Total LifetimeCapacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due lo the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Itased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduclion 

in costs of electric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued al marginal cosl for periods 

when there is a load reduction. 

|S| TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Costs. 

|9| Post PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Navigant anah/sis 

PECO Energy Company j Page 96 
Table 5-12. Summary of LEEP Finances - Evaluation Verified 

IQI9I' 

($1,000) 

PY4 

<$1>000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 0 0 0 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 0 0 0 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration111 215 873 2,854 

Management121 76 285 1,276 

Marketing131 178 550 922 

Technical Assistance 712 3,377 13,304 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 1,181 5,084 18,355 

EDC Evaluation Costs 132 239 594 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 0 

Total EDC Costs'41 1,313 5,323 18,949 

Participant Costs'5' 0 0 0 

Total TRC Costs'61 N/A 5,323 18,949 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 19,374 54,055 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 1,014 2,716 

Total TRC Benefits'7' N/A 20,961 58,697 

TRC Ratio'81 N/A 3.94 3.10 

NOTES 

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. 

111 Includus the administrativL' CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general adminislralion and clerical cost. 

[2| Includes LDC program manngemenl, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

[3| Includes the marketing CSP and marketing cosls by program CSPs. 

|4| Per Ihe 2011 Tolal ResourceCost Test Order, the Total LDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

[5| Perlhe20n Total ResourceCost Test Order, thenel Participant Costs are the cosls for the end-use customer or program costs 

that are proxies for participant cosls. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participanls, 

|6| Total TRC Costs include LDC Lvaluation Costs, LDC Implemenlalion Cosls, and Parlicipant Costs. 

|7| Tolal TRC Henefits equals the sum of Total Lifetime Lnergy Henefits and Tolal Lifetime Capacity Henefits plus any benetll 

associated wilh avoided incandescent purchases made due to Ihe longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to tlie 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including ihe reduclion 

in cosls of eleclric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued al marginal cost for periods 

when Ihere isa load reduclion. 

|8| TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Cosls. 

|9| Posl PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 97 
6 Smart Equipment Incentives: Commercial and Industrial Program 

The purpose of the Smart Equipment Incentives Commercial and Industrial program is to 

increase awareness of energy savings opportunities and assist customers in acting on those 

opportunities to decrease energy usage in commercial and industrial facilities and in mastermetered multifamily residential buildings. This program offers incentives to customers who 

install high-efficiency electric equipment and engages equipment suppliers and contractors to 

promote the incentive-eligible equipment. The SEI C&I program has three sub-components: 

retrofit projects, multi-tenant projects, and appliance-recycling projects. 

The SEI program offers both a prescriptive and custom incentive approach for customers. The 

prescriptive approach follows pre-established incentives typically based on a dollar per unitinstalled incentive for C&I businesses interested in purchasing more common efficient 

technologies. The custom incentive approach is available to customers interested in less 

common or more complex energy-saving measures installed in qualified retrofit or equipment 

replacement projects. The program provides incentives for the following equipment categories: 

HVAC, Lighting, Drives and Motors, Refrigeration, and Custom Solutions. In addition, the 

program provides incentives for ENERGY STAR® appliances and HVAC equipment in multitenant master-metered buildings and appliance recycling for C&I customers. The program 

launched March 1, 2010, although incentives were also offered for projects completed between 

July 1, 2009, and February 28, 2010. In PY4, the C&I program incented a total of 717 projects 

covering C&I retrofit projects (659 projects29), C&I multi-tenant projects (44 projects), and C&I 

appliance recycling projects (14 projects). 

PECO's four-year energy efficiency plan separates the program efforts targeting private C&I 

businesses from the program efforts targeting the government and nonprofit sectors. For the 

limited post-launch period of PYl, the marketing and implementation of the Smart Equipment 

Incentives program was not differentiated between C&I and Government/Nonprofit to a degree 

that made it necessary to conduct separate evaluations. For PY2 through PY4, C&I and 

Government/Nonprofit programs are sufficiently differentiated that the two programs are now 

being evaluated separately. 

2 9

 Two projects were not verified in the PY4 evaluation and report, but will instead be verified at a later date once the project files 

are ready for evaluation. These projects and the savings will be reported as "unverified" savings in the Phase I compliance report. 

These projects were not verified in the PY4 evaluation and report because the applications were received at the end of Phase 1 and 

there was insufficient time to assign savings to these projects. The projects represent two parts of a larger overall project installation 

(PLCCM1-02812 and Pl-CO-l 1-04673). These projects are included in this total count of C&I retrofit projects. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 98 
6.1 Program Updates 

PECO sought and received approval from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to 

establish a waitlist procedure for new project applications. New project applications received 

on or after October 1, 2011 were placed on the waitlist with no incentive funds reserved or 

guaranteed. During the waitlist, projects were evaluated in the order in which they were 

received. If program savings goals allowed, the projects would be granted active status, with an 

incentive fund reservation. Due to the waitlist, the program had shifted its marketing message 

from that of an incentive-based program to more of an educational message focusing on energy 

savings in general. 

The SEI C&I program remained in waitlist status for Q1-Q3 of PY4 (June-February 2013) and 

for the first half of March 2013. However, as of March 15, 2013, PECO lifted the waitlist for 

customers applying to the SEI C&I program. At that time, PECO worked through all projects on 

the waitlist to ensure they were completed and paid or cancelled. 

6.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

Table 6-1 shows the total participants, reported gross energy savings. Top 100 Hours reported 

gross demand reduction, and total reported gross demand reduction and incentives for PY4 and 

Phase I. The total Phase I SEI C&I reported gross savings were 265,277 MWh and 45.7 MW. 

Table 6-2 shows the SEI C&I reported results by sector. All reported results for the SEI C&I 

program fall under the Commercial and Industrial sector. The remainder of this section details 

the measurement and verification (M&V) methodology, sample design, and evaluation findings 

for the SEI C&I program gross impact evaluation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 99 
Table 6-1. PY4 SEI C&I Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting Period 

PY4 QI 

Participants 

Ml 

108 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

10,448 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

6.3 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

1.9 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

800 

PY4 Q2 56 24,770 0.0 4.5 2,222 

PY4 Q3 32 3,276 0.0 0.6 189 

PY4Q4 527 60,836 0.0 (0.5 5,841 

PY4 Total' 2' 717 99,329 6.3 17.4 9,052 

CPITD Total 3,961 265,277 6.3 45.7 21,020 

NOTES: 

[ 1 j The lotnl participnnts (projects) for PY4 was 717. However, PY4 verified savings were based on 715 projects. 

Two project numbers (one project) were not included in the PY4 evaluation because the savings estimates were 

nol ready in time. 

|2| Total savings and incentives will not match amounts reported in PY4 Q4 report due to Ihe addition of 

savings and incentive amounts for one post PY4 Q4 retrofit project (project PECO-11-04673) and one post 

PY4Q4 incentive adjustment (project PI-CO-11-03058). 

Sowrcc; Nnvignnt nmlysis 

Table 6-2. PY4 SEI C&I Reported Results by Sector 

Sector 

Residential 

Participants "> 

0 

Reported Gross 

Energy Savings 

(MWh) 

0 

Top 100 Hours 

Reported Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

0 

Low-Income 0 0 0 0 0 

Commercial and 

Industrial I 2' 

717 99,329 6.3 17.4 9,052 

Government and Nonprofit 

0 0 0 0 0 

PY4 Total 717 99,329 6.3 17.4 9,052 

CPITD Total 3961 265,277 6.3 45.7 21,020 

NOTES: 

111 The total participants (projects) for PY4 was 717. However, PY4 verified savings were based on 715 projects. Two project 

numbers (one project) were nol included in the PY4 evaluation because the savings eslimales were not ready in time. 

|2| Total savings and incentives will not match amounts reported in PY4 Q4 report due to the addition of savings nnd incentive 

amounts for one posl PY4 Q4 retrofit project (project 4673) and one post PY4 Q4 incentive adjustment (project 3058). 

Source; Nnvignnt nnnli/sis 

PECO Energy Company f Page 100 
6.2.1 M&V Methodology 

The evaluation of the SEI C&J program consisted of three sub-components: retrofit projects, 

multi-tenant projects, and appliance-recycling projects. The M&V methodology for the SEI C&I 

program was very similar to the PY3 methodology. The primary modification was that the 

multi-tenant and appliance recycling projects were not evaluated in PY4 due to the very small 

percentage of overall program savings. The realization rate for SEI multi-tenant projects and 

appliance recycling projects was deemed at 1.0 for PY4 for the purposes of evaluation. The 

remainder of this section focuses exclusively on the M&V methodology for C&I retrofit projects. 

Measurement and verification in PY4 included on-site data collection for most sampled sites. 

C&I sampled sites that met the following criteria received phone verification instead of on-site 

verification: 1) tlie project was a small partially deemed project where the TRM or an Interim 

Measure Protocol (IMP) applied, 2) the project had relatively small savings (i.e., those in C&I 

Stratum 3), and 3) the project documentation was complete and could be used to verify that the 

measures were installed. 

Gross impacts for demand and energy were verified through different approaches for the three 

categories of measures in this program: 1) deemed, 2) partially deemed, and 3) custom 

measures. The measures in these categories are defined by the TRM3 0 plus IMPs approved by 

the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission through the SWE team. If a measure was deemed, 

the impacts for the measure were provided in the TRM or in an approved IMP. The evaluation 

approach for deemed measures was to verify both the installed quantity and that the installed 

measure matched the TRM-required specifications. 

If a measure was partially deemed, the TRM or approved IMP provided the algorithms and 

default assumptions for calculating impacts and the variables to be verified. Depending on the 

complexity of the partially deemed measure, the evaluation team applied either a Basic or 

Enhanced level of rigor as described in the applicable protocols and the Audit Plan.31 The 

evaluation team conducted an application and file review and developed a site-specific M&V 

311

 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, Technical Reference Manual (TRM) for Pennsylvania Act 129 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Program and Act 213 Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards, June 

2012. 

3 1

 The Statewide Evaluation Team: GDS Associates, Inc., Nexant, & Mondre Energy; contracted under the 

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission RFP 2009-1 for the Statewide Evaluator, Audit Plan and 

Evaluation Framework for Pennsylvania Act 129 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs, 

November 4, 201T 

PECO Energy Company | Page 101 
plan (SSMVP) for all partially deemed projects. The team completed site visits or phone 

interviews (if the criteria described above were satisfied) following the activities laid out in the 

SSMVP, and calculated verified savings using the variables determined through the site visit or 

phone interview in accordance with the TRM or IMP. 

For projects that included custom measures (defined as measures not included in the TRM or in 

an IMP, or measures that were initially reported as TRM measures, but determined through the 

evaluation to be custom), the evaluation team conducted an application review, developed 

SSMVPs, and conducted site visits. The primary difference was that there were no deemed 

variables and all custom measures followed an Enhanced Rigor level of effort. 

The evaluation team produced ex post engineering-based estimates of gross annual energy and 

summer peak demand impacts for each sampled project. The peak kW savings estimation 

methodology was consistent with PECO requirements for each project and utilized the 

approved Act 129 peak demand calculators, where applicable. The evaluation of PY4 projects 

included a review of program-tracking data and supporting documentation (invoices, spec 

sheets) before developing a SSMVP and conducting a site inspection or phone interview. Tlie 

focus of the data collection was to verify and/or update the assumptions that feed into analyses 

of measure-level savings. Data collection included verification of installation quantity, 

operating schedule, system loading conditions, validation of baseline selection, assessment of 

persistence, and verification that the systems are functioning and operating as planned (and if 

not, how the current operation differs from planned operation, taking into account daily, 

weekly, and seasonal variations). 

The enhanced rigor level site evaluations generally included performing on-site measurement 

and/or obtaining customer-stored data to support downstream M&V calculations. 

Measurement included spot measurements, run-time hour data logging, and post-installation 

interval metering, depending on the needs of the project. Evaluators used customer-supplied 

data from an energy management system (EMS) or supervisory control and data acquisition 

(SCADA) system when available. In addition, the team requested billing data for all projects 

from PECO on a monthly or 15-minute interval basis, depending on the site. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 102 
6.2.2 Sample Design 

The sample design for PY4 SEI retrofit projects used stratified ratio estimation similar to the 

method used in PY'I through PY3. Based on a combined paid annual population of 65732 C&I 

retrofit projects, the final verified sample size was 30 C&I projects for the program year, with 

samples allocated by participation from each quarter and by stratum. Tine evaluation team 

designed the final C&I sample to achieve the required 85/15 confidence and precision, at the 

program level. All of the sampled projects were completed and included in the final program 

analysis. 

The strata boundaries were defined with Ql data, Q2 data, and pipeline data at the end of Q2. 

The boundaries were defined to include the top 33 percent of reported kWh savings in Stratum 

1, the middle 33 percent of reported kWh savings in Stratum 2, and the lower 33 percent of 

reported kWh savings in Stratum 3. For the C&I program, the team also determined that the 

EMS and combined heat and power (CHP) projects should be in their own strata due to the 

unique properties of these projects. The EMS projects are unique because the implementer has 

historically used a deemed savings value per square foot of affected area for the ex ante savings, 

while the evaluation team used a custom approach as the EMS measure is not in the TRM. CHP 

projects were also separated into their own stratum due to the large and distinct nature of these 

projects. Finally, the implementation team and PECO informed the evaluation team that one 

sampled C&I project had a large savings discrepancy due to a spreadsheet error. This project 

was placed into its own stratum for purposes of the final program analysis as the team expected 

this large error to be an exception and thus should not affect the verified savings for the rest of 

the projects. 

Table 6-3 details the SEI C&I sampling strategy for PY4 and includes the impact evaluation 

sample design. The table also includes the sampling strategy for the process evaluation 

activities: the participant survey and the participating contractor survey. 

3 2

 The total number of PY4 C&I retrofit projects is 659. However, two projects will not be verified in the 

PY4 evaluation and report, but will instead be verified at a later date once the project files are ready for 

evaluation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 103 
Table 6-3. SEI C&I Sampling Strategy for PY4 

Stratum 

C&I - Large 

in 

Strata Boundaries 

>l,000,OOOkWh 

Population 

Size 

8 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(C) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

0.4 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

85/15 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

6 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

6 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Tmnart 

C&lMedium > 300,000 and 5 

1,000,000 kWh 

36 0.4 85/15 8 8 

I t 1 t Lr ' M 1 

Evaluation: 

Site visits 

and phone 

verification 

121.131 

C&I-Small < 300,000 kWh 596 0.4 85/15 9 9 

I t 1 t Lr ' M 1 

Evaluation: 

Site visits 

and phone 

verification 

C&I - CHP N/A 1 0.5 85/15 1 1 121.131 

I t 1 t Lr ' M 1 

Evaluation: 

Site visits 

and phone 

verification 

121.131 

C&I - LMS N/A 16 0.4 85/15 6 6 

I t 1 t Lr ' M 1 

Evaluation: 

Site visits 

and phone 

verification 

121.131 

Activity 

Subtotal 

'-, i:-'i;:,v> ':v:,, l. 657 85/15 30 30 

C&I 

Lighting -

Large 

> 700,000 kWh 8 0.5 85/10 7 1 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and 

NTG 

research 

C&I 

Lighting -

Medium 

> 100,000 and £ 

700,000 kWh 65 0.5 85/10 7 5 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and 

NTG 

research C&I 

Lighting -

Small 

> 20,000 and <, 

100,000 kWh 

97 0.5 85/10 8 8 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and 

NTG 

research 

Activity 

Subtotal 170 85/10 22 14 

C&l Nonlighting -

Very Large 

> 9,000,000 kWh 3 0.5 85/10 2 1 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and 

NTG 

research 

C&I NonlightingLarge 

> 800,000 and < 

5,000,000 kWh 

5 0.5 85/10 • 5 3 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and 

NTG 

research 

C&l Nonlighting -

Medium 

> 100,000 and <, 

800,000 kWh 

19 0.5 85/10 6 6 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and 

NTG 

research 

C&l NonlightingSmall 

> 20,000 and £ 

100,000 kWh 30 0.5 85/10 7 6 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and 

NTG 

research 

Activity 

Subtotal , 

: 57 85/10 20 16 

Stratum 1 -

Very Large 

> 9,000,000 kWh 3 0.5 85/10 3 0 Process 

Evaluation: 

Participating 

contractor 

Stratum 2 -

Large 

> 1,000,000 and £ 

6,000,000 kWh 12 0.5 85/10 10 3 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participating 

contractor 

PECO Energy Company | Page 104 
Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Target 

Stratum Strata Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision < 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Stratum 3 -

Medium 

> 300,000 and 

51,000,000 kWh 48 0.5 85/10 7 7 survey 

Stratum 4 -

Small 

> 60,000 and <, 

300,000 kWh 148 0.5 85/10 8 8 

Activity 

Subtotal 

• j 211 

i 

i 

l 

85/10 28 18 

Program 

Total 1,095 

i 

N/A 100 78 

NOTES: 

[ 11 A single project (PECO-11-03058) was placed into its own stratum during the evaluation process due to a large known error. 

|2| C&l - Appliance Recycling and C&I - Multi-tenant projects were not sampled in PY4. 

|3| The total number of SEI C&l retrofit projects in PY4 was 659. (Note that the total SI:! C&l project count in PY4 is 717 if C&l multitenant nnd appliance recycling projects are included.) However, two projects were not verified in the PY4 evaluation, but they will 

be verified al a later dale once the project Hies are ready for evaluation. 

Source: Nnvignnt analysis 

6.2.3 Gross Impact Evaluation Findings 

The evaluation team developed ex post gross impacts for each sampled SEI C&I retrofit project 

and analyzed these results to determine the program-level ex post gross impacts. The 

evaluation team completed site-specific evaluations of 30 sampled projects in PY4 for the SEI 

C&I retrofit program. Table 6-4 and Table 6-5 show the reported gross savings, verified gross 

savings, and unverified gross savings for the SEI C&I program. From the evaluation, the team 

found the energy realization rate for the C&I program (including retrofit projects, multi-tenant 

projects, and appliance recycling projects) to be 0.86 (85 percent confidence/10 percent 

precision) and the demand realization rate to be 0.80 (85 percent confidence/16 percent 

precision). 

The evaluation team found that the ex ante calculations for projects involving EMS measures 

utilized assumed savings values of 2 kWh per square foot and 0.0001 kW per square foot 3 3 as 

was common in PY3. The evaluation team believes that the deemed savings values may be a 

Columns AH-AL of the '300' tab of the LDC quarterly tracking database extracts. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 105 
viable rule of thumb in certain cases, but they are an inaccurate way of estimating site-specific 

savings for impact evaluations. Use of these factors has typically caused an inaccurate 

estimation of energy savings and peak demand savings due to the EMS controlling a range of 

equipment in varying building types with diverse schedules. This resulted in widely varying 

project realization rates. 

The evaluation team also found a range of realization rates for other retrofit project types due to 

the following reasons: 

• Incorrect baseline classification in the ex ante estimates 

• Adjustments to hours of use and equipment quantities for lighting projects 

• Peak demand savings not based on the SWE-approved peak demand calculators 

• Evaluation site visit findings varied from the assumptions used in the ex ante 

calculations. 

As discussed previously, the C&I multi-tenant and appliance recycling projects ,were not 

evaluated in PY4 due to the very small percentage of overall program savings. The realization 

rate for SEI multi-tenant projects and appliance recycling projects was deemed at 1.0 for PY4 for 

the purposes of evaluation. 

The total PY4 verified gross energy savings for the C&I retrofit, C&I multi-tenant, and C&I 

appliance recycling projects is 64,530 MWh. The total PY4 verified gross demand savings for the 

C&I retrofit, C&I multi-tenant, and C&I appliance recycling projects is 11.0 MW. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 106 
Table 6-4. PY4 SEI C&I Summary of Evaluation Results for Energy 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 11112 1 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate ' 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of Variation 

(Co) or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision at 

85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

C&l - Large 11,433 1.09 0.16 0.07 12,481 -

C&I - Medium 16,656 0.88 0.31 0.21 14,666 -

C&I - Small 31,718 0.84 0.29 0.24 26,672 -

C&l - CHS' 35,853 0.62 0.00 0.00 7,134 24,386 

C&I - EMS 967 0.41 0.44 0.43 392 -

C&I - 3058 2/119 1.23 0.00 0.00 2,603 -

C&I - Appliance 

Recycling 

77 1.00 0 0.00 77 -

C&I-Multi-tenant 506 1.00 0 0.00 506 -

Program Total 99,329 0.86 N/A 0.10 64,530 24,386 

NOTES: 

111 Reported gross energy savings includes alt savings - both verified and unverified gross savings - for PY4 projects. 

|2| The reported gross energy savings include one additional project number nnd associated savings that was nol included in the 

1^404 report because theprojecl savings were estimated after the HMCM report. This project is the second part ton single project 

lhat is Iracked using two project numbers. See additional note on these projects: The total number of PY4 C&l retrofit projects is 659. 

However, two projects will not be verified in the PY4 evaluation and report and will be verified al a later date once the project files 

are ready for evaluation. These projects and Ihe savings will be reported as "unverified" savings in the Phase 1 compliance report. 

These projects will not be verified in the PY4 evaluation and report because the applications were received at the end of Phase I and 

there was insufficient time to assign savings to these projects. These projects are two parts to the same installation (PliCO-l 1-02812 

and PLCO-11-04673). Therefore, these two projects were nol included in Ihe sample design. 

Source: Nnvignnt mwh/sis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 107 
Table 6-5. PY4 SEI C&I Summary of Evaluation Results for Demand 

Stratum 

C&I - Large 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW)"" 2'. 

131 

1.8 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

1.0 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

0.2 

Relative 

Precision at 

85% 

Confidence 

0.1 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) m 

1.9 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 1 3 1 

0.0 

C&I-Medium 3/1 0.7 0.3 0.3 2.2 0.0 

C&I-Small 6.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 4.8 0.0 

C&I - CHP 5.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.6 

C&I - EMS 0/1 1.4 2.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 

C&I - 3058 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 

C&I - Appliance 

Recycling 

0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

C&I - Multi-tenant 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 

Program Total 17.4 0.8 N/A 0.2 11.0 3.6 

NOTES: 

| /1 Reported gross demand reduction includes all savings - both verified and unverified gross savings - for PY4 projects. 

[2|The reported gross demand reduction includes one additional project number and associated savings that was not included in 

the PY4 Q4 report because the project savings were estimated after the PY4 Q4 report. This project is the second part to a single 

project that is tracked using two project numbers. See additional note on these projects: The total number of PY4 C&I retrofit 

projects is 659. However, two projects will nol be verified in the PY4 evaluation and report and will be verified al a laler dale once 

the project files are ready for evaluation. These projects and the savings will be reported as "unverified" savings in the Phase 1 

compliance report. These projects will not be verified in the PY4 evaluation and report because the applications were received at the 

end of Phase 1 and there was insufficient time to assign savings lo these projecls. These projects are two parts to the same 

installation (PI-CO-n-02812 and PLCO-11-04673). Therefore, these two projects were not included in the sample design. 

|3]The reported gross demand reduction, verified gross demand reduction, and unverified gross demand reduction include the line 

loss factor. 

Sowm;: Nnviganl nnnli/sis 

6.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

The primary objective of the net savings analysis was to determine the program's net effect on 

the program savings. After gross program impacts have been assessed, net program impacts are 

derived by estimating an NTG ratio that quantifies the percentage of the gross program impacts 

that can reliably be attributed to the program. 

Once free ridership and spillover have been estimated, the NTG ratio is calculated as follows: 

NTG Ratio = 1 - Free-ridership Rate + Spillover Rate 

PECO Energy Company | Page 108 
Free ridership was assessed using a customer self-report approach following a framework that 

was developed for evaluating net savings of California's 2006-2008 non-residential energy 

efficiency programs. This method calculates free ridership using data collected during 

participant phone surveys concerning the following three items: 

1. A Timing and Selection score that reflects the influence of the most important various 

program and program-related elements in the customer's decision to implement the 

specific program measure at this time. 

2. A Program Influence score that reveals the perceived importance of the program 

(whether rebate, recommendation, or other program intervention) relative to nonprogram factors in the customers' decision to implement the specific program measure. 

This score is cut in half if they learned about the program after they decided to 

implement the measures. 

3. A No-Program score that captures the likelihood of various actions the customer might 

have taken at this time and in the future if the program had not been available. This 

score accounts for deferred free ridership by incorporating the likelihood that the 

customer would have installed program qualifying measures at a later date if the 

program had not been available. 

Each of these scores represents the highest response or the average of several responses given to 

one or more questions about the decision to install a program measure. The rationale for using 

the maximum value is to capture the most important element in the participant's decisionmaking process. 

The calculation of free-ridership for the program is a multi-step process. Tlie participant survey 

covered a battery of questions used to assess free ridership for a specific end use and project. 

The evaluation team uses survey responses to calculate a Timing and Selection score, a Program 

Influence score, and a No-Program score for each project covered through the survey. These 

three scores can be given values of 0 to 10 where a lower score indicates a higher level of free 

ridership. The calculation then averages those three scores to come up with a measure-level 

free-ridership score. If the customer has additional measures at the same site as part of the same 

project, the survey asked whether the customer's responses also apply to the other measures. If 

that is the case, the entire project is given the same score. In addition, the survey asked if the 

responses apply to other PY4 projects, if applicable. 

The evaluation team used a separate ratio estimation statistical method to combine the 

participant net of free-ridership ratios for the C&I sampled projects up to the program-level net 

of free-ridership ratios. In this method, a separate ratio is calculated for each stratum and then 

PECO Energy Company | Page 109 
applied to the population savings in each stratum. The sum of the verified net savings for each 

stratum is calculated and is compared to the sum of the verified gross savings resulting in a 

program-level net of free-ridership ratio. 

In addition, the evaluation team asked program participants a battery of questions to 

quantitatively assess spillover. Below are examples of the spillover questions: 

1. Since your participation in the program, did you install any additional energy efficiency 

measures at this facility that did not receive incentives through any utility or 

government program? 

2. Could you describe the energy efficiency measure installed? 

3. Thinking of the additional measure(s) you installed on your own at this same facility; 

how does the energy savings compare to what you installed through the program? Were 

the savings lower, about the same or higher? (Probe for percentage as compared to all 

incented projects) 

4. How significant was your experience in PECO's program in your decision to install this 

measure, using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all significant and 10 is extremely 

significant? 

5. Since participating in the program, have you installed any energy-efficient measures in 

other facilities within PECO's territory? 

6. Thinking of these additional measure(s) you installed on your own at other facilities, 

how does the quantity compare to what you installed through the program? Did you 

install more, less or the same amount of measures? (Probe for percentage as compared to 

all incented projects) 

7. Have or will these measures receive incentives through the program? 

8. What were the reasons that they did not receive an incentive? 

Additionally, the evaluation team asked participating contractors whether they were seeing 

more customers within PECO's service territory purchase energy-efficient equipment without 

program incentives. 

Spillover was calculated by asking participants how the energy savings of the un-incented 

measures compared, as a percentage saved (e.g., 10%, 20%, and 30%), to the savings of all of 

their incented projects. This self-reported percentage was then multiplied by the amount of 

influence PECO's program had on the decision to install the additional measures (Program 

Influence Score for spillover). The program spillover percentage was determined by dividing 

the total self-reported kWh described above by the total of all incented kWh savings obtained 

PECO Energy Company | Page 110 
by the program in PY4. All spillover estimates were calculated by Navigant using customer selfreported data and no follow-up interviews or site visits were conducted. 

For C&l customers, the evaluation team found a combined kWh-weighted NTC ratio at the 

program level of 0.78 and a kW-weighted NTG ratio of 0.79; ratios were based on free ridership 

and spillover. 

6.4 Process Evaluation 

The evaluation team conducted process evaluation activities jointly for the SEI C&I and the SEI 

GNI programs, as many of the administrators and contractors were common. Navigant 

conducted three primary research activities to perform the process evaluation. These activities 

consisted of in-depth phone interviews with PECO program management and KEMA 

implementation staff (6), Computer-Aided Telephone Interview (CATI) surveys with 

participating contractors (18 contractors), and CATI surveys with program participants (30 C&I 

customers). 

Table 6-3 provides a summary of the evaluation activities and the sampling strategy. The 

tracking data for the sample frame was extracted from a copy of the PECO online database 

delivered electronically to the evaluation team on a quarterly basis. The activities conducted 

during the process evaluation are further described in the following sections. 

6.4.1 PECO Program Management Staff and KEMA Staff Interviews 

The evaluation team conducted three in-depth interviews with PECO staff and three in-depth 

interviews with key members of the Smart Equipment Incentives program implementation 

contractor team, KEMA, during the months of February and March 2013. The interviews were 

designed to enable the evaluation team to ask closed-ended questions about the program's 

administration and delivery during PY4 and also to obtain "real-time" information about 

current program activity through asking open-ended questions that created a "free-flowing" 

conversation. To inform these interviews, the evaluation team reviewed current program 

reporting documents, marketing materials, and customer materials, such as the Wait-list 

Policies and Procedures document. 

The evaluation team found the following information during the in-depth interviews: 

• PECO and KEMA staff both reported the waitlist continued to have an effect on the 

program in PY4. In anticipation of the waitlist being lifted in PY4, PECO and KEMA 

staffs were proactive in reaching out to customers with waitlisted projects to aide them 

in moving the project forward or making the decision to cancel them. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 111 
• Of the projects that remained in the pipeline and were accepted before the waitlist was 

instituted, program staff reported that the majority were large projects, such as CHP 

projects accounting for sizable savings. The complexity of these projects continued to 

challenge both PECO and KEMA staff. While PECO staff was confident that up to 450 

projects from the waitlist would be moved to fill the pipeline, there was concern that a 

"phantom" rush of applications could be encountered when the waitlist was ultimately 

lifted. 

• Both PECO and KEMA staff commented there is a renewed focus on Quality Assurance 

and Quality Control. For instance, PECO now documents gold quality inspections, silver 

quality inspections, and inspections of unacceptable quality. In the future, PECO plans 

to have iPads to take on-site visits, enabling more pictures and real-time uploads of new 

data. 

6.4.2 Program Participating Customer Survey 

The evaluation team conducted a participating customer CATI survey for the PY4 SEI program. 

The survey assessed all of the parameters necessary to calculate free ridership, spillover, and 

NTG ratios. Additional data was collected to support the process evaluation (such as program 

design and implementation, program marketing and awareness, and customer satisfaction) and 

business demographics for the process component of the evaluation. 

The sampling unit for the process evaluation was the unique participating customers; it did not 

include projects where the primary contact person in the database was a contractor or the 

project did not have contact information.3'

1

 The rationale for contacting unique participating 

customers was to get project information from the final decision maker. Overall, 227 unique 

participant contacts completed 475 C&I retrofit projects in PY4. 

The evaluation team targeted 90 completed surveys for the SEI retrofit program, 42 C&I 

surveys, and 48 GNI surveys. The samples were designed to achieve 85/10 confidence/precision 

individually and exceed that when combined to the program level. The evaluation team 

completed 30 SEI C&I surveys (14 lighting project participants and 16 non-lighting/custom 

project participants). A large number of SEI program participants (40) were not interviewed due 

to the maximum number of contact attempts being reached. 

There were 212 projecls wilh a contractor as the primary contact person in the database. There were 6 projects without contact 

information. These were not included in the sample. The 3 project numbers that were not included in the t:'Y4 impact evaluation 

were included in the process evaluation sampling population. Al the time of the process evaluation sample design, the team only 

had informalion on 3 of the 6 project numbers that were not included in Ihe PY4 impact evaluation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 112 
The analysis of the participant survey data showed customer satisfaction was high across the 

various program processes and sectors. Ninety-two percent of C&I participants were satisfied35 

with the SEI program and 88 percent were satisfied with PECO. Satisfaction with the SEI 

program was similar between lighting and non-lighting C&I participants. Seventy-seven 

percent of C&I participants also reported satisfaction with the incentive amount. The PY4 

evaluation found 83 percent of C&I participants were satisfied with their interaction with 

program staff. Ninety-seven percent of C&I program participants were satisfied with the 

measures offered, and 100 percent of C&I program participants were satisfied with the 

contractor used to complete their project. 

6.4.3 Participating Contractor Survey 

A Computer-Aided Telephone Interview survey was conducted at the contractor level; thus, the 

sample covered both SEI C&I retrofit and SEI GNI retrofit projects. In total, 211 contractors 

completed 639 SEI projects36 in PY4. The contractor database was first sorted to reflect unique 

participating contractors. After the data cleaning process, the design resulted in a target of 28 

interviews with participating contractors. The evaluation team completed a total of 18 

contractor interviews in July 2013. The evaluation team did not meet the target due to a large 

number of refusals, disconnected phone numbers, and maximum attempts reached. 

The analysis of the data collected through the participating contractor survey showed there was 

somewhat less satisfaction among participating contractors than participants. In general, about 

three-quarters of participating contractors were satisfied with PECO and two-thirds were 

satisfied with the SEI program. Contractors suggested that PECO more effectively communicate 

changes to the program now that funds were again available, including any rule changes. 

Additionally, contractors suggested shortening the amount of time it takes to get the rebate, 

expanding the types of measures that are eligible through the program such as induction 

lighting and LEDs, and increasing the amount of the rebates. 

3 5

 Survey respondents are considered satisfied if they answered 7 or greater, on a scale of 0 to 10 

where 0 is "extremely dissatisfied" and 10 is "extremely satisfied." 

3 6

 Total number of projects does not include projects without contractor contact information. 

Navigant eliminated 290 projects that did not have complete contractor contact information in 

the database. The 3 project numbers that were not included in the PY4 impact evaluation were 

included in the process evaluation sampling population. At the time of the process evaluation 

sample design, the team only had information on 3 of the 6 project numbers that were not 

included in the PY4 impact evaluation. 

PECO Energy Company J Page 113 
Table 6-6 lists the key PY4 SEI C&I process recommendations and the EDC status for each 

recommendation. The processes recommendations are either currently being implemented, 

have been partially implemented, or are being considered. 

Table 6-6. Status Report for SEI C&I Process Evaluations 

Recommendations 

EDC Status Report for Process Evaluations 

(Implemented, Being considered. Rejected AND 

Explanation of Action Taken by EDC) 

PECO should increase communication with contractors 

antl more closely manage relationships to improve the 

contractor and participant experience with the program. 

Contractors indicated that increased communication 

from PECO was desired. In addition, program 

participants expressed that contractors were a main 

source of information about the program. PECO should 

leverage contractor relationships to communicate 

program goals to customers and use contractor training 

and communication as a way to scale up or ratchet down 

program participation. 

Implemented: 

• PECO has increased the frequency of the Trade 

Ally newsletter and already sent first edition for 

phase II. 

• PECO has conducted 3 seminars in October 

with attendance of 50-100 at each event. 

• PECO is holding trade ally certification 

seminars (First one Oct. 15). 

• PECO is holding a trade ally webinar series. 

• PECO launched an online trade ally portal for 

materials and live online project tracking. 

PECO should consider a sliding scale for incentive 

payments, rather than reaching program targets and 

abruptly throttling the program with a waitlist. Incentive 

amounts could be reduced when certain program subgoais are met (e.g., 50% of program goal, 75% of program 

goal, 90% of program goal). 

Being considered: Incentives were filed as a range, and 

thus PECO can adjust the rates without re-filing. 

PECO should continue to review the program measure 

list to ensure that the latest proven technologies are 

being incented by the program. For example, PECO has 

expanded the prescriptive program LED offerings. This 

review of measures should be an ongoing process. 

Implemented: KEMA is under contract to evaluate new 

technologies from potential suppliers; leverage KEMA's 

national technology group to keep us up to date. 

PECO and/or the implementation team should develop a 

completed application example for both lighting and 

custom projects that can be utilized as a guide for 

prospective participants in the program. 

Being Considered 

Source: Navisnnt analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 114 
6.5 Financial Reporting 

A breakdown of the program finances is presented in Table 6-7. The SEI C&I program has a PY4 

TRC ratio greater than 1.0 and thus the PY4 program was cost effective. The TRC ratio for PY4 

(1.80) is lower than the TRC ratio in PY3 (2.21), but is slightly higher than the TRC ratio in PY2 

(1.79). The TRC ratio for the program in Phase I is 1.94 and thus the Phase I SEI C&I program 

was cost effective. 

PECO Energy Company J Page 115 
Table 6-7. Summary of SEI C&I Finances 

IQ" 1 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC fncentives to Participants 5,841 9,052 21,019 

EDC incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 5,841 9,052 21,019 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administrationf" 1,649 3,767 10,433 

Management121 93 •427 2,124 

Marketing131 152 327 1,333 

Tecbnicai Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 1,894 4,521 13,890 

EDC Evaluation Costs 546 1,035 2,390 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 0 

Total EDCCosts^ 8,281 14,608 37,299 

Participant Costs15' N/A 36,625 91,151 

Total TRC Costs'61 N/A 42,181 107,431 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 67,473 184,482 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 8,418 23,847 

Total TRC Benefits'" N/A 75,909 208,435 

TRC Ratio"" N/A 1.80 1.94 

NOTES 

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| Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

|2] Includes LDC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

|3| Includes the marketing CSP and marketing cosls by program CSPs. 

j4| Per the 2011 Total Resource Cost Test Order, ihe Tolal LDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

|5| Per the 2011 Tolal Resource Cost Test Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use customer or program costs 

that are proxies for participant costs. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

16) Total TRC Costs include LDC Lvaluation Casts, LDC Implementation Costs, and Participant Costs, 

|7| Total TRC Henefits equals ihe sum of Total Lifetime Lnergy Henefits and Tolal Lifetime Capacity henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due to the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Itased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduclion 

in costs of electric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and nalural gas valued at marginal cost for periods 

when there is a load reduclion. 

18] TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Costs. 

|9J Post PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company [ Page 116 
7 Smart Equipment Incentives - Government, Nonprofit, Institutional 

Program 

The purpose of the SEI GNI program is to increase the energy efficiency of GNI facilities. This 

program provides all of the same services offered within the C&I segment of the SEI program. 

However, the GNI program only offers incentives to GNI customers who install high-efficiency 

electric equipment. The SEI GNI program also enables customers to capture opportunities to 

reduce consumption by retrofitting street lighting and traffic signal lights. The street and traffic 

signal lighting projects are referred to as "municipal lighting" projects in this report. In 

addition, the GNI program was intended to provide assistance with obtaining facility audits, 

but this portion of the program has not been used to date. The SEI GNI program has four subcomponents: retrofit projects, multi-tenant projects, appliance-recycling projects, and new 

construction projects. 

7.1 Program Updates 

The SEI GNI program remained unchanged for the first three quarters of PY4 with project 

applications being placed on a wait list. PECO instituted this wait list as it appeared from 

savings projections that the Phase I program goals were achieved. However, as of March 15, 

2013, PECO lifted the wait list and there was a surge in the number of applications that were 

submitted in Q4 of the program year. 

In PY4, GNI Multi-tenant projects within the GNI sector were not evaluated in PY4 due to the 

very small percentage of overall program savings and the realization rates were set to 1.0. 

Likewise, GNI appliance recycling projects conducted in the GNI sector were not evaluated in 

PY4 due to the very small percentage of overall program savings and the realization rates were 

set to 1.0. 

New Construction projects in the GNI sector were evaluated as part of the Smart Construction 

Incentive (SCI) program. Complete details on evaluation of these projects can be found in the 

SCI section of this report. 

7.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

Table 7-1 shows the total participants, reported gross energy savings. Top 100 Hours reported 

gross demand reduction, and total reported gross demand reduction and incentives for PY4 and 

Phase I (CPITD). The total Phase I SEI GNI reported gross savings were 215,682 MWh and 36.2 

MW. The reported results and incentives from GNI Retrofit projects, GNI Multi-tenant projects, 

PECO Energy Company | Page 117 
GNI New Construction Projects, and GNI Appliance Recycling projects combined and shown 

under the GNI sector. Table 7-2 shows the reported results by program component. In PY4, the 

program incentivized a total of 325 projects covering 273:,7 SEI GNI retrofit projects, 8 GNI 

Multi-tenant projects, 44 SEI GNI New Construction (GNI NC) projects. The table below also 

details the reported gross energy savings, reported gross demand reduction, and incentives for 

each program component. 

Table 7-1. PY4 GNI Program Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting 

Period Participants111 

Reported 

Cross Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 Hours 

Reported 

Gross Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

PY4 Qi 81 9,416 4.9 1.4 905 

PY4Q2 57 13,574 0.0 1.7 1378 

PY4 Q3 42 33,305 0.0 5.3 2957 

PY4Q4 145 28,561 0.0 2.8 2909 

PY4 Total'2' 325 84,855 4.9 11.3 8,149 

CPITD Total 1,129 177,540 19.1 25.5 17,176 

NOTES: 

11 ] The total participants (projects) tor PY4 was 325, However, PY4 verified savings were based on 321 projects. Pour 

project numbers (two projects) were not included in the PY4 evaluation because the savings estimates were not ready in 

time. 

|2J Total incentives will not match amounts reported in PY4 Q4 report due to the addition of incentive amounts for GNI 

NC program in QI and Q2 of PY4. These were incorrectly reported as 0.0 in the previously submitted i|uarter1y reports. 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnhjsb 

"The total number of PY4 GNI retrofit projects is 273. However, four projects were not verified in the PY4 evaluation and report, 

but will instead be verified at a later date once the project files are ready for evaluation. These projects and the associated savings 

are reported in Table 7-4 and Table 7-5 as "unverified" savings. These projects were not verified as part of (he PY4 evaluation 

because the applications were received at the end of Phase I and there was insufficient time to assign savings to these projects. The 

projects represent two parts of one larger project installation (PECO-11-02721 & PECO-ll-04675 and PECO-n-04473 & PRCO-I3-

04676), These projects and associated savings are included in the totals for CNJ retrofit projects below. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 118 
Table 7-2. PY4 GNI Program Reported Results by Sector 

Sector 

Participants 

in 

Reported 

Gross Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

'($1,000) 

Residential 0 0 0 0 0 

Low-Income 0 0 0 0 0 

Commercial and Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 

Government and Non-Profit[ 2 1 325 84,856 4.9 11.3 8,149 

PY4 Total 325 84,856 4.9 11.3 8,149 

CPITD Total 1,129 177,540 19.1 25.5 17,176 

NOTES: 

[11 The total participants'(pi'6jects) for PY4 was 325. However, l'Y4 verified savings were based on 321 projecls. I'our 

project numbers (two projects) were not included in the PY4 evaluation because the savings estimates were not ready in 

time. 

|2| Total incentives will not match amounts reported in PY4 Q4 report due to the addition of incentive amounts for CNI 

NC.program in Ql and Q2 of PY4. These were incorrectly reported as 0.0 in Hie previously submitted quarterly reports. 

Source: Nnviganl anah/sis 

7.2.1 M&V Methodology 

The evaluation of tlie SEI GNI program consisted of four sub-components: GNI Retrofit 

projects, GNI Multi-tenant projects, GNI New Construction projects, and GNI Appliance 

Recycling projects. The M&V methodology for the SEI GNI Retrofit program was very similar 

to the PY3 methodology. The primary modification was that the multi-tenant and appliance 

recycling projects were not evaluated in PY4 due to the very small percentage of overall 

program savings. The realization rate for SEI multi-tenant projects and appliance recycling 

projects was deemed at 1.0 for PY4 for the purposes of evaluation. The GNI new construction 

projects were evaluated as part of the Smart Construction Incentives program and additional 

details can be found in the Smart Construction Incentives program section of this report. The 

remainder of this section focuses exclusively on the M&V methodology for GNI retrofit projects. 

Measurement and verification in PY4 included on-site data collection for most sampled sites. 

The municipal lighting projects received a phone interview in-addition to the desk review in 

accordance with the evaluation plan. One of the municipal lighting projects was a traffic signal 

LED replacement project and received a file review only. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 119 
Gross impacts for demand and energy were verified through different approaches for the three 

categories of measures in this program: 1) deemed, 2) partially deemed, and 3) custom 

measures. The measures in these categories are defined by the TRM3" plus interim measure 

protocols approved by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission through the SWE team. If a 

measure was deemed, the impacts for the measure were provided in the TRM or in an 

approved IMP. The evaluation approach for deemed measures was to verify both the installed 

quantity and that the installed measure matched the TRM-required specifications. 

If a measure was partially deemed, the TRM or approved IMP provided the algorithms and 

default assumptions for calculating impacts and the variables to be verified. Depending on the 

complexity of the partially deemed measure, the evaluation team applied either a Basic or 

Enhanced level of rigor as described in the applicable protocols and the Audit Plan.39 The 

evaluation team conducted an application and file review and developed a site-specific M&V 

plan for all partially deemed projects. The team completed site visits or phone interviews (if the 

criteria described above were satisfied) following the activities laid out in the SSMVP, and 

calculated verified savings using the variables determined through the site visit or phone 

interview in accordance with the TRM or IMP. 

For projects that included custom measures (defined as measures not included in the TRM or in 

an IMP, or measures that were initially reported as TRM measures, but determined through the 

evaluation to be custom), the evaluation team conducted an application review, developed 

SSMVPs, and conducted site visits. Tlie primary difference was that there were no deemed 

variables and all custom measures followed an enhanced rigor level of effort. The evaluation 

team produced ex post engineering-based estimates of gross annual energy and summer peak 

demand impacts for each sampled project. The peak kW savings estimation methodology was 

consistent with PECO requirements for each project and utilized the approved Act 129 peak 

demand calculators, where applicable. The evaluation of PY4 projects included a review of 

program-tracking data and supporting documentation (invoices, spec sheets) before developing 

an SSMVP and conducting a site inspection or phone interview. The focus of the data collection 

for all sites at the basic and enhanced rigor levels was to verify and/or update the assumptions 

'

1B

 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, June 2012. Technical Reference Manual (TRM) for Pennsylvania Act 129 Energy 

lifficiency and Conservation Program and Act 213 Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards. 

3 9

 The Statewide Evaluation Team: GDS Associates, Inc., Nexant, & Mondre linergy; contracted under the Pennsylvania Public 

Utility Commission REP 2009-1 for the Statewide Evaluator, Audit Plan and Evaluation Framework for Pennsylvania Act 129 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs, November 4, 2011. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 120 
that feed into analyses of measure-level savings. Data collection included: verification of 

installation quantity, operating schedule, and system loading conditions; validation of baseline 

selection; assessment of persistence; and verification that the systems are functioning and 

operating as planned {and if not, how the current operation differs from planned operation, 

taking into account daily, weekly, and seasonal variations). 

The enhanced rigor level site evaluations generally included performing on-site data collection 

and measurement activities, and, for several sites, obtaining participants' collected data from 

records or building automation systems to support downstream M&V calculations. Monitoring 

efforts included spot measurements, run-time hour data logging, power/amperage metering, 

depending on the needs of the project. Customer-supplied data from an EMS or supervisory 

control and data acquisition systems were used when available. In addition, the team requested 

billing data for all projects from PECO on a monthly or '15-minute interval basis, depending on 

the site. 

7.2.2 Sample Design 

The sample design for PY4 SEI retrofit projects used stratified ratio estimation similar to the 

method used in PYl through PY3. Based on a combined paid annual population of 269,,n GNI 

retrofit projects, the final evaluated sample size was 36 GNI projects for the program year, with 

samples allocated by participation from each quarter and by stratum. The sample size was 

targeted to achieve an 85/15 confidence and precision level with coefficients of variation chosen 

to reflect the PY3 achieved relative precision targets. One of the sampled Municipal Lighting 

stratum projects was not able to be verified and was therefore dropped from the final savings 

roll-up. 

The strata boundaries defined for sampling purposes were as follows: 

• Stratum 1 (Large)>l/500,000 kWh 

o 500,000 kWh < Stratum 2 (Medium) < 1,500,000 kWh 

o 0 kWh < Stratum 3 (Small) < 500,000 kWh 

For the GNI program, all municipal lighting projects were assigned to Stratum 4. In addition, 

the team also separated CHP in its own stratum due to the large and distinct nature of these 

•"'The lolal number of PY4 GNI retrofit projects is 273. However, four projects will not be verified in the PY4 evaluation nnd report, 

but will instead be verified at a Inter date once the project files are ready for evaluation. See footnote 37 for more information. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 121 
projects. Due to the method used to define the strata boundaries early in the process and the 

influx of waitlist projects at the end of PY4, strata 1, 2, and 3 contain more or less than 33 

percent of the total PY4 reported kWh savings. The sample was pulled in four stages: after Q2 

using both Ql and Q2 data, after Q3, during Q4, and after Q4. During each stage, the sample 

design was reviewed and adjustments were made as needed to ensure that the sample design 

would meet the target confidence and precision. This process included reviewing the projects in 

the pipeline and estimating the number of projects that would be completed prior to the end of 

PY4. The percentage of total sample pulled from each stage was based on the number of 

completed projects in that stage as a proportion of the expected number of projects for the entire 

program year. Lastly, the team included all projects in the sample design, but only sampled 

from projects representing the top 95 percent of aggregate program savings. The team 

determined that sampling from the smallest projects representing the bottom 5 percent of 

aggregate program savings would be of limited value to the program evaluation. 

Table 7-3 below includes the sampling strategies for SEI GNI retrofit program gross impact 

analysis and the process evaluation activities; the participant survey and the participating 

contractor survey. The table also includes the sampling strategy for GNI NC projects. 

Table 7-3. GNI Program Sampling Strategy for PY4 

Stratum 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

GNI - Large 

>1,500,000 

kWh 1 0.6 85/15 4 1 

Impact: On-site 

verification 

GNI -

Medium 

<1,500,000 

kWh, >500,000 

kWh 

18 0.9 85/15 12 12 Impact: On-site 

verification 

GNI - Small <500,000 kWh 229 0.7 85/15 12 13 

Impact: On-site 

verification 

GNI - CHP N/A 4 0.5 85/15 3 4 

Impact: On-site 

verification 

GNI - Muni 

Lighting 

N/A '17 0.4 85/15 6 6 

Impact: Desk 

Review and 

phone 

verification 

Activity 

Subtotal 269 85/15 37 36 

SEI GNI - NC 

-Strata 1 [3| >750,000 kWh 2 0.5 85/15 2 2 Impact: Site 

Visits (Strata 1, 

SE 2, WB1) and I GNI - NC 200,000 - 4 0.5 85/15 2 2 

Impact: Site 

Visits (Strata 1, 

2, WB1) and 

PECO Energy Company | Page 122 
Stratum 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Target

 1 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision , 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

-Strata 2 [3] 750,000 kWh Desk Reviews 

(all) 

Process: 

Participant 

Surveys 

SMGNI-NC 

- Strata 3 [31 

<200/000 kWh 27 0.5 85/15 4 4 

Desk Reviews 

(all) 

Process: 

Participant 

Surveys SlilGNI-NC 

- WB I [3] >750/000 kWh 1 0.5 85/15 1 1 

Desk Reviews 

(all) 

Process: 

Participant 

Surveys 

Sttt GNI - NC 

- WB 2J3| 

<750,000 kWh 10 0.5 85/15 4 4 

Desk Reviews 

(all) 

Process: 

Participant 

Surveys 

Activity 

Subtotal 44 85/15 13 13 

GNI Lighting 

- Large 

> 600,000 kWh 7 0.5 85/10 7 2 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and NTG 

research 

GNI Lighting 

- Medium 

> 100,000 and 

S 600,000 kWh 23 0.5 85/10 7 7 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and NTG 

research 

GNI Lighting 

-Small 

> 20,000 and <. 

100,000 kWh 54 0.5 85/10 7 7 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and NTG 

research 

GNI Lighting 

- Municipal 

> 20,000 and <, 

200,000 kWh 13 0.5 85/10 6 2 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and NTG 

research 

Activity 

Subtotal 97 85/10 27 18 

GNI NonlightingVery large 

>33,000,000 

kWh 1 0.5 85/10 1 1 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and NTG 

research 

GNI NonlightingLarge > 800,000 and 

< 3,500,000 

kWh 

9 0.5 85/10 8 2 Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and NTG 

research 

GNI NonlightingMedium 

> 80,000 and < 

800,000 kWh 17 0.5 85/10 6 6 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and NTG 

research 

GNI NonlightingSmall 

> 20,000 and £ 

80,000 kWh 15 0.5 85/10 6 6 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participant 

survey and NTG 

research 

Activity 

Subtotal 42 85/10 21 15 

Stratum 1 -

Very Large 

> 9,000,000 

kWh 3 0.5 85/10 ' 3 0 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participating 

contractor 

survey 

Stratum 2 -

Large 

> 1,000,000 

and < 

6,000,000 kWh 

12 0.5 85/10 10 3 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participating 

contractor 

Stratum survey 3 -

Medium 

> 300,000 and 

51,000,000 48 0.5 85/10 7 7 

Process 

Evaluation: 

Participating 

contractor 

survey 

PECO Energy Company | Page 123 
Stratum 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

kWh 

Stratum 4 -

Small 

> 60,000 and £ 

300,000 kWh 

148 0.5 85/10 8 8 

Activity 

Subtotal 

148 85/10 8 8 

Program 

Total 600 106 90 

11 ] CNI - Appliance Recycling and CNI - MuHi-tenant projects were not sampled in I'Y4. 

{2\ The total number of Sl:l GNI projects in f'Y4 was 273. Mowever, four projects were not verified in the PY4 evaluation, but they 

will be verified at a later dale once the project files are ready for evaluation. 

[31 Smarl I-quipmenl Incentives - New Construction sampling strategy for PY4 is for the broader Smart Construction Incentives 

program; the sampling plan shown above is for the GNI new construction projects only. 

Source: Nnvigant nmh/sis 

7.2.3 Gross Impact Evaluation Findings 

The evaluation team completed site-specific evaluations of 35 sampled projects in PY4 for the 

SEI GNI retrofit program. The gross impact results for the GNI retrofit projects yielded an 

energy realization rate of 0.93 and a peak demand realization rate of 0.98. Relative precision 

levels for verified gross savings were 12 percent for energy and 4 percent for demand at an 85 

percent confidence interval, which are better than the targeted relative precision of 15 percent. 

The main reasons behind the relative precision levels (and greater accuracy) were the sampling 

strategy (incorporating more sample points to counteract high error ratios encountered in PY3) 

and the accuracy of savings estimates for several large projects. 

The evaluation team found that the ex ante calculations for projects involving EMS measures 

utilized assumed savings values of 2 kWh per square foot and 0.0001 kW per square foot41 as 

was common in PY3. The evaluation team believes that the deemed savings values may be a 

viable rule of thumb in certain cases, but they are an inaccurate way of estimating site-specific 

savings for impact evaluations. Use of these factors has typically caused an inaccurate 

•"Columns AM-AL of the'300' tab ofthe LDC quarterly tracking database extracts. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 124 
estimation of energy savings and peak demand savings due to the EMS controlling a range of 

equipment in varying building types with diverse schedules. This resulted in widely varying 

project realization rates. 

Tine evaluation team also found a range of realization rates for other retrofit project types due to 

the following reasons: 

• Incorrect baseline classification in the ex ante estimates 

• Adjustments to hours of use and equipment quantities for lighting projects 

• Peak demand savings not based on the SWE-approved peak demand calculators 

• Evaluation site visit findings varied from the assumptions used in the ex ante 

calculations. 

As discussed previously, the GNI multi-tenant and appliance recycling projects were not 

evaluated in PY4 due to the very small percentage of overall program savings. The realization 

rate for SEI multi-tenant projects and appliance recycling projects was deemed at 1.0 for PY4 for 

the purposes of evaluation. The GNI new construction projects were evaluated under the Smart 

Construction Incentives program and pertinent details of this evaluation may be found under 

the SCI program section of this report. 

The evaluation team provided PECO the site-specific M&V reports for the verified projects. 

These site-specific impact evaluation reports summarize the ex ante savings, the ex post M&V 

plan, the data collected at the site, and all of the calculations and parameters used to estimate 

savings. Stratum 1 (Large) energy realization rate was 64 percent with a 0 percent stratum-level 

relative precision. Stratum 2 (Medium) had a relative precision of 17 percent due to realization 

rates ranging from 35 percent to 187 percent. Stratum 3 (Small) had a relative precision of 47 

percent with realization rates ranging from 34 percent to 224 percent, while the CHP and 

municipal lighting stratum had a very low (<1 percent) relative precision with all sampled 

projects at almost 100 percent realization rates. Table 7-4 presents the strata-level and programlevel relative precision levels for verified gross energy savings for each of the GNI program 

components. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 125 
Table 7-4. PY4 GNI Program Summary of Evaluation Results for Energy 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh)'"' 3' 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of Variation 

(Cv)'or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

GNI - Large 1,837 0.64 0.00 0.00 1,168 0 

GNI-Medium 14,584 0.85 0.04 0.17 12,381 0 

GNI - Small 18,857 0.91 0,00 0.47 17,126 0 

GNI - CHP 37,719 0.98 0.00 0.00 34,510 2,677 

GNI - Muni Lighting 1,044 1.00 0.00 0.01 1,041 0 

GNI - Multi-tenant Tl 1.00 N/A N/A 11 0 

GN2 - Appliance Recycling 0 1.00 N/A N/A 0 0 

SEI GNI - NC - Strata 1 W 2,740 1.19 0.19 0.00 3,273 0 

SEI GNI-NC-Strata 213' 1,160 1.41 0.41 0.74 1,631 0 

SEI GNI - NC - Strata 311' 1,614 0.94 0.06 0.07 1,525 0 

SEI GNI - NC - WB 1 PI 3,045 0.95 0.00 0.00 2,893 0 

SEI GNI-NC-WB2i; ,i 2,243 1.01 0.03 0.01 2,258 0 

Program Total 84,855 0.95 N/A 0.12 77,817 2,677 

NOTES: 

111 Reported gross energy savings includes nil savings - both verified and unveritled gross savings - for PY4 projecls. 

[21 The reported gross energy savings include two additional projecl numbers nnd associated savings that were not included in the 

PY4 Q4 rcporl because the project savings were estimated after the PY4 Q4 report. The total number of PY4 GNI projects is 273. 

However, four projects were not verified in ihe PY4 evaluation nnd report, but will instead be verified at n later date once the 

project files are ready for evaluation. These projects and the savings will be reported as "unverified" savings in the Phase 1 

compliance report. These projects will not be verified in the PY4 evaluation and report because the applications were received at the 

end of Phase 1 and there was insufficient time to assign savings to these projects. The projects represent two parts of one larger 

project installation (PLCO-11-0272I & PLCO-11-04675 and PLCO-11-04473 & PI.:CO-13-04676). Therefore, theae four projects were 

not included in the sample design. 

[3j CNI New Construction (NC) measures were evaluated under the Smart Construction Incentives program. This table only 

contains reported and verified savings for the PY4 GNI NC projects. 

Source. Nnvignnt nmh/sis 

Stratum 1 (Large) demand realization rate was 220 percent with a 0 percent stratum-level 

relative precision. Stratum 2 (Medium) had a relative precision of 13 percent, with project 

realization rates ranging from 48 percent to 169 percent. Stratum 3 (Small) had a relative 

precision of 10 percent with project realization rates ranging from 67 percent to 130 percent, 

while the CHP and municipal lighting stratum had a 0 percent relative precision with all 

sampled projects at or near 100 percent realization rates. Table 7-5 presents the strata-level and 

PECO Energy Company | Page 126 
prog ram-level relative precision levels for verified gross demand savings for each of the GNI 

program components. 

Table 7-5. PY4 GNI Program Summary of Evaluation Results for Demand 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW)I'"I*M41 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of Variation 

(C) or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision at 

85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) w 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) HI 

GNI - Large 0.1 2.2 0.00 0.00 0.2 0 

G N I - Medium 1.8 0.9 0.02 0.13 1.6 0 

G N I - Small 3.4 1.0 0.00 0.10 3.3 0 

GNI-CH P 4.1 1.0 0.00 0.00 3.7 0.3 

G NI - Muni Lighting 0.1 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.1 0 

G NI - Multi-tenant 0.002 1.0 N/A N/A 0.002 0 

GNI - Appliance 

Recycling 

0.0 1.0 N/A N/A 0.0 0 

Slil GNI - NC - Strata I PI 0.5 1.6 0.69 0.02 0.8 0 

SEI GNI-NC-Strat a 213' 0.2 1.3 0.40 0.2 0.3 0 

SEI GNI - NC - Strata 3 P' 0.4 1.1 0.20 0.4 0.5 0 

SEI GNI - NC - WB 1 PI 0.4 1.6 0.00 0.0 0.6 0 

SEIGN1-NC-WB2P1 0.4 1.8 0.28 0.2 0.7 0 

Program Total 11.3 1.1 0.04 11.7 0.3 

NOTES: 

111 Reported gross energy savings includes all savings - both verilied and unverified gross savings - for PY4 projects. 

|2| The reported gross energy pavings include two additional project numbers and associated savings that were not included in the 

PY4Q4 report because the project savings were estimated after the PY4Q4 report. The total number of PY4 CNI projects is 273. 

Mowever, four projects were not verified in the PY4 evaluation and report, but will instead be verified at a laler date once the project 

files are ready for evaluation. These projects and the savings will be reported as "unverified" savings in the Phase 1 compliance 

report. These projects will not be verified in the PY4 evaluation and report because the applications were received at the end of Phase 

1 and there was insufficient lime lo assign savings to these projects. The projects represent two parts of one larger project installation 

(PHCO-11-02721 & PLCO-11-04675 and PLCO-11-04473 & PLCO-t3-04676). Therefore, these four projects were not included in the 

sample design. 

|3j CNI New Construction (NC) measures were evaluated under the Smarl Conslruclion Incentives program. This table only contains 

reported and verified savings for the PY4 CNI NC projects. 

|4] The reported gross demand reduclion, verified gross demand reduclion, and unverified gross demand reduction include ihe line 

loss factor. 

Source: Nnvignnt nnaiysis 

7.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

The primary objective of the net savings analysis was to determine the program's net effect on 

the program savings. After gross program impacts have been assessed, net program impacts are 

PECO Energy Company | Page 127 
derived by estimating an NTG ratio that quantifies the percentage of the gross program impacts 

that can reliably be attributed to the program. 

Once free ridership and spillover have been estimated, the NTG ratio is calculated as follows: 

NTG Ratio = 1 - Free-ridership Rate + Spillover Rate 

Free ridership was assessed using a customer self-report approach following a framework that 

was developed for evaluating net savings of California's 2006-2008 non-residential energy 

efficiency programs. This method calculates free ridership using data collected during 

participant phone surveys concerning the following three items: 

1. A Timing and Selection score that reflects the influence of the most important various 

program and program-related elements in the customer's decision to implement the 

specific program measure at this time. 

2. A Program Influence score that reveals the perceived importance of the program 

(whether rebate, recommendation, or other program intervention) relative to nonprogram factors in the customers' decision to implement the specific program measure. 

This score is cut in half if they learned about the program after they decided to 

implement the measures. 

3. A No-Program score that captures the likelihood of various actions the customer might 

have taken at this time and in the future if the program had not been available. This 

score accounts for deferred free ridership by incorporating the likelihood that the 

customer would have installed program qualifying measures at a later date if the 

program had not been available. 

Each of these scores represents the highest response or the average of several responses given to 

one or more questions about the decision to install a program measure. The rationale for using 

the maximum value is to capture the most important element in the participant's decisionmaking process. The calculation of free ridership for the program is a multi-step process. The 

participant survey covered a battery of questions used to assess free ridership for a specific end 

use and project. The evaluation team uses survey responses to calculate a Timing and Selection 

score, a Program Influence score, and a No-Program score for each project covered through the 

survey. These three scores can be given values of 0 to 10 where a lower score indicates a higher 

level of free ridership. The calculation then averages those three scores to come up with a 

measure-level free-ridership score. If the customer has additional measures at the same site as 

part of the same project, the survey asked whether the customer's responses also apply to the 

PECO Energy Company | Page 128 
other measures. If that is the case, the entire project is given the same score. In addition, the 

survey asked if the responses apply to other PY4 projects, if applicable. 

The evaluation team used a separate ratio estimation statistical method to combine the 

participant net of free-ridership ratios for the C&I and GNI sampled projects up to the programlevel net of free-ridership ratios. In this method, a separate ratio is calculated for each stratum 

and then applied to the population savings in each stratum. The sum of the verified net savings 

for each stratum is calculated and is compared to the sum of the verified gross savings resulting 

in a program-level net of free-ridership ratio. 

The evaluation team asked program participants a battery of questions to quantitatively assess 

spillover- Below are examples of the spillover questions: 

1. Since your participation in the program, did you install any additional energy efficiency 

measures at this facility that did not receive incentives through any utility or 

government program? 

2. Could you describe the energy efficiency measure installed? 

3. Thinking of the additional nieasure(s) you installed on your own at this same facility; 

How does the energy savings compare to what you installed through the program? 

Were the savings lower, about the same or higher? (Probe for percentage as compared to 

all incented projects) 

4. How significant was your experience in PECO's program in your decision to install this 

measure, using a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all significant and 10 is extremely 

significant? 

5. Since participating in the program, have you installed any energy-efficient measures in 

other facilities within PECO's territory? 

6. Thinking of these additional measure(s) you installed on your own at other facilities, 

how does the quantity compare to what you installed through the program? Did you 

install more, less or the same amount of measures? (Probe for percentage as compared to 

all incented projects) 

7. Have or will these measures receive incentives through the program? 

8. What were the reasons that they did not receive an incentive? 

Additionally, the evaluation team asked participating contractors whether they were seeing 

more customers within PECO's service territory purchase energy-efficient equipment without 

program incentives. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 129 
Spillover was calculated by asking participants how the energy savings of the un-incented 

measures compared, as a percentage saved (e.g., 10%, 20%, and 30%), to the savings of all of 

their incented projects. This self-reported percentage was then multiplied by the amount of 

influence PECO's program had on the decision to install the additional measures (Program 

Influence Score for spillover). The program spillover percentage was determined by dividing 

the total self-reported kWh described above by the total of all incented kWh savings obtained 

by the program in PY4. All spillover estimates were calculated by Navigant using customer selfreported data and no follow-up interviews or site visits were conducted. 

For GNI customers, the evaluation team found a combined kWh-weighted NTG ratio at the 

program level of 0.64 and a combined kW-weighted NTG ratio at the program level of 0.65. 

NTG ratios were based on free ridership and spillover. 

7.4 Process Evaluation 

The evaluation team conducted process evaluation activities jointly for the SEI C&I and the SEI 

GNI programs, as many of the administrators and contractors were common. The evaluation 

team conducted three primary research activities to perform the process evaluation. These 

activities consisted of in-depth phone interviews with PECO program management and KEMA 

implementation staff (6), CATI surveys with participating contractors (18 contractors), and 

CATI surveys with program participants (30 C&I customers). 

Table 7-3 provides a summary of the evaluation activities and the sampling strategy. The 

tracking data for the sample frame was extracted from a copy of the PECO online database 

delivered electronically to the evaluation team on a quarterly basis. The activities conducted 

during the process evaluation are further described in the following sections. 

7.4.1 PECO Program Management Staff and KEMA Staff Interviews 

The evaluation team conducted three in-depth interviews with PECO staff and three in-depth 

interviews with key members of the Smart Equipment Incentives program implementation 

contractor team, KEMA, during the months of February and March 2013. The interviews were 

designed to enable the evaluation team to ask closed-ended questions about the program's 

administration and delivery during PY4 and also to obtain "real-time" information about 

current program activity through asking open-ended questions that created a "free-flowing" 

conversation. To inform these interviews, the evaluation team reviewed current program 

reporting documents, marketing materials, and customer materials, such as the Wait-list 

Policies and Procedures document. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 130 
The evaluation team found the following information during the in-depth interviews: 

• PECO and KEMA staff both reported the waitlist continued to have an effect on the 

program in PY4. In anticipation of the waitlist being lifted in PY4, PECO and KEMA 

staff were proactive in reaching out to customers with waitlisted projects to aide them in 

moving the project forward or making the decision to cancel them. 

• Of the projects that remained in the pipeline and were accepted before the waitlist was 

instituted, program staff reported that the majority were large projects, such as CHP 

projects accounting for sizable savings. The complexity of these projects continued to 

challenge both PECO and KEMA staff. While PECO staff was confident that up to 450 

projects from the waitlist would be moved to fill the pipeline, there was concern that a 

"phantom" rush of applications could be encountered when the waitlist was ultimately 

lifted. 

• Both PECO and KEMA staff commented there is a renewed focus on Quality Assurance 

and Quality Control. For instance, PECO now documents gold quality inspections, silver 

quality inspections, and inspections of unacceptable quality. In the future, PECO plans 

to have iPads to take on-site visits, enabling more pictures and real-time uploads of new 

data. 

7.4.2 Program Participating Customer Survey 

The evaluation team conducted a participating customer CATI survey for the PY4 Smart 

Equipment Incentives program. Tlie survey assessed all of the parameters necessary to calculate 

free ridership and NTG. Additional data was collected to support the process evaluation (such 

as program design and implementation, program marketing and awareness, and customer 

satisfaction), a qualitative assessment of spillover, and business demographics for the process 

component of the evaluation. 

The sampling unit for the process evaluation was the unique participating customers; it did not 

include projects where the primary contact person in the database was a contractor or the 

project did not have contact information.112 The rationale for contacting unique participating 

customers was to get project information from the final decision maker. Overall, 139 unique 

participant contacts completed 236 GNI retrofit projects in PY4. 

4 1

 There were 212 projecls with a contractor as the primary contact person in the database. There were 6 projecls without contact 

information. These were not included in the sample. The 3 projecl numbers that were nol included in the PY4 impact evaluation 

were included in the process evaluation sampling population. At the time of the process evaluation sample design, the team only 

had information on 3 of the 6 project numbers that were not included in the PY4 impact evaluation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 131 
The evaluation team targeted 90 completed surveys for the SEI retrofit program, 42 C&I surveys 

and 48 GNI surveys. The samples were designed to achieve 85/10 confidence/precision 

individually and exceed that when combined to the program level. The evaluation team 

completed 33 SEI GNI surveys (18 lighting project participants and 15 non-lighting/custom 

project participants). A large number of SEI program participants (40) were not interviewed due 

to the maximum number of contact attempts being reached. 

The analysis of the participant survey data showed customer satisfaction was high across the 

various program processes and sectors. Eighty-six percent of GNI participants were satisfied43 

with the SEI program and 88 percent were satisfied with PECO. Satisfaction with the SEI 

program was similar between lighting and non-lighting GNI participants. Seventy-five percent 

of GNI participants also reported satisfaction with the incentive amount. The evaluation team 

found 90 percent of GNI participants were satisfied with their interaction with program staff. 

Eighty-two percent of GNI program participants were satisfied with the measures offered, and 

94 percent of GNI program participants were satisfied with the contractor used to complete 

their project. 

7.4.3 Participating Contractor Survey 

A Computer-Aided Telephone Interview survey was conducted at the contractor level; thus, the 

sample covered both SEI C&I retrofit and SEI GNI retrofit projects. In total, 211 contractors 

completed 639 SEI projects41 in PY4. The contractor database was first sorted to reflect unique 

participating contractors. After the data cleaning process, the design resulted in a target of 28 

interviews with participating contractors. The evaluation team completed a total of 18 

contractor interviews in July 2013. The evaluation team did not meet the target due to a large 

number of refusals, disconnected phone numbers, and maximum attempts reached. 

The analysis of the data collected through the participating contractor survey showed there was 

somewhat less satisfaction among participating contractors than participants. In general, about 

three-quarters of participating contractors were satisfied with PECO and two-thirds were 

satisfied with the SEI program. Contractors suggested to PECO that it more effectively 

Survey respondents are considered satisfied if they answered 7 or greater, on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is "extremely dissatisfied" 

and 10 is "extremely satisfied." 

Total number of projects does not include projects without contractor contact information. Navigant eliminated 290 projects that 

did not have complete contractor contact information in the database. The 3 project numbers that were not included in the PY4 

impact evaluation were included in the process evaluation sampling population. At the time of the process evaluation sample 

design, the team only had information on 3 of the 6 project numbers that were not included in the PY4 impact evaluation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 132 
communicate changes to the program now that funds were again available, including any rule 

changes. Additionally, contractors suggested shortening the amount of time it takes to get the 

rebate, expanding the types of measures that are eligible through the program such as induction 

lighting and LEDs, and increasing the amount of the rebates. 

Table 7-6. Status Report for SEI GNI Program Process Evaluations 

Recommendations 

EDC Status Report for Process Evaluations 

(Implemented, Being Considered, Rejected AND 

Explanation of Action Taken by EDC) 

PECO should increase communication with contractors 

and more closely manage relationships to improve the 

contractor and participant experience with Ihe program. 

Contractors indicated that increased communication 

from PECO was desired. In addition, program 

participants expressed that contractors were a main 

source of information about the program. PECO should 

leverage contractor relationships to communicate 

program goals to customers and use contractor training 

and communication as a way to scale up or ratchet down 

p rog ra m pa r t i ci pa t i on. 

Implemented: 

• PECO has increased the frequency of the Trade 

Ally newsletter and already sent first edition for 

phase II. 

• PECO has conducted 3 seminars in 

October with attendance of 50-100 at each event. 

• PECO is holding trade ally certification 

seminars (First one Oct. 15). 

• PECO is holding a trade ally webinar series. 

PECO launched an online trade ally portal for materials 

and live online project tracking. 

PECO should consider a sliding scale for incentive 

payments, rather than reaching program targets and 

abruptly throttling the program with a waitlist. Incentive 

amounts could be reduced when certain program subgoals are met (e.g., 50% of program goal, 75% of program 

goal, 90% of program goal). 

Being considered: Incentives were filed as a range, and 

thus PECO can adjust the rates without re-filing. 

PECO should continue to review the program measure 

fist to ensure that the latest proven technologies are 

being incented by the program. For example, PECO has 

expanded the prescriptive program LED offerings. This 

review of measures should be an ongoing process. 

Implemented: KEMA is under contract to evaluate new 

technologies from potential suppliers; leverage KEMA's 

national technology group to keep us up to date. 

PECO and/or the implementation team should develop a 

completed application example for both lighting and 

custom projects that can be utilized as a guide for 

prospective participants in the program. 

Being Considered 

Source: Nnvigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 133 
7.5 Financial Reporting 

A breakdown of the program finances is presented in Table 7-7. The TRC ratio for PY4 (1.38) is 

lower than the TRC ratios in PY3 (1.85) and PY2 (2.08), but is higher than the TRC ratio for PYl 

(0.78). The overall Phase I TRC ratio for the SEI GNI program is 1.60 and thus the SEI GNI 

program was a cost-effective offering from PECO. 

Table 7-7. Summary of GNI Program Finances 

IQ' 9 1 ($5,000) PY4 ($1,000) CPITD ($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 2,876 8,043 16,974 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies 57 131 226 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 2,934 8,174 17,200 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration'" 788 2,456 6,139 

Management121 69 255 1,283 

Marketing131 41 100 488 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 899 2,811 7,910 

EDC Evaluation Costs 275 512 1,184 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC Costsl 'l 4,108 11,498 26,295 

Participant Costs'5! N/A 48,822 80,688 

Total TRC Costs'6! N/A 52,145 89,782 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 64,285 128,693 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 7,462 14,942 

Total TRC Benefits171 N/A 71,780 143,412 

TRC Ratio'8' N/A 1.38 1.60 

NOTES 

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. 

111 Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

|2| Includes EDC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts, 

|3| Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs, 

14] Per the 2011 Total Resource Cost Test Order, the Total EDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

15] Per ihe 2011 Total Resource Cost Test Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for ihe end-use customer or program cosls 

that are proxies for participant cosls. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

|61 Total TRC Costs include LDC Evaluation Costs, LDC Implementation Costs, and Participant Costs. 

[7] Total TRC Henefits equals the sum of Tolal Lifetime Lnergy Henefits and Tolal LifetimeCapacity Itenefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due lo the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduction 

in costs of elect ric energy, generation, transmission, and dislribution capacity, nnd nalural gas valued at marginal cost for periods 

when there isa load reduction. 

|8J TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Costs. 

[9J Post PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 134 
8 Smart Construction Incentives Program 

The purpose of the SCI program is to greatly improve the energy efficiency of newly 

constructed facilities and facilities that are completely renovated or reconstructed in .the PECO 

service territory. The program covers both C&I and GNI projects.45 The SCI program provides 

facility designers and builders with training, design assistance, and prescriptive and custom 

incentives lo incorporate energy-efficient systems and construction practices in facilities that 

surpass the requirements of state and local energy codes46 or meet the requirements set forth in 

application material.47 

8.1 Program Updates 

This program launched in February 2011, during the second half of PY2. Four projects were 

completed in PY2. In PY3 PECO paid incentives for 65 projects. PY4 saw the program's largest 

participation yet with 101 paid projects. Program activities through PY4 included some 

marketing and training offerings in conjunction with the SEI program. PECO had planned to 

launch additional recruiting and training activities to attract market actors such as developers, 

engineers, and architects; however, these recruitment events were postponed due to the 

establishment of the program waitlist starting October 1, 2011 for the remainder of PY3 and 

PY4. The program also provides technical assistance, technical review, and incentive processing 

for participants. 

8.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

The impact evaluation consisted of a combination of desk review and on-site inspections for a 

sample of projects. Although the program is small, it encompasses an extensive range of 

measures and has many complex whole-building and custom projects. Prescriptive projects 

range from lighting improvements above code lighting power density allowances to HVAC, 

variable frequency drive, and refrigeration measures. Whole-building projects claim modeled 

savings for all building systems (with the exception of process equipment) from a code 

reference building. The program also offers custom incentives for new construction measures 

^ CNI projects are paid and claimed through the Slil GNI program but implemented through the SCI program. 

ASHRAIi Standard 90.1-2007 applies, in general, and is the baseline for savings comparisons. 

1 7

 l-or lighting projects the installed lighting power density must be lower than code lighting power density limits by at least 10%. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 135 
not covered by the Pennsylvania TRM. Navigant used three main approaches for evaluating 

sampled projects: 

• Desk Review. Navigant used this approach for all projects in the "low" savings stratum 

(projects smaller than 200 MWh) and all projects in the "whole building-low" stratum 

(whole building projects smaller than 750 MWh). 

• Whole-Building Verification and Modeling. Navigant conducted verification-only site 

visits for all large whole building projects (more than 750 gross reported MWh). 

Subsequent analysis included comparing model inputs to parameters verified on-site 

and making adjustments to modeled savings if needed. The team also compared model 

outputs to actual historical billing data when at least one year of electric billing data was 

available. This ensured that the modeled results were reasonably representative of 

actual consumption in the efficient case. 

• Prescriptive and Non-whole Building Custom M&V. Navigant conducted on-site 

verification at several non-whole building sites in the "medium" stratum (200-750 MWh 

of gross reported savings). Navigant verified the type and quantity of measures installed 

at these sites. Where possible, Navigant also collected trend data and/or metered data. 

For all projects, Navigant paid close attention to baseline choices, which are not always obvious 

for new construction measures. 

Table 8-1 presents the reported savings, participation, and incentives by quarter for the SCI 

program. Note that tlie GNI projects in tlie SCI program are processed in the SEI GNI program 

and are not reflected in the Table 8-1 and Table 8-2 totals. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 136 
Table 8-1. PY4 SCI Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting Period Participants 

Reported Gross 

Energy Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 Hours 

Reported 

Gross Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

PY4 Q l 2 768 0.7 0.15 86 

PY4 Q2 4 818 0 0.15 131 

PY4 Q3 1 15 0 0.00 1 

PY4Q4 50 6,721 0 1.20 877 

PY4 Total 57 8,323 0.7 1.50 1,095 

CPITD Total 103 13,554 0.7 2.38 2,011 

Source: Nnvignnl mmlysis 

Table 8-2: PY4 SCI Reported Results by Sector 

Sector Participants 

Reported 

Gross Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

TopiOO 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

Residential 0 0 0 0 0 

Low-Income 0 0 0 0 0 

Commercial and 

Industrial 

57 8,323 0.7 1.5 1,095 

Governmenl and 

Nonprofit 

0 0 0 0 0 

PY4 Total 57 8323 0.7 1.5 1,095 

CPITD Total 103 13554 0.7 2.4 2,011 

Source: Nnvigant nmh/sis 

Due to the small size of the program relative to PECO's portfolio, Navigant combined the C&I 

and GNI projects into a single sample frame for the impact evaluation. This resulted in a total of 

101 projects in the sample frame. Navigant used a stratified sample design based on project size 

(gross reported kWh) and project type: in addition to three strata for non-whole building 

projects, Navigant created two strata for whole building (WB) projects only. The sample was 

conservatively designed to meet 85 percent confidence and 10 percent precision at the program 

level. Navigant was able to achieve the impact target sample sizes for all strata as shown in 

Table 8-3. Table 8-3 also shows the sampling strategies for two components of the process 

evaluation (trade ally interviews and participant surveys). 

PECO Energy Company | Page 137 
Navigant conducted site visits for a]] sampled "high" and "medium" strata projects with the 

exception of one medium stratum project where the participant did not respond to requests for 

a site visit. For whole-building projects, which encompassed a wide variety of measures, the 

visits served to verify at least a sample of the installations for each measure. Navigant metered 

one large project but was unable to gather trend data for any projects. Navigant conducted a file 

review of the ex ante calculations for all projects in the "low" stratum. 

Table 8-3. SCI Sampling Strategy for PY4 

Stratum 

High 

Strata 

Boundaries 

>750 MWh 

Population 

Size 

2 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

0.5 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

85/15 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

2 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

2 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Gross Impact 

Evaluation: Site 

Visits (High, 

Medium, Whole 

Building High 

strata) and Desk 

Reviews (all) 

Medium 

200 - 750 

MWh 

10 0.5 85/15 5 5* 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Gross Impact 

Evaluation: Site 

Visits (High, 

Medium, Whole 

Building High 

strata) and Desk 

Reviews (all) 

Low <200 MWh 73 0.5 85/15 7 7 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Gross Impact 

Evaluation: Site 

Visits (High, 

Medium, Whole 

Building High 

strata) and Desk 

Reviews (all) 

Whole Building 

High 

>750 MWh 2 0.5 85/15 2 2 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Gross Impact 

Evaluation: Site 

Visits (High, 

Medium, Whole 

Building High 

strata) and Desk 

Whole Building Reviews (all) 

Low 

<750 MWh 14 0.5 85/15 6 6 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Gross Impact 

Evaluation: Site 

Visits (High, 

Medium, Whole 

Building High 

strata) and Desk 

Reviews (all) 

Activity 

Subtotal 

101 85/15 22 22 

Trade Allies N/A 18 N/A N/A 8 4 

Trade Ally Indepth Interviews 

Activity 

Subtotal 

18 N/A 8 4 

High >750 MWh 4 0.5 85/15 4 2 Participant 

Surveys 

(confidence and 

precision targets 

for NTG results) 

Medium 

200 - 750 

MWh 

24 0.5 85/15 11 6 

Participant 

Surveys 

(confidence and 

precision targets 

for NTG results) Low <200 MWh 73 0.5 85/15 7 8 

Participant 

Surveys 

(confidence and 

precision targets 

for NTG results) 

Activity 

Subtotal 

101 85/15 22 16 

Program Total 220 85/15 52 42 

* One site in this stratum could not be reached for an on-site visit, and results represent a desk review instead. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 138 
Table 8-4 and Table 8-5 present the results of the SCI program for both energy and demand for 

C&I projects only. Again, savings from new construction projects in the GNI sector are reported 

with savings from the SEI GNI program. The program achieved gross realization rates of 1.02 

for energy and 1.20 for demand for these projects. 

Table 8-4. PY4 SCI Summary of Evaluation Results for Energy 

Stratum 

Medium 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

2,772 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

1.05 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

0.23 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

23.5% 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

2,898 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

0 

Low 2,175 0.91 0.05 23% 1,968 0 

Whole Building High 1,685 1.15 0.00 0% 1,936 0 

Whole Building Low 1,691 1.00 0.02 0.0% 1,691 0 

Program Total 8,323 1.02 N/A 5.6% 8,494 0 

Source: Nnvigant anah/sis 

Table 8-5. PY4 SCI Summary of Evaluation Results for Demand 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(G ) or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Medium 0.67 0.86 0.32 1.9% 0.57 0 

Low 0.61 0.91 0.18 4.6% 0.56 • 0 

Whole Building 

High 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0% 0.44 0 

Whole Building 

Low 

0.21 1.06 0.39 21.7% 0.23 0 

Program Total 1.50 1.20 N/A 1.5% 1.80 0 

Source: Navigant anah/sis 

8.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

Navigant used a self-report approach to determine the NTG ratio for this program. In new 

construction projects, design firms are often key decision makers for projects and can provide 

insight into project decision making. Because of this and the fact that some projects only listed 

trade-ally contact information, Navigant relied on both participant surveys and trade ally 

interviews to inform the NTG calculation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 139 
In total, Navigant collected attribution data from one trade ally representing 1 project and 14 

participants representing 16 projects. Thus, the evaluation collected NTG inputs for a total of 17 

of the program's 101 PY4 projects. 

For each participant, the survey focused on a single project. For participants with multiple 

projects, Navigant asked about the project with the greatest savings. Tire attribution questions 

first asked about the largest measure installed (as quantified by gross reported kWh). At the end 

of the battery, participants were asked if the decision-making process was different for the other 

measures installed/ if any. If participants indicated that their decision-making process was 

different for any of the remaining measures, the interviewer repeated the key attribution 

questions. 

Navigant calculated the NTG ratio for the program as: 

NTG = l-F R + SO 

where FR - Free ridership and SO ~ spillover. The survey respondents did not indicate any 

spillover and this factor was set to zero. 

The free-ridership battery asked questions designed to inform three program scores, described 

in Table 8-6. 

Table 8-6. Components of Free-Ridership Score 

Component Description Scoring 

Number of 

Questions 

Influence Rating influence of program on 

decision 

0-10 1 

Program 

Components 

Influence of program 

components on decision 

0-10 1 

Quantity 

and 

Efficiency 

Likelihood same quantity and 

efficiency level of measures 

installed 

0-10 

0-100% 

4 

Source; Nnvignnt nmh/sis 

For national retailer participants (chain stores), where decision making often occurs at a 

national scale, the interviewer asked about both the direct influence of the PECO program as 

well as PECO's indirect influence as one of many utility rebate programs offered across the 

country. This is reflected in the Influence scores for these participants. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 140 
For PY4, Navigant also added questions for participants who submitted Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design (LEED) projects to determine whether the program was able to help 

participants achieve their LEED goals. While these participants may not have given high 

influence scores to the program directly due to their preexisting LEED goals, the program may 

have enhanced their ability to meet those goals. Navigant deducted 5 percent from the freeridership score (increasing the NTG score) for a positive answer to each of the following 

questions: 

• Was the program important in helping to refine an existing energy model? 

• Was the program's staff or technical assistance important in highlighting ways to 

achieve LEED design plans? 

• Were program incentives or technical assistance important in improving energy 

efficiency levels to meet a higher level of LEED? 

Navigant normalized each score to a percentage scale and calculated free ridership as follows: 

FR -1/3 * ((1-Influence) + (1-Program Components) + (Quantity and Efficiency)) 

Navigant found an NTG value of 0.44 for both energy and demand savings. While this value 

improved from 0.39 in PY3, it remains low. Several process recommendations for PY3 and PY4 

are designed to improve this result. 

8.4 Process Evaluation 

Navigant used several data collection activities to inform the process evaluation. In-depth 

qualitative interviews with program managers and implementation contractors and review of 

relevant program-tracking databases, documents, and other materials were central to this 

portion of the evaluation. Navigant used a CATI survey to interview participating customers to 

better understand customer satisfaction and perceptions related to the program. The data from 

this survey also supported the NTG analysis. Finally, the Navigant team conducted several 

interviews with program trade allies to identify outreach effectiveness and barriers to 

participation. 

Navigant analyzed process data to triangulate between these data sources to identify the most 

defensible conclusions and recommendations in relation to key process questions in the 

following areas: 

• Marketing and Participation 

• Program Characteristics and Barriers 

• Administration and Delivery 

PECO Energy Company | Page 141 
Through the in-depth interviews with program staff, Navigant confirmed that the 

implementation strategy for PY4 was nearly identical to that of PY3. Several PY3 

recommendations have been taken into account for the Phase II program design, but could not 

be implemented in time for PY4. For this reason, many PY3 findings and recommendations are 

also applicable to the PY4 evaluation. 

In addition to the findings from PY3, Navigant made the following observations through the 

process evaluation activities in each of the three research areas. 

Marketing and Participation 

• The percentage of respondents who heard about the program before beginning their 

projects increased from PY3 to PY4, indicating that the program may be beginning to 

reach participants earlier in the design phase. 

• Although the program is effectively reaching participants through email and account 

managers, respondents did not identify trade allies or contractors as key sources of 

program information. This indicates that design firms, who are often the primary "trade 

allies" for new construction firms, may not be branding themselves as program allies 

yet. This reflects the fact that the SCI program has not yet been able to direct outreach to 

this group; PECO is already making progress on increasing this outreach in PY5. 

Program Characteristics and Barriers 

• Participants showed high satisfaction with the program, and were especially satisfied 

with their interaction with program staff (average score of 9.31 out of 10). 

• Participants identified lack of awareness as the largest barrier to program participation 

for other firms. This again reflects the fact that PECO has not been able to promote the 

program due to the waitlist status that was in place for most of PY4. 

Program Administration and Delivery 

• Trade allies suggested streamlining the application process by using an online 

application. PECO is in the process of implementing a new online application for PY5. 

• Trade allies also suggested creating differentiation between trade allies by implementing 

more stringent guidelines for becoming a trade ally, or by encouraging customers to 

work with more active allies. 

Table 8-7 shows Navigant's process recommendations for PY4. PECO is considering or 

implementing all recommendations. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 142 
Table 8-7. Status Report for SCI Process Evaluations 

Process Recommendations 

EDC Status Report for Process Evaluations 

(Implemented, Being Considered, Rejected 

AND Explanation of Action Taken by EDC) 

Try to reach participants earlier in the design phase. Implementation in Progress 

Increase advertisement of technical assistance to help participants 

incorporate more measures. 

Being Considered 

Prioritize shift to online applications if implementation of this tool 

has not yet been completed. 

Implementation in Progress 

Promote the SCI program more aggressively, especially the whole • 

building track. 

Implementation is a goal for Phase II. 

Consider promoting highly active trade allies through the program 

website. 

Being Considered 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnl\/sis 

8.5 Financial Reporting 

The SCI program achieved TRC results of 1.96 for C&I projects, 2.07 for GNI projects, and 2.03 

overall. These results show that the program remains cost effective and can afford to invest in 

the process recommendations above of increasing outreach, technical assistance, and 

educational offerings. A breakdown of the program finances, for C&I projects only, is presented 

in Table 8-8. SCI GNI projects are included in the SEI GNI program finances. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 143 
Table 8-8. Summary of SCI Program Finances 

IQ'9' 

($1,000) 

PY4 

i($l;000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 770 962 1,575 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies 107 132 251 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 877 1,095 1,827 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration111 158 300 701 

Management121 13 47 160 

Marketing131 0 11 65 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 170 357 925 

EDC Evaluation Costs 13 22 85 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC Costsl*) 1,060 1,474 2,837 

Participant Costs'5' N /A 4,291 6,762 

Total TRC Costs" N/A 4,670 7,772 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N /A 7,632 12,115 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N /A 1,533 2,676 

Total TRC Benefits171 N/A 9,165 14,791 

TRC Ratio'81 N/A 1.96 1.90 

NOTES 

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. 

11 j Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

|2J Includes LL>C program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

[3] Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs hy program CSPs. 

[4] Per the 2011 Total Resource Cost Test Order, the Total EDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

[5] Per the 2011 "Total Resource Cosl Test Order, the net Participant Cosls are the costs for the end-use customer or program cosls 

that are proxies for participant cosls. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

[61 Total TRC Costs includes LDC Evaluation Costs, EDC Implementation Costs, and Participant Costs. 

|7j Total TRC Henefits equals the sum of Total Lifetime Lnergy Henefits and Tolal LifetimeCapacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due to the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduction 

in costs of electric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued at marginal cost for periods 

when there is a load reduction. 

[SJ TRC Ratio equals Tolal TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Costs. 

191 Posl PY4 costs and benefits a re included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 144 
9 Conservation Voltage Reduction Program 

The Conservation Voltage Reduction (CVR) program achieves load reductions through changes 

in voltage regulation parameters, at the substation/transformer level.. This change involves, a 

physical adjustment in transformer settings governing voltage at the substation. By adjusting 

substation voltage, the program impacts hourly energy flows and capacity, including demand 

coincident with the system peak period(s), included within the top 100 (peak demand) hours on 

the system load duration curve. Changes to voltage settings at substation/feeder locations were 

completed during a four-month period from February through May 2010 in PECO's CVR 

program. 

9.1 Program Updates 

The CVR program was fully implemented by the end of PY2. There was no incremental 

program activity in PY4, so there are no energy or demand savings attributed to the program in 

PY4. 

9.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

Table 9-1 presents cumulative savings from the CVR program activity in PY2. Note that as this 

program is implemented at PECO's substations, none of PECO's customers actively participate 

directly in the program, but all ratepayers are its beneficiaries. 

Table 9-1. CPITD Conservation Voltage Reduction Program Reported Results by Sector 

Reported Reported Gross 

Cross Energy Demand 

Savings Reduction Incentives 

Sector Participants (MWh/yr) (MW) ($1,000) 

Residential 0 105,723 0 0 

Low-Income 0 25,630 0 0 

Commercial and Industrial 0 150,575 0 0 

Government and Non-Profit 0 38,445 0 0 

CPITD Total 0 320,372 89.3 0 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnh/sis 

9.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

As there is no opportunity for PECO customers to undertake the distribution system 

modifications implemented for this program, and PECO implemented the program in direct 

PECO Energy Company | Page 145 
response to Act 129, there is no opportunity for free riders or spillover. Therefore, the NTG ratio 

for this program is 1.0. 

9.4 Financial Reporting 

A breakdown of the program finances is presented in Table 9-2. As there was no incremental 

activity in the program in PY4, there are no incremental lifetime benefits. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 146 
Table 9-2. Summary of Conservation Voltage Reduction Program Finances 

IQI9! 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 0 0 0 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 0 0 0 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Adminislralion111 0 239 1,950 

Management'21 5 -20 139 

Marketing131 0 0 0 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 5 219 2,089 

EDC Evaluation Costs 47 91 231 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC Costsl4' 52 310 2,320 

Participant Costs'5' N /A 0 0 

Total TRC Costs'61 N/A 310 2,320 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N /A 0 335,970 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N /A 0 63,414 

Total TRC Benefits'7' N/A 0 399,384 

TRC Ratio"1' N/A 0.00 172.12 

NOTES 

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 Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

|2j Includes HOC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

13] Includes the marketing CSP and marketing cosls by program CSPs. 

14) Per the 2011 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the Tolal V.OC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

|5| Per the 2011 Total Resource Cost Test Order, the net Parlicipant Costs are ihe costs for the end-use customer or program costs 

that are proxies for parlicipanl cosls. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

|6| Tolal TRC Costs includes LDC Lvaluation Cosls, LDC Implementation Costs, and Participant Costs. 

|7| Tolal TRC Itenefits equals Ihe sum of Tolal Litetime Lnergy Menefits and Total Lifetime Capacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due to the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to Ihe 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduction 

in cosls of electric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacily, and natural gas valued at marginal cost for periods 

when Ihere is a load reduction. 

|8| TRC Ratio equals Tolal TRC Henefits divided by Tolal TRC Cosls. 

|91 Posl PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Navigant anah/sis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 147 
10 Residential Smart A/C Saver Program 

The Smart A/C Saver Program is a direct load control program for residential customers based 

on the installation of digital cycling units (DCUs) on qualified central air conditioners. 

Participants are incented at the rate of $120/year ($30 per four summer months per installed 

device). During peak summer hours, control signals can be sent to reduce air-conditioning load 

by cycling (i.e., cutting power to) the compressor 50 percent of the time for the duration of the 

event. The program was designed to provide demand response during PECO's Top 100 Hours 

of system peak loads. DCUs have been installed in participant homes, and 15 conservation 

events were called in PY4. 

10.1 Program Updates 

The Residential A/C Saver Program lost a total of 1,675 participants in PY4, bringing total 

participation to 76,976 participants by PY4 year end. PY4 was the second year the Smart A/C 

Saver Program called system-wide events, with a total of 14 system-wide events and one M&V 

group only event being called by the end of the program year. The residential M&V group is a 

statistically valid sample of residential sites that have logging equipment installed to capture 5-

minute load profile data used to calculate the load impact estimate for the entire enrolled 

population. 

10.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

Navigant applied a deemed savings value to determine residential Smart A/C Saver program 

impacts during event hours. PJM Manual 19, Attachment B48 provides that curtailment service 

providers with direct load control programs which employ a radio signal may elect to either 

submit a load research study supporting base per-participant impacts for their program, or 

utilize the base per-participant impacts contained in the Deemed Savings Estimates for Legacy Air 

Conditioning and Water Heating Direct Load Control Programs in PJM Region report. The deemed 

savings value was based on the results in Table 13 of this report, prepared by RLW Analytics for 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in April 2007.49 Table 13 specifies two sets of 

w

 PJM, Manual 19: Load Porecasting and Analysis, Attachment H: Direct Load Control Load Research Guidelines, Revision 23, 

Lffeclive Date: 6/1/2013. 

* In a guidance memo dated 8/22/2012, theSWL confirmed that Pennsylvania EDCs could use the appropriate values from Table 13 

as verified, deemed savings for DLC programs for PY4. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 148 
savings, one for a connected demand tinder 3.5 kW and one for a connected demand over 3.5 

kW. 

Since connected demand is not recorded in the program-tracking database, Navigant conducted 

research to determine the distribution of connected demand amongst residential air 

conditioners. To do so, Navigant pulled a stratified random sample of participants and 

researched the connected demand based on the unit make and model information. This research 

indicated that an estimated 52 percent of the program units have a connected load less than 3.5 

kW. For PY4, PECO's base savings value was for a weighted temperature-humidity index 

(WTHI) of 83.2 and tlie hour from 4-5 p.m., as specified by PJM. The deemed savings values 

corresponding to these conditions are 0.66 kW for units with a connected load < 3.5 kW and 1.15 

kW for units with connected load >= 3.5 kW. The weighted deemed savings value for the PECO 

residential program is 0.90 kW/unit. 

Program impacts for each hour were calculated as the product of the weighted deemed savings 

value, switch operability rate (0.97),50 line-loss factor (1.1916), and the number of units cycled 

(ranging from 91,823 to 92,715 over the course of the summer of 2012). 

To maintain consistency with the evaluation methodology applied to the DRA and DER 

programs, Navigant researched program impacts in the hour prior to and the two hours 

following the called event period. Navigant used hourly interval data for a sample of 100 M&V 

participating sites to quantify program impacts. Navigant followed the protocols specified in 

sections 3.3A.2, 3.3A.2.01, and 3.3A.3 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C., dated May 8, 2012, to calculate the program impacts during these hours. 

Navigant then estimated a regression model to predict how the impacts in the hour before and 

two hours following an event vary with the event length and the maximum WTHI during the 

event period. 

None of the regression coefficients are statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level. 

A visual inspection of the event-day load curves and baselines indicated that participants did 

not pre-cool and snapback generally did not occur after the events. The regression indicates no 

statistical evidence that the calling of events affected the customer load in the one hour before 

and two hours following an event. Nevertheless, Navigant applied the results of the regression 

analysis to the extended event hours to maintain consistency with the DRA and DER 

s n

 Residential switch operability rale study was completed by Comverge in PY3. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 149 
evaluations, per the SWE's recommendation. The regression indicated that the average load 

reduction in the hour before the event period was 0.03 kW/unit, 0.37 kW/unit in the first hour 

following the event period, and 0.24 kW/unit in the second hour following the event period. 

Table 10-1 shows reported results by quarter and Table 10-2 shows reported results by sector. 

Table 10-1. PY4 Residential Smart A/C Saver Program Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting Period Participants 

Reported Gross 

Energy Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 Hours 

Reported 

Gross Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

PY4 Ql 

1126 0 51.3 51.3 $5,555 

PY4 Q2 

-802 0 0 0 $5,601 

PY4 Q3 

-902 0 0 0 $0 

PY4Q4 

-1097 0 0 0 $0 

PY4 Total 

-1675 0 51.3 51.3 $11,157 

CPITD Total 

76976 0 51.3 51.3 $19,784 

Source: Nnvigant anah/sis 

PECO Energy Company J Page 150 
Table 10-2. PY4 Residential Smart A/C Saver Program Reported Results by Sector 

Top 100 

Hours Total 

Reported Reported 

Reported Cross Gross 

Gross Energy Demand Demand 

Savings Reduction Reduction Incentives 

Sector Participants (MWh) (MW) (MW) ($1,000) 

76,976 0 51.3 51.3 $11,157 

Residential 

0 0 0 0 $0 

Low-Income 

Commercial and 0 0 0 0 $0 

Industrial 

Government and 0 0 0 0 $0 

Nonprofit 

76,976 0 51.3 51.3 $19,784 

PY4 Total 

76,976 0 51.3 51.3 $11,157 

CPITD Total 

Source: Nnoigmit nnaiysis 

Tlie sampling strategies utilized by the Navigant team for PY4 impact and process analysis 

activities can be seen in Table 10-3. 

Table 10-3. Residential Smart A/C Saver Program Sampling Strategy for PY4 

Stratum 

Strahim 1 

Strata 

Boundaries 

<3 tons 

Population 

Size 

17,095 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

0 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

90/10 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

19 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

19 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Impact: Deemed 

Savings Sample 

Stratum 2 =3 tons 46,305 1 90/10 44 44 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Impact: Deemed 

Savings Sample 

Strahim 3 >3 tons 26,541 0 90/10 22 22 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Impact: Deemed 

Savings Sample 

Activity 

Subtotal 

89,941 90/10 85 85 

M&V Sample N/A 91,644 1 90/10 100 100 

Impact: Extended 

Event Analysis 

Activity 

Subtotal 91,644 90/10 100 100 

Residential N/A 92,530 0.5 90/10 70 74 Process: Post 

Event Survey #1 

Residential N/A 91,644 0.5 90/10 70 76 Process: Post 

Event Survey #2 

Residential N/A 90,630 0.85 90/10 200 200 

Process: 

Willingness to 

PECO Energy Company | Page 151 
Stratum 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

accept Survey 

Residential N/A 88053 0.5 90/10 70 71 Process: Post 

Season Survey 

Activity 

Subtotal 92,530 

. • 

90/10 410 421 

Residential N/A 88053 0.2 90/10 13 13 On-site 

Verification Visits 

Activity 

Subtotal 

88053 90/10 13 13 

Program Total 92,530 90/10 608 619 

Source: Nnvignnl nnnh/sis 

A summary of energy and demand results can be found in Table 10-4 and Table 10-5, 

respectively. 

Table 10-4. PY4 Residential Smart A/C Saver Program Summary of Evaluation Results for 

Energy 

Reported 

Gross Energy 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(C) or 

Proportion^ 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Unverified 

Gross 

Stratum Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(C) or 

Proportion^ 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Residential Smart 

A/C Saver 

0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 

Program Total 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnh/sis 

PECO Energy Company [ PagelB2 
Table 10-5. PY4 Residential Smart A/C Saver Program Summary of Evaluation Results for 

Demand 

Stratum 

Residential Smart A/C 

Saver 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

51.3 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

1 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

0.51 

Relative 

1

 Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

8.4% 

Verified 

Cross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

51.3 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0 

Program Total 51.3 1 0.51 8.4% 51.3 0 

Source: Nnvigant anah/sis 

10.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

Navigant assumed an NTG ratio of 1.0. Navigant did not conduct research to determine free 

ridership for this program. Navigant's assumption is that none of the program participants 

would have curtailed load at the times PECO dispatched the program without the incentives 

that the CSPs paid to them for their load curtailment. 

10.4 Process Evaluation 

Four separate CATI surveys were utilized during PY4 to understand residential customer 

perspectives. Two of these surveys were conducted immediately following the control events of 

June 21, 2012 (Event #1) and August 31, 2012 (Event #2), and sought to better understand 

commercial customers' awareness and satisfaction with conservation events. A third CATI 

survey was conducted following the end of the program year. This participant survey was used 

to understand customer demographics, how customers learned of the program, if customers 

were satisfied with the program and PECO, whether customers noticed load control events, and 

what customers had heard about the future of PECO's Residential Smart A/C Saver program. 

During PY4 Q3 when there was uncertainty about the future of the Smart A/C Saver program, 

Navigant developed and conducted a Willingness to Accept (WTA) survey. This survey sought 

to understand how many residential program participants were likely to remain in the program 

if the incentive were to be reduced. Additionally, residential participants were asked if they 

would allow PECO to keep the load control equipment on their homes if the program went into 

hiatus and if so would an additional incentive be necessary. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 153 
10.4.1 Satisfaction with the Residential Smart A/C Saver Program 

Residential program participant satisfaction with: 

• The overall program (86%) 

• The technician who installed the switch (92%) 

• The installation of the device/prompt installation (98%) 

• The four bill credits (86%) 

• The amount of energy saved (67%) 

• PECO (68%) 

Residential participants were asked why they chose to participate in the Smart A/C Saver 

Program: 

• Reducing the electric bill was the main selling point of the program for almost all 

residential customers (87%). 

• No residential customers said the bill credit was a reason for participating in the 

program (down from 25% the previous year). 

Other major findings included: 

• Residential program participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the sign-up 

process regardless of sign-up channel. 

• Residential customers are likely to recommend the program to others (65%). 

• Residential customers are very likely to say they plan to stay in the program (81%). 

• Generally, about three-fourths of residential survey respondents said they did not know 

how many control days they experienced in either 2011 or 2012. 

• When asked what respondents had heard or read about the future of the PECO Smart 

A/C Saver program, most survey respondents reported they had not heard anything. 

Eleven percent heard or read that the rebate and/or the number of events would be 

reduced. About 10 percent heard that PECO was planning to stop the program. 

• Residential customers participating in the PECO Smart A/C Saver Program are 

educated, higher income customers. 

10.4.2 Satisfaction and Awareness of Conservation Events 

When surveyed immediately following two control events, about three-fourths of residential 

Smart A/C Saver program participants were satisfied with the comfort of their home during the 

control event. They answered 7 or higher on the 0 to 10 satisfaction scale. The exception was 

when participants were surveyed immediately following the June 21, 2012 control event when 

program participants were somewhat more likely to remain neutral on the issue of home 

comfort. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 154 
Awareness of control events remained low in .PY4. Only about 15 percent of program 

participants were aware of the control events, surprisingly similar to the percentage who 

believed there was an event (11%) when they were not controlled. 

In the first post-event survey conducted immediately following the control event on June 21, 

2012, only about 16 percent of residential customers noticed they were uncomfortable. Only two 

survey respondents reported noticing the load control event on August 31, 2012, when 

surveyed immediately following the event. 

10.4.3 Residential Customer Willingness to Accept a Change in Program Incentive 

The Navigant team developed a WTA survey addressing the issue of how much customers 

would have to be paid to accept a change in program design and incentive levels. Major 

findings of this study are presented below: 

* Over one-third did not remember what incentive they received for their participation in 

the Smart A/C Saver program. 

• Twenty-five percent believed the payment was less than $120 for the four months. 

* A similar percentage, about one-fourth, knew the correct amount of the incentive ($120). 

» Eighty-seven percent of survey participants would leave the device installed if the 

program went into a hiatus. 

* About half of the remaining participants (7%) would accept a one-time payment of $45 

or less to leave the device on their air conditioner in a program hiatus. 

• Five percent would want a one-time payment of $120 or more to keep the device on the 

HVAC unit. 

• Older respondents and younger respondents are more likely than baby boomers to agree 

to leave the device on their air conditioner if the program was dormant. 

Process recommendations and their current status for the Residential Smart A/C Saver report 

can be found in Table 10-6. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 155 
Table 10-6. Status Report for Residential Smart A/C Saver Program Process Evaluations 

Recommendations 

EDC Status Report for Process Evaluations 

(Implemented, Being Considered, Rejected AND 

Explanation of Action Taken by EDC) 

Only about one in seven survey respondents were aware 

of the control events and most survey respondents were 

satisfied with the comfort of their homes. Satisfaction 

with the program remained high during the PY4 load 

control season. The Navigant team concludes that PECO 

should not hesitate to call the A/C Saver program 

multiple days during a heat wave. There may be some 

limits, however, that customers will not accept that were 

outside of our research experience. 

Under consideration 

The largest change from last year was residential 

customers' evaluation of PECO. Satisfaction scores 

dropped from 82% in PY3 lo 68% in PY4. The Navigant 

team felt this may be a result of uncertainty about the 

program in PY5 and recommends that changes to 

incentive levels, program cycling strategies, and pay by 

event strategies could all be utilized to regulate program 

activity and eliminate the need for canceling the program 

in future years. 

Under consideration 

The largest challenge in PY4 was determining how to 

communicate the status of the program without a clear 

plan for the direction of the program during the current 

program cycle. Navigant suggests that PECO develop 

strategies to communicate changes to the program ahead 

of Phase HI, anticipating that the program may or may 

not be part of Act 129 at that time. 

Under consideration 

Bill inserts and direct mail flyers were still the most 

effective methods of marketing the program. However, 

residential customers were most likely to have 

remembered the bill insert. PECO should continue to 

utilize this channel as conduits of information during the 

maintenance phase of the program. 

Under consideration 

The program was well run and well liked by customers 

during PY4. At the time of the post-season survey, the 

PY5 program year was underway and many (but not all) 

customers realized the monthly rebate was reduced. 

Customer satisfaction was still very high for the program 

Under consideration 

PECO Energy Company | Page 156 
Recommendations 

EDCStatusiReport for Process Evaluations 

(Implemented, Being Considered, Rejected AND 

Explanation of Action Taken by EDC) 

attributes - excluding the energy savings during events. 

Most residential and commercial customers participate in 

the program to reduce their energy usage. Navigant 

suggests that PECO downplay the idea that the program 

saves energy during program events. Previous Navigant 

research findings suggest that, for most customers, the 

snap back in energy usage after an event is '100% or more 

than the energy saved during an event. Participants are 

unlikely to see reductions in their bill other than the 

rebate. 

The summer events have a strong and positive influence 

on satisfaction with the Smart A/C Saver Program. PECO 

may want to recommend the program lo customers with 

high bill complaints. 

Under consideration 

Source: Nnvignnl nnnh/sis 

10.5 Financial Reporting 

A breakdown of the program finances is presented in Table 10-7. The residential Smart A/C 

Saver program was not cost effective in Phase I, using PECO's avoided capacity costs expressed 

as dollars per kWh, as used in PECO's Phase 1 EE&C Plan. In Phase II, these benefits will be 

calculated using avoided capacity costs expressed as dollars per kW-year, as used in PECO's 

Revised Phase II EE&C Plan and discussed in PECO direct testimony in Docket P-2012-

23203441.5, Had this methodology been applied to this program for PY4, the benefit-cost ratio 

would have been 1.09 for the residential program. 

5 1

 Direct testimony, Erank Jiruska. September 5, 2012. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 157 
Table 10-7. Summary of Residential Smart A/C Saver Program Finances 

IQI9I 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 0 0 0 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 0 0 0 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration1" 246 2,211 9,599 

Management'2' 631 1,480 14,082 

Marketing131 19 11,313 20,246 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 897 15,004 43,927 

EDC Evaluation Costs 168 290 714 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC Costs'4' 1,065 15,294 44,641 

Participant Costs'5' N/A 0 8,628 

Total TRC Costs'6' N/A 15,294 53,269 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N /A 0 0 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N /A 2,618 2,618 

Total TRC Benefits'7' N/A 2,618 2,618 

TRC Ratio'8' N/A 0.17 0.05 

NOTES 

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. 

111 Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

|2| Includes LDC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

|3| Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs. 

|4| Per the 2011 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the Total LDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

[51 Per the 2011 Total Resource Cost Test Order, ihe net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use customer or program costs 

that are proxies for participant costs. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

|fi| Total TRC Cosls includes EDC Lvaluation Costs, LDC Implementation Costs, and Participant Costs. 

|7| Total TRC Itenefits equals the sum of Total Lifetime Lnergy Henefits and Total LifetimeCapacity Itenefits plus any benefit 

associated wilh avoided incandescent purchases made due to ihe longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include; avoided supply costs, including the reduction 

in costs of eleclric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued at marginal cosl for periods 

when there is a load reduction. 

|8] TRC Ralio equals Total TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Costs. 

|9[ Post PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Navigant anah/sis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 158 
11 Commercial Smart A/C Saver Program 

The Smart A/C Saver Program is a direct load control program for commercial customers based 

on the installation of programmable communicating thermostats (PCTs) on qualified central-air 

conditioners. Participants are incented at the rate of $120/year ($30 per four summer months 

per installed device). During peak summer hours, control signals can be sent to reduce airconditioning load by cycling (i.e., cutting power to) the compressor 50 percent of the time for 

the duration of the event. The program was designed to provide demand response during 

PECO's Top 100 Hours of system peak loads. PCTs have been installed in participant 

businesses, and 15 conservation events were called in PY4. 

11.1 Program Updates 

The Commercial A/C Saver Program lost a total of 277 participants in PY4, bringing total 

participation to 2,169 participants by PY4 year end. PY4 was the second year the Smart A/C 

Saver Program called system-wide events, with a total of 14 system-wide events and one M&V 

group only event being called by the end of the program year. The commercial M&V group is a 

statistically valid sample of commercial sites that have logging equipment installed to capture 5-

minute load profile data used to calculate the load impact estimate for the entire enrolled 

population. 

11.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

Navigant employed baseline calculations and regression analysis to quantify commercial Smart 

A/C Saver program impacts during event hours. Navigant used hourly interval data for a 

sample of 75 M&V sites to quantify program impacts during program event hours. Navigant 

followed the protocols specified in sections 3.3A.2, 3.3A.2.01, and 3.3A.3 of the Amended and 

Restated Operating Agreement of PJM interconnection, L.L.C., dated May 8, 2012, to calculate the 

program impacts during these hours. Navigant estimated a regression model to predict how the 

PECO Energy Company | Page 159 
event impacts vary with hour of the day and with the WTHI. Program impacts were calculated 

based on the PJM-specified WTHI value of 83.2 and the hour from 4-5 pm.52 

To maintain consistency with the evaluation methodology for the DRA and DER programs, 

Navigant researched program impacts in the hour prior to and the two hours following the 

called event period. Navigant used hourly interval data for the M&V sample to quantify 

program impacts. Navigant followed the protocols specified in sections 3.3A.2, 3.3A.2.01, and 

3.3A.3 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, LLC, dated May 

8, 2012, to calculate the program impacts during these hours. Navigant then estimated a 

regression model to predict how the impacts in the hour before and two hours following an 

event vary with the event length and the maximum WTHI during the event period. 

Although most of the regression coefficients are statistically significant at the 90 percent 

confidence level, the estimated load reductions during the hour before and two hours following 

each event are relatively small. A visual inspection of the event-day load curves and baselines 

indicated that participants did not pre-cool and snapback generally did not occur after the 

events. Nevertheless, Navigant applied the results of the regression analysis to the extended 

event hours to maintain consistency with the DRA and DER evaluations, per the SWE's 

recommendation. The regression indicated that the average load reduction in the hour before 

the event period was -0.07 kW/unit, 0.03 kW/unit in the first hour following the event period, 

and 0.07 kW/unit in the second hour following the event period. Table 11-1 shows reported 

results by quarter and Table 11-2 shows reported results by sector. 

51 PJM Manual 18 section 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." 

PECO Energy Company | Page 160 
Table 11-1. PY4 Commercial Smart A/C Saver Program Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting Period Participants 

Reported Gross 

Energy Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 Hours 

Reported 

Cross Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

PY4 Ql 

-180 0 1.6 1.8 $252 

PY4 Q2 

-19 0 0 0 $252 

PY4Q3 

-41 0 0 0 $0 

PY4 Q4 

-37 0 0 0 $0 

PY4 Total -277 0 1.6 1.8 $504 

CPITD Total 2,169 0 1.6 1.8 $649 

Source: Nnvigant nnnlysis 

Table 11-2. PY4 Commercial Smart A/C Saver Program Reported Results by Sector 

Sector Participants 

Reported 

Gross Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

Residential 

0 0 0.0 0.0 0 

Low-Income 

0 0 0.0 0.0 0 

Commercial and 

Industrial 

2,169 0 1.6 1.8 $504 

Government and 

Nonprofit 

0 0 0 0 0 

PY4 Total 2,169 0 1.6 1.8 $504 

CPITD Total 2,169 0 1.6 1.8 $649 

Sowrce: Nnvignnt analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 161 
The sampling strategies utilized by the Navigant team for PY4 impact and process analysis 

activities can be seen in Table 11-3. 

Table 11-3. Commercial Smart A/C Saver Program Sampling Strategy for PY4 

Assumed 

Stratum 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Oo r 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

M&V N/A 3,924 

Design^ 

1 90/10 100 100 

Impact: Control 

Event Analysis 

Activity Subtotal - 3,924 90/10 100 100 

Commercial N/A 3,949 0.5 90/10 70 70 

Process: Post 

Event Survey #1 

Commercial N/A 3,924 0.5 90/10 70 69 

Process: Post 

Event Survey #2 

Commercial N/A 3,730 0.5 90/10 70 70 Process: Post 

Season Survey 

Activity Subtotal 3,949 90/10 210 209 

On-site 

Commercial N/A 3,730 0.2 90/10 13 13 Verification 

Visits 

Activity Subtotal 3,730 90/10 13 13 

Program Total 3,949 90/10 323 322 

Source; Navigant anah/sis 

A summary of energy and demand results can be found in Table 11-4 and Table 11-5, 

respectively. 

Table 11-4. PY4 Commercial Smart A/C Saver Program Summary of Evaluation Results for 

Energy 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(O) or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Commercial Smart 

A/CSavor 

0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 

Program Total 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 

Source: Navigant anah/sis 

PHCO Energy Company | Page 162 
Table 11-5. PY4 Commercial Smart A/C Saver Program Summary of Evaluation Results for 

Demand 

Stratum 

Reported 

Cross 

Demand 

Reduction 

!(MW). ! 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv)ior 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Cross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Commercial Smart 1.8 "1 " 0.2 3.0% 1.8 0 

A/C Saver 

Program Total 1.8 1 0.2 3.0% 1.8 0 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnlysis 

11.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

Navigant assumed a NTG ratio of 1.0. Navigant did not conduct research to determine free 

ridership for this program. Navigant's assumption is that none of the program participants 

would have curtailed load at the times PECO dispatched the program without the incentives 

that the CSPs paid to them for their load curtailment. 

11.4 Process Evaluation 

Three separate CATI surveys were utilized during PY4 to understand commercial customer 

perspectives. Two of these surveys were conducted immediately following the control events of 

June 21, 2012 (Event #1) and August 31, 2012 (Event #2) and sought to better understand 

commercial customers' awareness and satisfaction with conservation events. A third CATI 

survey was conducted following the end of the program year. This participant survey was used 

to understand customer demographics, how customers learned of the program, if customers 

were satisfied with the program and PECO, whether customers noticed load control events, and 

what customers had heard about the future of PECO's Commercial Smart A/C Saver program. 

11.4.1 Satisfaction with the Commercial Smart A/C Saver Program 

Commercial program participant satisfaction with: 

• Tlie overall program (82%) 

• The technician who installed the thermostat (93%) 

• The installation of the device/prompt installation (90%) 

• The four bill credits (85%) 

PECO Energy Company | Page 163 
• The amount of energy saved (68%) 

• PECO (73%) 

Commercial participants were asked why they chose to participate in the Smart A/C Saver 

Program: 

• Reducing the electric bill was the main selling point of the program for almost all 

residential customers (87%); it was still the main selling point for commercial customers 

but for significantly fewer customers (59%). 

• Fourteen percent of commercial customers mentioned bill credit as a reason for 

participating in the program (down from 34% the previous year). 

Other major findings included: 

• Commercial program participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the sign-up 

process regardless of sign-up channel. 

• Commercial customers are somewhat likely to recommend the program to others (50%). 

• Commercial customers are very likely to stay in the program (81%). 

• Three out of four commercial survey participants also did not know how many load 

control days they experienced in 2011 and almost two-thirds did not know the number 

of control days in 2012. 

• Commercial customers participating in the program tend to be very small business 

customers with less than ten employees that are located in older buildings less than 

5,000 square feet in size. 

11.4.2 Satisfaction and Awareness of Conservation Events 

When surveyed immediately following two control events, commercial customers were slightly 

more aware of the June 21, 2012 control event (event #1) than they were of the August 31, 2012 

event (event #2), although these differences are not statistically significant. On average, about 

one-fourth of commercial customers were aware of the control events. 

Overall, commercial customers were more uncomfortable than usual when surveyed 

immediately following the event of June 21, 2012, than following the event of August 31, 2012. 

Event #1 was during a heat wave and buildings heat up and are harder to cool after a couple of 

days of very hot weather. Four times as many commercial customers in our study said they 

were more uncomfortable than usual during the event when surveyed following Event #1 than 

Event #2. These differences are significant at the 0.001 level of significance. 

Most respondents did not remember discomfort from either control event for which they were 

surveyed. However, significantly more commercial customers reported that everyone in the 

building was uncomfortable during Event #1, the heat wave, compared to Event #2. Most telling 

was that 90 percent of survey respondents did not remember their comfort level during Event 

PECO Energy Company | Page 164 
#2 compared to 60 percent who had no memory of their comfort level during Event #1. Event #2 

had just occurred, suggesting that Event #1, during the heat wave, was much more memorable 

than Event #2. 

Process recommendations and their current status for the Commercial Smart A/C Saver report 

can be found in Table 11-6. 

Table 11-6. Status Report for Commercial Smart A/C Saver Program Process Evaluations 

Recommendations 

EDC Status Report for Process Evaluations 

(Implemented, Being Considered, Rejected AND 

Explanation of Action Taken by EDC) 

Only about one in seven survey respondents were aware 

of the control events nnd most survey respondents were 

satisfied with the comfort of their businesses. Satisfaction 

with the program remained high during the PY4 load 

control season. The Navigant team concludes that PECO 

should not hesitate to call the A/C Saver program 

multiple days during a heat wave. There may be some 

limits, however, that customers will not accept that were 

outside of our research experience. 

Under consideration 

The Navigant team recommends that changes to incentive 

levels, program cycling strategies, and pay by event 

strategies could all be utilized to regulate program 

activity and eliminate the need for canceling the program 

in future years. 

Under consideration 

The largest challenge in PY4 was determining how to 

communicate the status of the program without a clear 

plan for the direction of the program during the current 

program cycle. Navigant suggests that PHCO develop 

strategies to communicate changes to the program ahead 

of Phase III, anticipating that the program may or may 

not be part of Act 129 at that time. 

Under consideration 

Bill inserts and direct mail flyers were still the most 

effective methods of marketing the program. However, 

commercial customers were most likely to have 

i remembered a program flyer. PI-CO should continue to 

utilize this channel as conduits of information during the 

maintenance phase of the program. 

Under consideration 

The program was well run and well liked by customers 

during PY4. At the time of the post-season survey, the 

Under consideration 

PECO Energy Company | Page 165 
Recommendations 

EDC Status Report for Process Evaluations 

(Implemented, Being Considered, Rejected AND 

Explanation of Action Taken by EDC) 

PY5 program year was underway and many (but not all) 

customers realized the monthly rebate was reduced. 

Customer satisfaction was still very high for the program 

attributes - excluding the energy savings during events. 

Most residential and commercial customers participate in 

the program to reduce their energy usage. Navigant 

suggests that PECO downplay the idea that the program 

saves energy during program events. Previous Navigant 

research findings suggest that, for most customers, the 

snapback in energy usage after an event is 100% or more 

than the energy saved during an event. Participants are 

unlikely to see reductions in their bill other than the 

rebate. 

Tlie summer events have a strong and positive influence 

on satisfaction with the Smart A/C Saver Program. PECO 

may want to recommend the program to customers witli 

high bill complaints. 

Under consideration 

Sowrce: Nnvignnt nmh/sis 

11.5 Financial Reporting 

A breakdown of the program finances is presented in Table 11-7. The commercial Smart A/C 

Saver program was not cost effective in Phase I, using PECO's avoided capacity costs expressed 

as dollars per kWh, as used in PECO's Phase I EE&C Plan. In Phase II, these benefits will be 

calculated using avoided capacity costs expressed as dollars per kW-year, as used in PECO's 

Revised Phase II EE&C Plan and discussed in PECO direct testimony in Docket P-2012-

23203441.53 Had this methodology been applied to this program for PY4, the benefit-cost ratio 

would have been 0.19 for the commercial program. 

Direct testimony, Erank Jiruska. September 5, 2012. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 166 
Table 11-7. Summary of Commercial Smart A/C Saver Program Finances 

IQ'91 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 0 0 0 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 0 0 0 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration"1 66 440 3,453 

Management121 25 139 847 

Marketing131 184 792 1,113 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 275 1,371 5,413 

EDC Evaluation Costs 58 99 262 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC Costs'41 332 1,470 5,675 

Participant Costs'51 N/A 0 145 

Total TRC Costs'6' N/A 1,470 5,820 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 0 0 

Total LifetimeCapacity Benefits N/A 82 82 

Total TRC Benefits'" N/A 82 82 

TRC Ratio'81 N/A 0.06 0.01 

NOTES 

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. 

111 Includes the administrative CSL (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

|2| Includes HOC program management, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounts. 

[3| Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs. 

[4j Per the 20I I Total ResourceCost Test Order, the Total LDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

|5] Per the 2011 'Total Resource Cost Test Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use customer or program costs 

that are proxies for parlicipant costs. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

|6| Tolal 'TRC Costs include LDC Lvaluation Costs, LDC Implementation Cosls, and Participant Cosls. 

|7| Total 'TRC Henefits equals the sum of Total Lifetime Lnergy Henefits and Total LifetimeCapacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due lo the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared lo the 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Itenefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduction 

in costs of electric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued at marginal cost for periods 

when there is a load reduction. 

J8| TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefils divided by 'Total TRC Costs. 

!9| Posl PY'I cosls and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, nnd CPITD numbers. 

Source: Nnvignnt nmh/sis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 167 
12 Permanent Load Reduction 

The purpose of the PECO Permanent Load Reduction (PLR) program was to encourage 

commercial and industrial customers to permanently shift electricity usage from peak periods 

to off-peak periods on an ongoing basis. The PLR program was implemented by KEMA and ICF 

International. Measures eligible for incentives under the PLR program included gas absorption 

chillers, energy storage systems, and any other technologies that permanently shift or eliminate 

peak loads. As of the end of PY4, only one project had been completed in the PLR program. This 

low level of participation is due to the fact that most efficiency measures available to eligible 

customers were processed through PECO's SEI program. For example, even though absorption 

chillers were eligible for incentives through the PLR program, the incentives available from the 

SEI program were more attractive, so most customers chose to submit their application to that 

program. 

12.1 Program Updates 

The PLR program was intended primarily to encourage adoption of technologies that would 

reduce customers' loads during PECO's peak load hours. As noted above, only one customer 

installed a technology qualifying for incentives under this program during Phase I. Due to low 

participation, the fact that the program was not cost-effective during Phase I, and the fact that 

the PA PUC decided not to establish demand reduction goals for Phase II, PECO has 

discontinued this program. 

12.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

This section describes the methodology and results of the gross impact evaluation. 

12.2.1 Evaluation Methodology 

Navigant conducted on-site M&V for the sole PLR project, which installed new cooling 

equipment, including a gas-engine-driven chiller, on the campus of a private school. Navigant 

requested and received the complete file for the project, including applications, drawings, 

invoices, and a description of the project and its operating sequences. The project file also 

included a spreadsheet presenting the calculations used to determine ex ante demand savings. 

Following file review, Navigant conducted a telephone interview to clarify details about 

installed equipment and to determine the proper baseline for the project. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 168 
Navigant developed a monitoring and verification plan for the project and arranged for the site 

visit. The on-site M&V, conducted July 23, 2013, included visual verification and spot 

measurements to validate measurements being recorded by the facility's building automation 

system (BAS) and to validate the assumptions used to develop the ex ante savings estimate. 

During the site visit, Navigant collected data recorded by the BAS necessary for the ex post 

evaluation and completed an additional in-person interview with site personnel to validate 

information about the completed project. 

12.2.2 Reported Savings 

Table 12-1 presents program participation, energy savings, demand reduction during PECO's 

Top 100 Hours during the summer of 2012 and throughout PY4, and the incentive paid to the 

participant. 

Table 12-1. PY4 PLR Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting 

Period Participants 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Cross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

PY4 Ql 1 201.1 0.1 0.1 35 

PY4 Q2 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 

PY4 Q3 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 

• m Q4 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 

PY4 Total I 201 0.1 0.1 35 

CPITD 

Total 1 201 0.1 0.1 35 

Source: Navigant analysis 

The ofte project completed was for a private college preparatory school. As Table 12-2 indicates, 

the savings from this project were therefore in the GNI sector. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 169 
Table 12-2: PLR Reported Results by Sector 

Sector Participants 

Reported 

Gross Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

Residential 0 0 0 0 0 

Low-income 0 0 0 0 0 

Commercial and 

Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 

Government and 

Nonprofit J 201 0.1 0.1 35 

PY4 Total 1 201 0.1 0.1 35 

CPITD Total 1 201 0.1 0.1 35 

Sowra:; Nnvignnt nnnlysis 

12.2.3 Verified Savings 

The evaluation team found the equipment installed almost precisely as indicated in the project 

file, but found certain problems with the ex ante analysis. Four factors contributed to 

differences between the ex ante and ex post savings estimates. 

» The cooling water pump is operated at constant, not variable speed, as had been 

assumed in the ex ante calculations. 

» The cooling tower fan speed was miscalibrated such that a 100 percent speed control 

signal resulted in 70 percent actual fan speed. 

» Tlie ex ante analysis used an invalid baseline efficiency. 

» To be consistent with all other efficiency measures installed in the C&I sector through 

PECO's Smart Equipment Incentives program, Navigant calculated demand savings 

using the PA Act 129 PECO weather dependent Peak Demand Savings Calculator rather 

than assessing savings only during PECO's Top 100 Hours. 

Some of the factors listed above resulted in increases to energy or demand savings, while others 

reduced estimated savings. For example, the baseline error resulted in excessive energy savings 

and demand reduction in the ex ante estimate. On the other hand, demand reduction was 

underestimated in the ex ante calculation by failing to use the weather-dependent Peak 

Demand Savings Calculator. The overall results are presented in Table 12-3 and Table 12-4. 

Since there was only one project in the population for this program, there is no sampling 

uncertainty—relative precision is 0 percent. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 170 
Table 12-3. PY4 PLR Summary of Evaluation Results for Energy 

Strnturn 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of ' 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision

 1 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

Population 201 44% 0 0% 88 0 

Program Total 201 44%. 0 0% 88 0 

Soura: Nnvignnt analysis 

Table 12-4. PY4 PL R Summary of Evaluation Results for Demand (Top 100 Hours) 

Stratum 

Population 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0.1 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

167% 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Oo r 

Proportion 

0 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

Unverified 

Cross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0 

Stratum 

Population 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0.1 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

167% 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Oo r 

Proportion 

0 0% 0.2 

Unverified 

Cross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

0 

Program Total 0.1 167% 0 0% 0.2 0 

Source: Nnvignnt analysis 

12.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

Navigant did not conduct a net savings analysis for this program. 

12.4 Process Evaluation 

Due to low participation, no process evaluation was conducted for this program. 

12.5 Financial Reporting 

A breakdown of the program finances is presented in Table 12-5. As the table indicates, the PLR 

program was not cost effective. This is not surprising for a program with just one participant. 

Although the program was inactive prior to PY4, it was available to customers, and was 

therefore allocated its share of portfolio-level costs throughout Phase I. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 171 
Table 12-5. Summary of Permanent Load Reduction Program Finances 

IQ' 9' 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 0 35 35 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC incentive Costs 0 35 35 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration"1 44 159 465 

Management121 6 32 283 

Marketing131 0 0 0 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 50 191 748 

EDC Evaluation Costs 28 50 120 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC Costsi 'i 78 277 903 

Participant Costs151 N/A 1,826 1,826 

Total TRC Costs'6" N/A 2,067 2,694 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 80 80 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 141 141 

Total TRC Benefits'7' N/A 221 221 

TRC Ratio'8' N/A 0.11 0.08 

NOTES 

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. 

J11 Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cosl. 

|2| Includes LDC program management, CSP program managemenl, general managemenl oversight, and major accounts. 

J3) Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs. 

|4| Per the 2011 Tolal Resource Cost Test Order, the Total LDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

|5| Per the 2011 Total Resource Cost Test Order, the nel Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use customer or program costs 

that are proxies for participant cosls. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participanls. 

16] Total TRC Costs include LDC Lvaluation Costs, LDC Implementation Costs, and Participant Costs. 

17] Total TRC Henefits equals the sum of Total Lifetime Energy Henefils and Total LifetimeCapacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated wilh avoided incandescent purchases made due to Ihe longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduclion 

in costs of electric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued at marginal cost for periods 

when Ihere is a load reduction. 

|8| TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefils divided by Total TRC Cosls. 

|9| Post PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnli/sis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 172 
13 Demand Response Aggregators 

The DRA program was a demand response load curtailment program for large commercial and 

industrial customers that operated only during the summer of 2012. It was based on DR 

performance contracts established between PECO and three third-party service providers {DR 

aggregators). The three DR aggregators were EnerNOQ EnergyConnect, and Comverge. The 

DR aggregators were responsible for recruiting customers willing to curtail their demand and 

delivering the demand reductions to PECO on a dispatchable basis. The program was designed 

to provide demand response during PECO's Top 100 Hours of system peak loads during the 

summer of 2012. The contracted MW and number of dispatchable hours that PECO contracted 

for with each aggregator are presented in Table 13-1. 

Table 13-1. DRA Contracted MW and Hours 

Aggregator Contract MW Dispatchable Hours 

UnergyConnect 100 125 

Comverge 31 125 

I-nerNOC 40 60 

Total 171 

Source: DR Aggregator contracts 

13.1 Program Updates 

Because the Pennsylvania PUC decided not to establish peak demand reduction goals for PA 

utilities in Phase II, PECO has discontinued the DRA program. 

13.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

This section describes the methodology and results of the gross impact evaluation. 

13.2.1 Evaluation Methodology 

Program impacts were calculated as the difference between each participant's hourly load and 

the baseline, developed in accordance with sections 3.3A.2, 3.3A.2.01, and 3.3A.3 of the Amended 

nnd Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. dated May 8, 2012. Use of the 

symmetric additive adjustment (SAA) was designated for each participant. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 173 
PJM Baseline Protocol 

Sections 3.3A.2, 3.3A.2.01, and 3.3A.3 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of P}M 

Interconnection, L.L.C, dated May 8, 2012, describe the methodology used to estimate the 

customer baseline. The baseline load is calculated as the average of the highest four out of five 

eligible baseline days with an optional symmetric additive adjustment. Days are not eligible for 

inclusion in the baseline if the day is an event day, a North American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC) holiday, or weekend (PECO call events only on weekdays). Otherwise 

eligible days are excluded if the average daily event period usage is less than 25 percent of the 

average event period for the five days; this criterion eliminates outlier days in which the load 

was extremely low. 

The optional SAA affects the level of the baseline load, but not the shape. The SAA shifts the 

baseline up or down so that the average baseline loads during the three consecutive hours 

beginning four hours prior to the event period is equal to the average load during this same 

period. 

Line Losses 

The line loss varies by the participant's rate class. Occasionally, multiple accounts are grouped 

in a single registration. To account for instances in which the rate class varied by account, 

Navigant calculated a weighted line-loss factor for each registration, with the weights based on 

the registered load reduction for each account. 

Treatment of Negative Load Reductions 

Program reductions may be either positive (the load is less than the baseline) or negative (the 

load is greater than the baseline). Occasionally, the negative load reductions outweigh the 

positive load reductions for a customer on a specific event day, resulting in an average load 

reduction during the event period that is less than zero. Navigant flagged customers with 

negative average load reductions as non-participants for that event, and the load impact during 

the entire event period was recorded as zero. Otherwise, both positive and negative hourly load 

reductions are recorded. 

The left panel of Figure 13-1 shows a customer flagged as a non-participant during one event. 

The customer's average load reduction during the event period was -9 kW, indicating an 

increase in energy usage during the event. Navigant assigned a load reduction value of 0 kW 

for this customer during the entire event period. The right panel of Figure 13-1 shows a 

customer flagged as a participant during an event. Note that the load was above the baseline in 

PECO Energy Company | Page 174 
the first hour of the event (corresponding to a negative load reduction) and below the baseline 

during the remainder of the event. Because the average load reduction was positive 259 kW, 

Navigant recorded both the negative (first event hour) and positive (remaining event hours) 

load reductions during the event hours. 

Figure 13-1. Example of a Non-Participant (left panel) and Participant (right panel) During an 

Event Period 

451) 

Non-Participant (8/3 Event) Participant (7/26 Event) 

1 2 3 •! 5 f> 7 H 9 mi l 12131.1 15161718192021 22232-1 

Hour (hiding 

1 2 3 A 5 (. 7 8 9 1011 121314 151l> 17 181921)212223 24 

Hour Ending 

•Load •Baseline 'Load •Baseline 

Source: Navigant anah/sis 

Participants with Generators or Input/Output Meters 

One program participant used a generator when reducing load in response to an Act 129 event; 

however, the generator was used outside Act 129 event hours as well. The generator data 

contained the amount of energy generated and the amount of energy exported. Navigant 

calculated the net generator energy by subtracting the exports. The net generator data was then 

multiplied by negative one to convert the data from supply to demand and the baseline was 

calculated following the protocol. 

Another program participant had several input and output meters. Navigant calculated the net 

load by summing the input load data and subtracting the output load data. The net load was 

used in the baseline calculation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 175 
Additional details on the evaluation methodology are documented in PECO's Preliminary 

Demand Reduction report.54 

13.2.2 Reported Savings 

Table 13-2 presents program participation, energy savings, demand reduction during PECO's 

Top 100 Hours during the summer of 2012 and throughout PY4, and program incentives to 

participants. As it was intended as a load shifting program, PECO is not claiming energy 

savings from the DRA program. Furthermore, as PECO called curtailment events only during 

Ql (there were none called in September 2012), there is no difference between total demand 

reduction and that in the Top 100 Hours. Finally, although the DR aggregators paid participants 

to curtail load when PECO called curtailment events, PECO did not provide incentives directly 

to participants. Hence, no incentives are presented in the table. Note that the reported demand 

reduction presented in this table is 7.4 MW higher than the value presented in PECO's 

Preliminary Demand Response report. In the process of preparing this report, the evaluator 

identified an error in the application of line loss factors, which resulted in the increased estimate 

of demand reduction reported here. 

Table 13-2. PY4 DRA Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting 

Period Participants 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

mvti 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

PY4 Ql 193 0 113.4 113.4 N/A 

PY4 Q2 0 0 0.0 0.0 N/A 

PY4 Q3 0 0 0.0 0.0 N/A 

PY4 Q4 0 0 0.0 0.0 N/A 

PY4 Total 193 0 113.4 113.4 N/A 

CPITD 

Total 193 0 113.4 113.4 N/A 

Source: Nnvigant nnnlysis 

5 4

 PECO, Phase I Demand Reduction, memo to the PA PUC, March 1, 2013. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 176 
Table 13-3 presents the distribution of participation and savings across the sectors. 

Table 13-3. DRA Reported Results by Sector 

Sector Participants 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

Residential 0 0 0.0 0.0 N/A 

Low-Income 0 0 0.0 0.0 N/A 

Commercial and 

Industrial 99 0 79.9 79.9 N/A 

Government and NonProfit 

94 0 33.5 33.5 N/A 

PY4 Total 193 0 113.4 113.4 N/A 

CPITD Total 193 0 113.4 113.4 N/A 

Source: Navigant analysis 

13.2.3 Sampling 

As Table 13-4 indicates, Navigant analyzed data from all participants for the impact analysis. 

No samples were drawn, so there was no sampling uncertainty in the results. 

Table 13-4. DRA Sampling Strategy for PY4 

Stratum 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Total 

Population 

N/A 193 N/A 90% ± 0% 193 193 

Calculation of 

customer baseline 

and load 

reduction during 

DR event hours 

Program 

Total 

N/A 193 N/A 90% ± 0% 193 193 

Source: Navigant analysis 

13.2.4 Verified Savings 

PECO Energy Company | Page 177 
Table 13-5 and Table 13-6 present reported and verified energy savings and demand reduction, 

respectively. As DRA was a load shifting program, PECO is not claiming energy savings from 

the program. 

Table 13-5. PY4 DRA Summary of Evaluation Results for Energy 

Stratum 

Population 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

0 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

N/A 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion^ 

N/A 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

0 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

0 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

0 

Program Total 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 

Sowrce: Nnviganl nnnh/sis 

The impact evaluation for this program utilized the PJM protocols for establishing load 

baselines for each participating customer, Navigant calculated load reduction for each 

participant in each hour during the summer of 2012 by subtracting actual load from the 

customer baseline. In order to determine demand impacts of the program over PECO's Top 100 

Hours during the summer of 2012, it was necessary to first reconstruct PECO's gross baseline 

load, by adding the demand reduction from all EE and DR programs to PECO's measured (net) 

load. With the gross baseline load reconstructed, Navigant was able to identify the Top 100 

Hours. The program's impact was then calculated as the average of the program-wide hourly 

impacts over the Top 100 Hours. 

Because PECO's top 100 load hours were unknown prior to the end of September 2012, and 

because participation in any given DR event was voluntary, PECO did not require and the 

aggregators did not develop ex ante estimates of demand reduction. This being the case, it was 

not possible to calculate realization rates on a participant-by-participant basis, or therefore for 

the program as a whole. For this reason. Table 13-6 presents neither a demand realization rate 

nor a coefficient of variation. As the analysis was conducted for all participants in the 

population, there is no sampling uncertainty in this value. Therefore, the relative precision is 

zero percent. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 178 
Table 13-6. PY4 DRA Summary of Evaluation Results for Demand (Top 100 Hours) 

Stratum 

Reported 

Cross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) i 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Gio r 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Population 113.4 N/A N/A 0 113.4 0 

Program Total 113.4 N/A N/A 0 113.4 0 

Soura': Nav'tgnnt nmh/sis 

13.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

Navigant did not conduct research to determine free ridership for this program. Navigant's 

assumption is that none of the program participants would have curtailed load at the times 

PECO dispatched the program without the incentives that the CSPs paid to them for their load 

curtailment. 

The PA PUC's 2011 TRC Order makes it clear that utilities are to use an NTG factor of 1.0 in 

determining program cost-effectiveness. Navigant notes that the statewide evaluator conducted 

research to estimate the relative importance of payments from PJM and those from the EDCs in 

DR program participants' decisions to curtail load or turn on generators. The report on that 

research and its conclusions can be found on the PA PUC website at 

http://www.puc.state.pa.us/filing resources/issues laws regulations/act 129 information/act 1 

29 statewide evaluator swe .aspx. 

13.4 Process Evaluation 

Navigant did not conduct a process evaluation for this program because PECO's plan was to 

terminate the program following the summer of 2012 (PY4); therefore, any findings from a 

process evaluation could not be applied to improve performance in a subsequent program year. 

13.5 Financial Reporting 

A breakdown of the program finances is presented in Table 13-7. With a benefit-cost ratio of 

0.69 for PY4 and 0.31 for Phase I, the program was not cost effective. Note that benefits for this 

report were calculated using PECO's avoided T&D costs expressed in dollars per kWh and 

valued based on the energy shifted during event hours. Since PECO claims no energy savings 

from this program, there are no T&D benefits. Although this program will not be implemented 

beyond PY4, in Phase II, T&D benefits will be calculated using avoided costs expressed in 

PECO Energy Company | Page 179 
dollars per kW. Had this methodology been applied to the DRA program for PY4, the benefitcost ratio would have been 1.63. 

Table 13-7. Summary of Demand Response Aggregators Program Finances 

IQ'" 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC fncentives (o Participants 0 0 0 

EDC incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 0 0 0 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration111 0 7,417 16,162 

Management12' 26 244 1,136 

Marketing'31 0 0 0 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 26 7,661 17,298 

EDC Evaluation Costs 76 130 401 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC Costs'*' 102 7,791 17,699 

Participant Costs'5' N/A 0 0 

Total TRC Costs'6' N/A 7,791 17,699 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 0 0 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 5,409 5,409 

Total TRC Benefits'7' N/A 5,409 5,409 

TRC Ratio18' N/A 0.69 0.31 

NOTES 

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. 

111 Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cosl. 

|2| Includes LDC program management, CSP program management, general managemenl oversight, nnd major accounts, 

|3| Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs. 

14] Per Ihe 2011 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the Tolal LDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

[5J Per the 201 [ Total ResourceCost Test Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use customer or program costs 

that are proxies for participant costs. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants. 

[6] Total TRC Costs include LDC Evaluation Costs, LDC Implementation Costs, and Parlicipant Costs. 

|7| Total TRC Itenefits equals the sum of Total Lifetime Lnergy Henefits and Total Lifetime Capacity Henefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided .incandescent purchases made due to the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply costs, including the reduction 

in costs of electric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacily, and natural gas valued al marginal cost for periods • 

when there is a load reduction, 

|S| TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Costs. 

|9| Post PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Nnvigant nnaiysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 180 
14 Distributed Energy Resources 

The DER program was designed to realize peak demand reductions during PECO's Top 100 

Hours from eligible commercial and industrial customers in the utility's service territory by 

providing incentives for customers to run standby generators when requested by PECO. PECO 

contracted with Comverge to provide 16.5 MW of distributed generation during PECO's Top 

100 Hours by recruiting and registering PECO customers for this program who were willing to 

run their generators for up to 125 hours during the months June through September 2012. 

14.1 Program Updates 

Because the Pennsylvania PUC decided not to establish peak demand reduction goals for PA 

utilities in Phase II, PECO has discontinued the DER program. 

14.2 Impact Evaluation Gross Savings 

This section describes the methodology and results of the gross impact evaluation. 

14.2.1 Evaluation Methodology 

Program impacts were calculated as the difference between each participant's net hourly load 

(consumption minus generation) and the baseline (described below), developed in accordance 

with sections 3.3A.2, 3.3A.2.01, and 3.3A.3 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of 

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C, dated May 8, 2012. Use of the SAA was designated for each 

participant. 

PJM Baseline Protocol 

Sections 3.3A.2, 3.3A.2.01, and 3.3A.3 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM 

Interconnection, L.L.C, dated May 8, 2012, describe the methodology used to estimate the 

customer baseline. The baseline load is calculated as the average of the highest four out of five 

eligible baseline days with an optional symmetric additive adjustment. Days are not eligible for 

inclusion in the baseline if the day is an event day, NERC holiday, or weekend (PECO call 

events only on weekdays). Otherwise eligible days are excluded if the average daily event 

period usage is less than 25 percent of the average event period for the five days; this criterion 

eliminates outlier days in which the load was extremely low. Baseline load calculations utilized 

net load —the difference between hourly consumption and on-site generation. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 181 
The optional SAA affects the level of the baseline load, but not the shape. The SAA shifts the 

baseline up or down so that the average baseline loads during the three consecutive hours 

beginning four hours prior to the event period is equal to the average load during this same 

period. 

Line Losses 

The line loss varies by the participant's rate class. Occasionally multiple accounts are grouped 

in a single registration. To account for instances in which the rate class varied by account, 

Navigant calculated a weighted line-loss factor for each registration, with the weights based on 

the registered load reduction for each account. 

Participants with Generators or Input/Output Meters 

One program participant used a generator when reducing load in response to an Act 129 event; 

however, the generator was used outside Act 129 event hours as well. The generator data 

contained the amount of energy generated and the amount of energy exported. Navigant 

calculated the net generator energy by subtracting the exports. The net generator data was then 

multiplied by negative one to convert the data from supply to demand and the baseline was 

calculated following the protocol. 

Another program participant had several input and output meters. Navigant calculated the net 

load by summing the input load data and subtracting the output load data. The net load was 

used in the baseline calculation. 

Additional details on the evaluation methodology are documented in PECO's Preliminary 

Demand Reduction report.55 

14.2.2 Reported Savings 

Table 13-2 presents program participation, energy savings, demand reduction during PECO's 

Top 100 Hours during the summer of 2012 and throughout PY4, and program incentives to 

participants. As the DER program did not curtail consumption, but merely shifted it to 

customer-owned generation, PECO is not claiming energy savings from the program. 

Furthermore, as PECO dispatched the program only during Ql (there were no events in 

M

 PLCO, Phase I Dmand Reduclion, memo to the PA PUC, March I, 20T3. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 182 
September 2012), there is no difference between total demand reduction and that in the Top 100 

Hours. Finally, although Comverge paid participants to start or ramp up their generators when 

PECO dispatched the program, PECO did not provide incentives directly to participants. 

Hence, no incentives are presented in the table. Note that the reported demand reduction 

presented in this table is 1.0 MW higher than the value presented in PECO's Preliminary 

Demand Response report. In the process of preparing this report, the evaluator identified an 

error in the application of line loss factors, which resulted in the increased estimate of demand 

reduction reported here. 

Table 14-1. PY4 DER Reported Results by Quarter 

Reporting 

Period Participants 

Reported 

Cross

 1 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

JMW) 

Total 

Reported \ 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

PY4 Q l 2 0 16.4 16.4 N/A 

PY4 Q2 0 0 0.0 0.0 N/A 

m Q3 0 0 0.0 0.0 N/A 

PY4Q4 0 0 0.0 0.0 N/A 

PY4 Total 2 0 16.4 16.4 N/A 

CPITD 

Total 2 0 16.4 16.4 N/A 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnh/sis 

Table 14-2 presents the distribution of participation and savings across the sectors. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 183 
Table 14-2. DER Reported Results by Sector 

Sector Participants 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Top 100 

Hours 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Total 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Incentives 

($1,000) 

Residential 0 0 0 0 N/A 

Low-Income 0 0 0 0 N/A 

Commercial and 

Industrial 1 0 13.6 13.6 N/A 

Government and Nonprofit 

1 0 2.8 2.8 N/A 

PY4 Total 2 0 16.4 16.4 N/A 

CPITD Total 2 0 16.4 16.4 N/A 

Source: Navigant analysis 

14.2.3 Sampling 

As Table 14-3 indicates, Navigant analyzed data from all participants for the impact analysis. 

No samples were drawn, so there was no sampling uncertainty in the results. 

Table 14-3. DER Sampling Strategy for PY4 

Stratum 

Strata 

Boundaries 

Population 

Size 

Assumed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv) or 

Proportion 

in Sample 

Design 

Target 

Levels of 

Confidence 

& 

Precision 

Target 

Sample 

Size 

Achieved 

Sample 

Size 

Evaluation 

Activity 

Total 

Population 

N/A 2 N/A 90% ± 0% 2 2 

Calculation of 

customer baseline 

and load 

reduction during 

DR event hours 

Program 

Total 

N/A 2 N/A 90% ± 0% 2 2 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company J Page 184 
14.2.4 Verified Savings 

Table 14-4 and Table 14-5 present reported and verified energy savings and demand reduction, 

respectively. As DER merely shifted consumption to customer-owned generation, PECO is not 

claiming energy savings from the program. 

Table 14-4. PY4 DER Summary of Evaluation Results for Energy 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Energy 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(CvTor 

Proportion 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings , 

(MWh) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Energy 

Savings 

(MWh) 

Population 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 

Program Total 0 N/A N/A 0 0 0 

Source: Nnvigant analysis 

The impact evaluation for this program utilized the PJM protocols for establishing load 

baselines for each participating customer. Navigant calculated load reduction for each 

participant in each hour during the summer of 2012 by subtracting actual load from the 

customer baseline. In order to determine demand impacts of the program over PECO's Top 100 

Hours during the summer of 2012, it was necessary to first reconstruct PECO's gross baseline 

load, by adding the demand reduction from all EE and DR programs to PECO's measured (net) 

load. With the gross baseline load reconstructed, Navigant was able to identify the Top 100 

Hours. The program's impact was then calculated as the average of the program-wide hourly 

impacts over the Top 100 Hours. 

Because PECO's top 100 load hours were unknown prior to the end of September 2012, and 

because participation in any given DR event was voluntary, PECO did not require and 

Comverge did not develop ex ante estimates of power production by DER participants during 

event hours. This being the case, it was not possible to calculate realization rates on a 

participant-by-participant basis, or therefore, for the program as a whole. For this reason. Table 

13-6 presents neither a demand realization rate nor a coefficient of variation. Since the analysis 

was conducted for all participants in the population, there is no sampling uncertainty. 

Therefore, the relative precision is zero percent. 

PECO Energy Company | Page 185 
Table 14-5. PY4 DER Summary of Evaluation Results for Demand (Top 100 Hours) 

Stratum 

Reported 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Demand 

Realization 

Rate 

Observed 

Coefficient 

of 

Variation 

(Cv)or 

Proportion^ 

Relative 

Precision 

at 85% 

Confidence 

Verified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

Savings 

(MW) 

Unverified 

Gross 

Demand 

Reduction 

(MW) 

Population 16.4 N/A N/A 0 16.4 0 

Program Total 16.4 N/A N/A 0 16.4 0 

Source: Nnvigant nnnh/sis 

14.3 Impact Evaluation Net Savings 

Navigant did not conduct research to determine free ridership for this program. Navigant's 

assumption is that none of the program participants would have dispatched or increased power 

production from their generators at the times PECO dispatched tlie program without the 

incentives that Comverge paid to them for their load curtailment. 

The PA PUC's 2011 TRC Order makes it clear that utilities are to use an NTG factor of 1.0 in 

determining program cost-effectiveness. Navigant notes that the statewide evaluator conducted 

research to estimate the relative importance of payments from PJM and those from the EDCs in 

DR program participants' decisions to curtail load or turn on generators. The report on that 

research and its conclusions can be found on the PA PUC website at 

http://www.puc.state.pa.us/fiUng resources/issues laws regulations/act 129 information/act 1 

29 statewide evaluator swe .aspx. 

14.4 Process Evaluation 

Navigant did not conduct a process evaluation for this program because PECO's plan was to 

terminate the program following the summer of 2012 (PY4); therefore, any findings from a 

process evaluation could not be applied to improve performance in a subsequent program year. 

14.5 Financial Reporting 

A breakdown of the program finances is presented in Table 34-6. The benefit-cost ratio was 0.41 

for PY4 and 0.22 for Phase I. Note that benefits for this report were calculated using PECO's 

avoided T&D costs expressed in dollars per kWh-year and valued based on the energy shifted 

during event hours. Since PECO claims no energy savings from this program, there are no T&D 

benefits. Although this program will not be implemented beyond PY4, in Phase II, T&D benefits 

PECO Energy Company | Page 186 
will be calculated using avoided costs expressed in dollars per kW-year. Had this methodology 

been applied to the DRA program for PY4, the benefit-cost ratio would have been 0.99. 

IQ' 9' 

($1,000) 

PY4 

($1,000) 

CPITD 

($1,000) 

EDC Incentives to Participants 0 0 0 

EDC Incentives to Trade Allies 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Incentive Costs 0 0 0 

Design & Development 0 0 0 

Administration1 1 ' 0 1,325 1,738 

Management' 2' 46 401 1,464 

Marketing1 3 1 0 0 0 

Technical Assistance 0 0 0 

Subtotal EDC Implementation Costs 46 1,726 3,202 

EDC Evaluation Costs 103 189 463 

SWE Audit Costs 0 0 

Total EDC Costs' 4' 149 1,915 3,665 

Participant Costs'5' N/A 0 0 

Total TRC Costs'6' N/A 1,915 3,665 

Total Lifetime Energy Benefits N/A 0 0 

Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits N/A 788 788 

Total TRC Benefits'" N/A 788 788 

TRC Ratio"*' N/A 0.41 0.22 

NOTES 

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. 

111 Includes the administrative CSP (rebate processing), tracking system, and general administration and clerical cost. 

[2| Includes LDC program managemenl, CSP program management, general management oversight, and major accounls. 

[3j Includes the marketing CSP and marketing costs by program CSPs. 

|4| Per the 2011 Tolal Resource Cosl Test Order, the Tolal LDC Costs refer to LDC incurred expenses only. 

j5| Per the 2011 Total ResourceCost Test Order, the net Participant Costs are the costs for the end-use customer or program costs 

that are proxies for participant costs. These include incentives paid to appliance recycling and Demand Response participants, 

|6| Total TRC Costs include LDC Lvaluation Cosls, liDC Implementation Costs, and Participant Cosls, 

|7] Total TRC Henefils equals the sum of Total Lifetime linergy Benefits and Total Lifetime Capacity Benefits plus any benefit 

associated with avoided incandescent purchases made due lo the longer useful life of energy-efficient lighting as compared to the 

baseline measure. Hased upon verified gross kWh and kW savings. Henefits include: avoided supply cosls, including ihe reduction 

in costs of eleclric energy, generation, transmission, and distribution capacity, and natural gas valued al marginal cost for periods 

when there is a load reduction. 

18) TRC Ratio equals Total TRC Henefits divided by Total TRC Costs. 

19| Post PY4 costs and benefits are included in IQ, PY4, and CPITD numbers. 

Source: Navigant analysis 

PECO Energy Company | Page 187 
Appendix A Selection of Residential Lighting Coincidence Factor 

Prior to the PY4 Q3 report, demand reduction impacts for residential lighting measures had 

been calculated using the peak load coincidence factor of 5 percent in the 2012 Pennsylvania 

TRM. This value comes from a 2007 report by RLW Analytics, entitled "Development of 

Common Demand Impacts for Energy Efficiency Measures/Programs for the ISO Forward 

Capacity Market (FCM)".50 As the 5 percent CF has been acknowledged by both the SWE and 

the TUS to be erroneous,57 Navigant Consulting, Inc. (Navigant) has used a residential lighting 

load shape developed through the 2009 Northeast residential lighting logger study conducted 

by Nexus Market Research, RLW Analytics, and GDS Associates (the NMR 2009 study) to 

calculate a revised CF of "11.7 percent over PECO's Top 100 Hours during the summer of 2012.58 

Navigant has used this value to recalculate CPITD-verified demand reduction for all residential 

lighting measures subsidized through its Smart Lighting Discounts program and Component 1 

(installation of "extra CFLs") of its Low-Income Energy Efficiency Program. 

Navigant's decision to adopt this value comes from a review of lighting logger studies based on 

sample size, geographic relevance, availability of load shape data for summer peak demand 

savings calculations, and the date of the study. Specifically, the 2009 Northeast study had a 

sample size of 657 lighting loggers spread across 157 homes. Homes were randomly selected 

from among a large recruitment pool, and loggers were all in place for June, July, and August of 

2008, as well as spring and fall months. It is noteworthy that this is the study that is cited for 

annual hours of use in the 2013 PA TRM. 

Other lighting logger studies Navigant reviewed for the purpose of updating the peak load 

coincidence factor included: EmPOWER Maryland 2010-2011, 2006-2008 California Upstream 

Lighting Program, 2005 California Residential CFL Metering, and the 2008 Database for EnergyEfficient Resources (DEER) CFL load shape. The EmPOWER Maryland 2010-2011 study 

featured fewer loggers than the 2009 Northeast study, with a total of 377 loggers across 131 

homes. In the Maryland study, there was not a large pool of recruited homes from which the 

RLW Analytics, "Development of Common Demand Impacts for Lnergy lifficiency Measures/Programs for the ISO Forward 

Capacity Market (LCM)", prepared for the New England State Program Working Group (SPWG), March 25, 2007, p, IV, 

•

,7

 See the minutes of the Program Lvaluation Group meeting from March 20, 2013 (forwarded to all EDCs and evaluators on March 

29, 2013). 

w Nexus Market Research, Inc., RLW Analytics, Inc., and GDS Associates, 2009. Residential Lighting Markdown Impact Lvaluation. 

Prepared tor Markdown and Buydown Program Sponsors in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. January 20, 

2009. 

PECO Energy Company | Page A-l 
sample could be selected at random. The Maryland study also yielded a modeled seasonal 

curve of CF values with a distinctly greater amplitude than that seen in other studies. The 2006-

2008 California Upstream Lighting Program study included loggers in more than '1,200 homes. 

However, the report does not include an hourly load shape and cannot be adapted for the 

calculation of demand reduction in the Top 100 Hours. The 2005 California Residential CFL 

Metering Study installed meters on 983 CFLs in 375 homes. This study includes a large sample 

size and excellent study methodology; however, the data are comparatively old and from a 

geographic location further removed from Pennsylvania than the 2009 Northeast study. The 

2008 DEER CFL load shape is based on the same data from the 2005 Residential CFL Metering 

Study, but also incorporates the impact of lighting-HVAC interactive effects on summer peak 

load shapes. Because these interactive effects are influenced by climate and other 

considerations, these adjusted load shapes do not represent a best fit for Pennsylvania. 

To create better fitting load shapes, Navigant is undertaking an analysis of HVAC interactive 

effects- The PY4 Annual Report will include this analysis. 

For the foregoing reasons, the 2009 Nexus Market Research (NMR) study provides the best 

match to Pennsylvania conditions of the available residential lighting load studies. 

Navigant used the NMR 2009 residential lighting load shape to calculate hourly coincidence 

factors for every hour of the year. The average of these hourly CFs during PECO's Top 100 

Hours during the summer of 2012 is 11.7 percent. 

PECO Energy Company | PageA-2 
Appendix B Residential CFL/LED Interactive Effects/Waste Heat 

Factor Analysis 

This appendix details the methodology and results of Navigant's HVAC interaction effects 

factor (waste heat factor) study for PECO. Navigant constructed building energy computer 

simulation models to determine the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) impacts 

from efficient lighting installations in the PECO service territory. Navigant used these models to 

calculate energy and demand interactive effects factors (IEF), which are used to adjust the 

program lighting savings to account for the additional impacts on HVAC energy and demand. 

The Navigant Consulting, Inc. (Navigant) team has not applied energy and demand interactive 

effects in previous evaluations of PECO's residential programs because these were not included 

in the TRM. However, the evaluation team believes that by not including this factor, the TRM is 

significantly underestimating demand savings from efficient lighting installations. 

The energy and demand interactive effects factors define the secondary impacts on HVAC 

energy caused by the primary energy savings from reduced-wattage lighting installations. The 

efficient lighting equipment emits less "waste heat" to the conditioned building space, which in 

turn increases the need for heating from the HVAC system during winter months and decreases 

the need for cooling in air-conditioned spaces during summer months. This modeling analysis 

calculated the impacts on heating and cooling energy use from installation of reduced-wattage 

lighting equipment, and the reduction in peak demand for the utility summer peak period. 

The interactive effects are defined as the ratios between the total savings (primary lighting and 

secondary HVAC impacts) and the primary, lighting-only savings. Navigant used the following 

equations to calculate energy and demand interactive effects. The energy IEF is calculated using 

annual energy savings, while demand IEF is calculated using the kW savings for lighting and 

HVAC end uses during the PECO summer peak periods. 

g _ (kWh SavingsLiflhting+kWh SavingsHVAC) 

Demand' IEF — ^kW Savin3SLis

htln8+kW SavinssHVAc) 

d

~ kW SavingsUghting 

B.l Methodology 

The following section describes Navigant's methodology for calculating energy and demand 

interactive effects for PECO. In general, Navigant performed these steps: 

PECO Energy Company | Page B-l 
» Developed hourly residential building models with EnergyPlus 8.0 simulation software: 

o Inputs were derived from the 2011 PECO Baseline Study conducted by Navigant. 

o Models were calibrated to PECO-specific monthly billing data from U.S. Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) Form 826. 

o Models used Building America Benchmark hourly lighting profiles, 

o Performed simulations using weather data from Philadelphia International 

Airport 

» Calculated lEFd using two specifications for peak period: 

o 2012 actual meteorological year (AMY) weather data used to calculate a PECOspecific IEFd for PECO's actual Top 100 Hours for the period of June I, 2012 

through May 31, 2013 (effectively June through September 2012) 

o 2012 typical meteorological year (TMY) weather data used to calculate an IEFd 

for the statewide Technical Reference Manual using PJM's definition of the peak 

period (2-6 p.m. on all non-holiday weekdays between June and August) 

» Calculated annual lEFu using all 8,760 hours of the year 

» Results analyzed as a weighted average of home type (single family and multifamily) 

heating type (gas, heat pump, electric resistance) and AC type (central AC and room AC) as 

observed in the PECO Baseline Study 

The following sections describe each process in more detail. 

B.2 EnergyPlus Simulation 

Navigant performed hourly building energy simulation modeling with the EnergyPlus 8.0 

software package, a well-established and vetted whole building simulation software developed 

by the U.S. Department of Energy. EnergyPlus allows for hourly building simulation to 

calculate the hourly demand for all major end uses in the building (including lighting and 

HVAC). Navigant chose to use hourly simulation modeling because the software calculates the 

complex and dynamic interactions between the building components, thermal mass, weather, 

and HVAC equipment. Navigant used the lighting and HVAC hourly end-use demand profiles 

from EnergyPlus to calculate the energy and demand interactive effects for this study. More 

details on the calculation methodology are provided in the Calculations/Analysis section. 

B.3 BEopt Model Inputs and Calibration Process 

Building Energy Optimization (BEopt) software is a platform developed by the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to use as a front-end to the EnergyPlus software engine. 

PECO-specific models were developed in BEopt according to housing characteristics 

determined by the 2011 PECO baseline study conducted by Navigant. Analysis of the baseline 

PECO Energy Company | Page B-2 
data and segmentation by home type and heating system yielded eight specific models with 

their respective weightings in parentheses: 

• Single family - gas furnace (59%) 

• Single family - heat pump ( J 1 %) 

• Multifamily - gas furnace (2 orientations; 24%) 

• Multifamily - electric resistance (2 orientations; 4%) 

• Multifamily - heat pump (2 orientations; 2%) 

Each model differed in terms of envelope inputs according to the data in the baseline study. For 

a complete listing of the inputs present in each model, see Table B-5. The multifamily homes 

were modeled as townhouses with shared walls on two sides, so two models were built for each 

home at perpendicular orientations to match data that indicated there is no predominant 

orientation of townhomes within PECO service territory. 

A weighted calibration of all models was performed using the average monthly consumption of 

a residential PECO customer derived from EIA 826 billing data. Due to the limitations of the 

baseline study building attributes and billing data, it was determined that the modeling outputs 

would only be valid using a weighted average rather than developing IEF for each individual 

building model. 

Certain parameters of the model were adjusted in order to match the billing data, including 

thermostat set points, natural ventilation behavior, and thermal mass of the building.59 Areaspecific Building America Benchmark defaults built into BEopt were used for lighting and 

domestic hot water schedules. The models were calibrated as a group to the billing data using 

the weighted average results, rather than calibrating each model to the billing data on an 

individual basis. 

B.4 Calculations/Analysis 

In order to calculate energy and demand interactive effects, Navigant first ran all of the models 

with the baseline lighting profiles and respective weather files. Next, Navigant modeled 

"efficient" building models by "upgrading" 100% of screw-in fixtures in the house to compact 

fluorescent (CFL) bulbs. Navigant performed trial models upgrading 25%, 50%, and 75% of the 

fixtures to CFLs, and noted that the interaction factor results are independent of the number of 

lights replaced. Each of the simulations was performed a total of four times: with the baseline 

and efficient cases, using 2012 AMY weather data and TMY weather data. 

•

w

 These calibration parameters were chosen because they are largely independent of the physical structure of the house. Thermostat 

set points and natural ventilation are determined by the behavior of the house occupants, and the thermal mass of the house is 

affected by the amount of furniture etc. present inside the house. 

PECO Energy Company | Page B-3 
Demand Interaction Effects Factor 

Navigant used the following methodology to calculate the IEFd during the summer and winter 

utility peak periods: 

To determine a PECO-specific IEFd for calculating PECO's Act 129 Phase I verified demand 

savings in the summer of 2012, Navigant averaged the lighting and HVAC savings over the 

peak 100 hours for PECO in 2012. 

To determine a PECO-specific IEFd for the Act 129 Phase II statewide Technical Reference 

Manual, Navigant averaged the lighting and HVAC savings over the utility peak period as 

defined by PJM. The utility peak period is defined as: 

» Summer Peak Period: weekday, non-holiday, June through August, 2:00- 6:00 

p.m. 

Navigant used the hourly simulation output from EnergyPlus to calculate the average hourly 

demand during both peak periods. Figure B-l shows the weighted average summer hourly 

demand profiles for the baseline and reduced-wattage models. The shaded box indicates the 

peak period as defined by PJM. 

Figure B-l. Weighted Average Lighting and Cooling Demand for Baseline and EE Models 

0.7 -

0.6 -

0.5 • 

TJ 

n 0.4 

E 

v 

a 

> 0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0 

/(' A \ 

• 

/ /Xv 

/ / \ \ 

/ \ 

- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 1 1 

•Lighting Base 

•Cooling Base 

— Lighting EE 

—Cooling EE 

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 

Hour ofthe Day 

Source: Nnuigfint nnniysi's 

PECO Energy Company | Page B-4 
Figure B-2 displays the hourly demand savings from the baseline for lighting and HVAC enduses for the weighted average of all models. The IEFd quantifies the additional reduction in 

HVAC demand due to lighting demand savings during the utility peak period indicated by the 

shaded box. Heating savings are negative, reflecting an increase in heating demand between the 

incandescent (Baseline) and CFL (EE) cases. This increase in heating demand is a result of lower 

heat emissions from lighting fixtures in the EE case. 

Figure B-2. Weighted Average Lighting and HVAC Demand Savings between Baseline and 

EE Models 

-o 

c 

n 

E 

<u 

a 

0.02 

0.015 

0.01 

0.005 

-0.005 

-0.01 

i 

/ /A/

 v ' 

—j—,—,—j—,—,—i—,—,—j— , —i— i ]—i—i— i j i — -

N

 ' 

c 

XL 

no 

Houro the Day 

0.3 

0.25 

0.2 

0,15 

0.1 ~ 

0.05 TM 

Ol 

o | 

-0.05 

-0.1 

-0.15 

• eatin 

avin s 

•Coolin 

avin s 

•Li tin 

avin s 

Sowrce: Navigant nnnh/sis 

The following is an example IEFd calculation using the modeling results shown in Figure B-2. 

Lighting and HVAC demand savings are averaged during the summer peak period. 

[(0.0239 kW) + (0.0055 kW)] 

IEF

«

 = 0.0239 kW = 122 8 

Navigant calculated IEFd for all building models for both the summer peak periods as defined 

by PJM and PECO's actual 2012 top 100 demand hours. 

Energy Interaction Effects Factor 

Navigant used the following methodology to calculate the lEFe: 

[{Annual Lighting Energy Savings) + {Annual HVAC Energy Savings)] 

IEF, = Annual Lighting Energy Savings 

Figure B-3 shows the monthly kWh savings for lighting and HVAC equipment for the weighted 

average of all building models. HVAC savings are negative during the winter and positive 

during the summer because of the increased need for heating from the HVAC system during 

PECO Energy Company | Page B-5 
winter months and the decreased need for cooling in the summer months to maintain 

temperature set points. 

Figure B-3. Monthly Lighting and HVAC Energy Savings for a Weighted Average of AH 

Models (TMY) 

100 

80 

60 

no 

c 

ro 

20 

0 

-20 

LLP., •Jl 

o Lighting 

• Heating 

• Cooling 

12345678 9 10 11 12 

Month 

Source: Nnvignnt nmli/sis 

The following is an example IEFO calculation for the weighted average of all models using the 

results shown in Figure B-3. 

Results 

Table B-l through Table B-3 show the results of Navigant's energy and demand interactive 

effects factor study. The results of this study are shown for each individual HVAC type, and 

then weighted appropriately using weightings from the PECO Baseline Study. Each result is 

reported as an Act 129 Phase 1 2012-specific value using AMY weather data from 2012, and a 

general Act 129 Phase II value using TMY weather data. 

Navigant calculated an IEFL- above 1.0 for gas-heated homes, and an lEFe below 1.0 for 

electrically heated homes. This is because the HVAC heating penalty is higher than the cooling 

benefit provided in electrically heated homes with efficient lighting installations. Navigant 

weighted these results based on HVAC type, for a weighted IEF* of 1.010 (TMY) and 1.020 (2012 

AMY), shown in Table B-l. 

PECO Energy Company | PageB-6 
Table B-l. Energy Interactive Effects Factor Results 

U&b(fuM mm 

Single Family - Gas 1.046 1.058 59% 

Single Family - Heat Pump 0.865 0.903 11% 

Multifamily - Gas 1.042 1.053 24% 

Multifamily - Electric Resistance 0.620 0.660 4% 

Multifamily - Heat Pump 0.868 0.904 1% 

Weighted Average 1.010 1.020 100% 

Source: Nnvigant anah/sis 

Navigant calculated a weighted average summer IEFd for all homes. The presence of central and 

room AC was determined from the baseline study data shown in Table B-2. 

Table B-2. PECO Baseline Study Air Conditioning Prevalence Weightings 

IMtTftmrrn% 

%m 

Central AC 76% 45% 

Room AC 13% 41% 

Unknown 11% 14% 

Source; Navigant nnnh/sis 

Because BEopt is unable to accurately model the presence of room AC units, all homes were 

modeled with central AC. To account for the presence of room AC, one-third of the model 

output was used as a conservative estimate of the consumption of a room AC unit relative to a 

central unit. The model outputs were therefore adjusted according to the following formula: 

Adjusted Output = Modeled AC - (% of eachmodel that is room AC * Modeled AC) * (2/3) 

Application of this adjustment yielded a weighted summer IEFd of 1.228 (TMY) and 1.194 (2012 

AMY), as shown in Table B-3. 

PECO Energy Company | Page B-7 
Table B-3. Summer Demand Interactive Effects Factor Results 

w^fiiBaffiteai©%f© \mmm ss^^ msgm®^ 

Single Family-Gas 1.239 1.205 59% 

Single Family - Heat Pump 1.241 1.202 n % 

Multifamily-Gas 1.176 1.169 24% 

Multifamily-Electric Resistance 1.170 1.168 4% 

Mu 11 i fa m i ly - Hea t Pu mp 1.171 1.167 1 % 

Weighted 1.228 1.194 100% 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnh/sis 

Recommendations 

Based on the results of this analysis of the PECO residential CFL/LED lighting HVAC 

interactive effects factors, the Navigant evaluation team recommends use of the following 

interactive effects factors when determining PECO's verified savings for Act 129 compliance for 

Phase 1 and Phase 11. 

Table B-4. PECO-Verified Residential CFL/LED Lighting HVAC Interactive Effects Factors 

Phase I (June 1, 2012-May 31, 2013) (Based 

on 2012 AMY weather file) 

Phase H (June 1, 2015-May 31, 2016) (Based 

.1 r-l \ 1.010 1.228 

on TMY weather file) 

Source: Nnvignnt nnnh/sis 

Navigant also recommends the next version of the PA TRM be updated to use the above listed 

Phase II IEF, and IEFd values for PECO. 

PECO Energy Company | Page B-8 
Table B-5. List of PECO Model Inputs 

• JSL SS 

Baseline Weight 59*16 11% 24% 4% 1% 

Size <sq. ft.) 2,504 1,423 

Floors 1.5 1.5 

Wall Height (ft) 8 8 

Age 45 61 

Beds 3 2 

Heating Set Point (F) 66 

Cooling Set Point 71.8 

Wall Insulation R-8.2 R-6.9 

Attic Insulation R-l 9 R-l 2.6 

Crawlspace 

Insulation 

Uninsulated, Vented 

Window Area 

(F/B/L/R sq. ft.) 16,16,18,19 50, 50, 0, 0 

Window 

Characteristics (Uvalue, SHGC) .53, .55 

Infiltration 8 ACH50 I0ACH50 

Lighting (%CFL, 

%LED, %LFL) 0.19,0.0,0.08 0.34,0.0, 0.05 

Air Conditioning 

Central AC, 

SEER 12 

Heat Pump, 

SEER 12 

Central AC, 

SEER 12 

Central AC, 

SEER 12 

Heat Pump, 

SEER 12 

Heating 

Furnace, 

78% AFUE 

ASHP, 7.7 

HSPF 

Furnace, 78% 

AFUE 

Electric 

Baseboard 

ASHP, 7.7 

HSPF 

Duct Location Crawlspace 

Duct Leakage 15% 

DHW Electric, 0.92 EF 

Additional notes: 

PECO Energy Company 1 PageB-9 
• All homes were modeled with a partial finished basement and partial crawlspace. 

• AM appliances are Huilding America Henchmark Standards. 

• Twenty-eight percent of all homes had electric water heating; all models were created using 100% electric water heating and 

ad justed accordingly 

Source: PECO 2011 Baseline Study 

PECO Energy Company | Page B-10 
Appendix C Demand Reduction from Smart Lighting Discount 

Lamps Installed in Non-residential Facilities 

In accordance with the requirements in Section 2.A.llof Act 129, which precludes crosssubsidization of measure incentives across customer classes, the evaluation team recognizes the 

need to account for the non-residential installations of CFL bulbs rebated through PECO's SLD 

program. 

Based on in-store surveys of customers at the time of purchases ("in-store intercepts") during 

the PY2 evaluation, the evaluation determined a significant portion of SLD bulbs have been 

installed in commercial and industrial settings. Bulbs used in nonresidential settings have a 

substantially higher peak load coincidence factor and hours of use than bulbs used in 

residential settings. CPITD-verified peak demand reduction as of the end of PY3 has been 

adjusted to reflect this fact. 

In previous compliance reporting, peak demand reduction from all program bulbs was 

calculated per the applicable Pennsylvania TRM using the deemed residential peak load 

coincidence factor of 5 percent and demand in-service rate (ISRCFL) of 84 percent for PY3. The 

data collected from the in-store intercept customer surveys in PY2 indicated that approximately 

12.2 percent of SLD program bulbs were installed in commercial settings. Note that this 12.2 

percent represents the mean estimate of C&I installations using a weighted average of number 

of bulbs installed in commercial applications and not the percentage of customers purchasing 

bulbs. This proportion was relatively consistent across standard CFL and specialty CFL 

installations. 

The evaluation team developed verified savings estimates of savings, addressing comments by 

the Pennsylvania SWE that, using the 12.2 percent mean estimate of the C&I installations, could 

overestimate savings. 

C.l Magnitude of Percent of Installation 

The estimates of installations in C&I applications are based on findings from the in-store 

intercept surveys that were completed in PY2. Of the 144 respondents that purchased CFLs and 

confirmed they would be installed in PECO's service territory, 9 indicated they would be 

installing at least some of them in a commercial application. Of these nine, three indicated that 

all purchased CFLs would be installed in a commercial facility and six indicated some would be 

installed in their residence and some in a commercial facility. Of these six customers, for those 

that purchased up to twice the average number of bulbs purchased by residential customers, 

PECO Energy Company | Page C-l 
calculations assume 50 percent of bulbs would be installed in the commercial facility and 50 

percent would be installed in the residence. For the commercial customers purchasing more 

than twice the average number of CFLs purchased by residential only customers (5.14 CFLs), 

calculations assume that only 5.14 CFLs would be installed in their residence, and the rest 

would be installed in the commercial facility. Findings yield an estimated mean installation rate 

in C&I applications of 12.2 percent. 

The SWE noted that other studies have shown a lower percentage of utility upstream buy-down 

program bulbs are installed in commercial or industrial applications. The evaluation team 

conducted a literature review to compare what the installations in C&I applications are in other 

jurisdictions. Typical findings showed C&I installation rates closer to 6 percent. 

Although it is industry standard practice to apply the mean estimate of evaluation findings to 

determine verified savings, in this case the evaluation team agrees with the SWE that the 12.2 

percent may overestimate the percentage of bulbs being installed in C&I applications. At a 90 

percent confidence, the 12.2 percent estimate has an interval of plus or minus 4.5 percent, 

resulting in a range of 7.7 percent up to 16.7 percent C&I installations. The evaluation team 

believes the 7.7 percent is likely closer to the real value or at least provides a conservative 

estimate of the real value. Final verified demand reductions are based on the lower bound of 7.7 

percent C&I installation rate. 

C.2 Determining C&I EFLH and CF 

The SWE commented that installation rates and effective full-load hours (EFLH) and CF should 

be calculated using a weighted average approach. The evaluation team agrees, and this method 

was used to calculate C&I EFLH and CF values. C&I EFLH and CF were determined using a 

weighted average based on number of CFL purchases and the stipulated values from the TRM. 

For the three customers indicating all CFLs would be installed in a commercial facility, the one 

customer with the largest purchase of these three did not provide a business type that could be 

easily mapped to the TRM business types. This customer was included in the calculations for 

determining total C&I bulb installation percentages, but was excluded from the calculations for 

average building hours of use and CF so as not to skew the results with information that is 

based on an unknown building type. Using peak load coincidence factors for CFLs by 

commercial building type from the TRM, and weighting these coincidence factors by the 

reported proportions of installation in restaurants, offices, industrial/agricultural, and health 

care buildings, yielded a C&I peak load coincidence factor of 79 percent and EFLH of 4,532. 

PECO Energy Company J Page C-2 
C.3 Verified Demand Reductions 

To provide verified program savings for PECO's SLD program and accounting for all C&I 

installations while addressing the SWE comments, the evaluation team applied these PY2 

findings using the lower bound of 7.7 % for proportion of bulbs going into C&I facilities and the 

associated peak load coincidence factor to program bulb sales from PY1-PY3. The residential 

peak period line loss factor of 1.1916 was applied to the residential proportion of installations, 

while the small C&I peak line loss factor of 1.111 was applied to the C&I installations. Further, 

because the C&I algorithms do not include an ISR factor, the evaluation team applied the 

verified PECO Smart Equipment Incentives (SEI) C&I program realization rates for each 

program year to the savings calculations for the C&I portion of the rebated CFLs. 

PECO Energy Company | Page C-3 
Page 1 of 

From: (215) 841-5776 

Anna Migliaccio 

Exelon 

2301 Market Street S15-2 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Origin ID: REDA f^f ^ 

Exprtss 

J132015te3a)326 

SHIP TO: (717) 772-7777 BILL SENDER 

Rosemary Chiavetta, Secretary 

Pa Public Utility Commission 

400 NORTH ST FL 2 

COMMONWEALTH KEYSTONE BLDG 

HARRISBURG, PA 17120 

Ship Date: 15NOV13 

ActWgt: 2.0 LB 

CAD: 9876187/INET3430 

Delivery Address Bar Code 

Ref# 

Invoice # 

PO# 

Dept# 

^ t , 7971 7153 1559 

0201 

MON -18 NOV AA 

STANDARD OVERNIGHT 

SH MDTA 

17120 

PA-OS 

MDT 

SIAGMWefi/IAEH* 

After printing this label: 

1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 

2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line. 

3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. 

Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could 

result in additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number. 

Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on 

fedex.com.FedEx will not be responsible for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, nondelivery.misdelivery.or misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a 

timely claim.Umitations found in the current FedEx Sen/ice Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic 

value of the package, loss of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, 

incidental,consequential, or special is limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual 

documented loss.Maximum for items of extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other 

items listed in our ServiceGuide. Written claims must be filed within strict time limits, see current FedEx Sen/ice Guide. 

RECEIVED 

NOV 1 5 20f3 

PA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION 

SECRETARY'S BUREAU 

https://www.)alex.eom/shippin^/htiril/en//PrintIFrame.hlml 1/15/2013