Neighborhoods Energize Wisconsin
Subtitle: a study of a community-based program : a WDSD evaluation report
By: Jeffry J. Erickson ... [et al.].
Contributors: Erickson, Jeffry J.; Wisconsin Demand-Side Demonstrations, Inc.
Publisher: Wisconsin Demand-Side Demonstrations
Published: 1995
Place of publication: Madison, WI
Language: eng
Subjects: Dwellings -- Energy conservation -- Wisconsin.
Description: Executive Summary
The Neighborhoods Energize Wisconsin (N.E.W.) program was a community-based, residential energy conservation project in Madison and Cross Plains sponsored by Madison Gas & Electric Company (MG&E) and implemented in conjunction with Wisconsin Demand-Side Demonstrations, Inc. (WDSD).  The N.E.W. program was evaluated by Hagler Bailly Consulting, Inc.  N.E.W. was implemented between February 1993 and February 1994.  The program focused on the village of Cross Plains and five neighborhoods in Madison.  People in each neighborhood were recruited to go door-to-door to invite their neighbors to attend two workshops on a weekday evening and Saturday morning.  At these workshops, participants received information and training on electric and gas efficiency measures and the environmental impact their household had based on their habits and energy use.  Free energy-saving materials (e.g., weather-stripping, caulk, insulation) were distributed to participants to encourage the actions taught at the workshops.  Following the workshops, participants who signed up received a “home visit” which was a simple energy audit that included the installation of low-cost electricity- and gas-saving measures, the identification of further energy efficiency measures that should be taken, and the opportunity to sign up for appropriate follow-up services offered by MG&E or private vendors.

The evaluation of the N.E.W. program consisted of several key components:

•	A baseline survey was conducted to gather data on the characteristics of the target neighborhoods before the program started.   
•	Social interaction questions were included in most of the surveys issued under the evaluation to provide data to examine the impact of neighborhood social interaction on the success of the program.  In addition, a short social interaction survey was issued to 200 individuals in each neighborhood to provide the basis for making comparisons between neighborhoods and individuals.
•	Surveys were issued to participants immediately after the program was completed in their neighborhood to measure participant reactions to the program to gauge their sense of value from the program and to collect their recommendations for improvements.  
•	A similar, but shorter, survey was sent to those who attended workshops but did not have a home visit to identify their reasons for dropping out of the program.
•	A follow-up survey was issued to participants six months after program participation to see if they had acted upon recommendations provided to them by the program.
•	Nonparticipant surveys were issued to identify reasons for nonparticipation and to provide an in-neighborhood comparison group.
•	Surveys were issued in two neighborhoods outside the reach of the marketing efforts to provide a control group.
•	Interviews were conducted with program staff to identify issues that could have affected the program design and implementation.
Close to one-fifth of the households in the target neighborhoods participated in the program.  N.E.W. energy assistants completed 2,166 home visits, exceeding the program goal of 1,900, for an overall participation rate of 16.8 percent.  Among the measures installed through the program were:

•	543 low-flow shower heads
•	1,427 faucet aerators
•	1,903 CFLs given away
•	4,588 CFL bulbs and 410 CFL fixtures were sold

In addition, participants implemented a variety of weatherization measures:  removed refrigerators, freezers, and window air conditioners; and installed water heater wrap and pipe wrap, among other things.  One-third of the participants went on to participate in other MG&E programs.

The N.E.W. program cost a total of $636,498 to implement, $389,357 of which was spent on gas-related efforts and $237,141 on electricity-related measures.  Total electricity, demand, and gas savings were calculated for the measures installed during and after the N.E.W. program.  When the energy saved is discounted or levelized to take into account the cost of capital and free riders, the program saved 7,522,573 kWh over the lifetime of the measures, or 3,473 kWh per participant for a cost of $0.033 per kWh.   The total diversified, coincident demand reduction during the summer was 241 kW at a cost of $1,025 per kW.  The total diversified, coincident demand reduction during the winter was 280 kW at a cost of $882 per kW.  The total discounted gas savings was 2,417,106 therms at a cost of $0.16 per therm.

In general, the N.E.W. program was a well-run program that was received enthusiastically by the participants.  The program produced some significant savings, particularly from the measures installed by the participants after their home visit.

A multivariate analysis showed that there is strong evidence to suggest that participation in N.E.W. increases the probability of installing major energy efficiency measures.  This is true even after controlling for self-selection bias and other non-program-related effects.

Several recommendations came out of the evaluation effort:

•	The purpose of the training meeting for the volunteers who invited their neighbors to participate should be made clearer in the promotional material.  The presenter should be better prepared, have better public speaking skills, be more knowledgeable about energy conservation, and exhibit an enthusiasm for the subject.
•	The evening and weekend workshops should be combined into one workshop.  The main presentation should be fairly brief and should address specific actions that can be taken to improve energy efficiency that are likely to be of interest to most of the audience and that can be addressed without the need for the audience to get close to the visual aids.
•	More individual technology sessions should be offered during the workshops.
•	The free materials should be given out at the home visit, not at the workshop.  At a minimum, only materials that can be easily and quickly distributed should be included in the distribution at the workshops.
•	Better training and resources should be provided to the staff doing the home visits.
Notes: "June 1995."