Cleco Power 2014-2015 Quick Start Annual Report

Transcription

Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 4
2.0 Portfolio Impact ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Program Cost ............................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Program Energy & Demand Savings ........................................................................................................... 6
3.0 Program Portfolio ................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Residential Solutions Program .................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.1 Program Description ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.1.2 Program Highlights ............................................................................................................................................ 8
3.1.3 Program Budget, Expenditure & Savings .......................................................................................................... 9
3.1.4 Program Events/Trainings .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.1.5 Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget ...................................................................................... 10
3.2 Appliance Recycling Program ................................................................................................................... 11
3.2.1 Program Description ...................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.2 Program Highlights .......................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2.3 Program Budget, Expenditure & Savings ........................................................................................................ 12
3.3 Small Business Direct Install Program ....................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Schools/Cities Program .............................................................................................................................. 15
3.5 Commercial & Industrial Program .............................................................................................................. 16
2|P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
4.0 Evaluation, Measurement & Verification .......................................................................................... 18
4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................. 18
4.3 Cost Benefit .............................................................................................................................................. 20
5.0 Supplemental Requirements ................................................................................................ 20
5.1 Program Training ....................................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Lost Revenue .............................................................................................................................................. 21
5.3 Staffing ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
5.4 Information Provided to Consumer to Provide EE ..................................................................................... 21
6.0 Appendix .............................................................................................................................. 23
6.1 Sample Marketing Materials
7.0 Attachment ........................................................................................................................... 27
7.1 Evaluation of PY1 Energy Efficiency Programs
3|P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
1.0 Executive Summary
Pursuant to Louisiana Public Service Commission (“LPSC”) Docket No. R-31106, and the related Energy
Efficiency Rules established by the LPSC, Cleco Power LLC (“Cleco”) submits this report summarizing the
results of the first year of the Quick Start Energy Efficiency (“EE”) programs for the Cleco service territory.
This annual report covers the initial program year from November 1, 2014 through October 31, 2015. To
supplement this written report, Cleco has included detailed program information in an electronic workbook
format modeled after the Arkansas Public Service Commission’s (“APSC”) Standardized Annual Report
Packet (“SARP”) for APSC directed EE programs. The report is organized as follows:
•
•
The narrative report contains program descriptions; activity; savings; customer participation and
program training info; an evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V) overview; program
staffing levels; and marketing information provided to consumers to promote programs.
The workbook details Cleco’s program budget, costs, savings and cost-benefit analysis.
This report addresses the performance during the Quick Start period of each of the five EE programs
included in Cleco’s portfolio filed with the LPSC:
•
•
•
•
•
Residential Solutions program
Appliance Recycling program
Small Commercial Direct Install program
Commercial & Industrial program
Schools & Cities program
For Program Year 1 (“PY1”), Cleco achieved realized savings of 15,285,666 kWh in energy savings and
2,397 kW in realized demand savings through the five EE programs implemented. Approximately 16,000
customers participated in Cleco’s EE programs, and the vast majority of participation took place in the
Residential Solutions program’s retail lighting segment.
The cost of the EE programs offered by Cleco during the initial year was approximately $3.9 million, including
calculated lost contribution to fixed costs (“LCFC”). Cleco recovered from participating customers
approximately the same amount, concurrently, through its approved Rider EE tariff.
The Cleco Residential Solutions program achieved realized savings of 9,051,337 kWh in energy savings and
1,694 kW in realized demand savings. This program offered three separate participation and energy-saving
opportunities for Cleco’s residential customers. Because Cleco’s service territory is primarily smaller, less
populated communities in the southern and central part of Louisiana, it was important to offer programs that
were contractor driven, that were delivered through local retailers and that include available online energysaving options. Program participants received walk-through energy assessments performed by trained
energy consultants/contractors who offered free direct-install energy efficiency measures so that the
customer could achieve immediate energy savings. The energy assessment also helped the program identify
additional energy-saving opportunities such as air infiltration sealing, duct sealing and attic insulation. For
customers who wanted immediate information about the efficiency of their home, the Energy Depot online
energy audit was offered. The customer answered a limited number of questions about their home’s
structural features and the efficiency/age of the home’s appliances. Energy Depot supplied customers with a
customized audit report that included recommendations for retrofits to improve the energy efficiency of their
homes.
Cleco also achieved significant savings through its Lighting and Appliance program offering. Cleco partnered
with retail stores located throughout its service territory that offered mail-in rebates for window unit air
conditioners, energy-efficient refrigerators, variable-speed pool pumps and heat pump water heaters. Pointof-sale, qualifying, energy-efficient lighting buy-downs were also offered for specialty CFL and LED bulbs.
Point-of-sale signage helped customers identify the bulbs that qualified for the discounts. To assist customers
4|P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
who had limited access to stores offering high-efficiency lighting, an online marketplace was added to the
Cleco website for customers to select and purchase high-efficiency lighting. Participating HVAC contractors
offered high-efficiency central air conditioning and heat pump rebates for new and existing homes. For
residential customers living in multifamily properties, the Cleco program offered direct-install measures,
including high-efficiency CFLs, low-flow showerheads, low-flow aerators and smart power strips. This broad
approach enabled the Residential Solutions program to far exceed Cleco’s energy-saving goals established
for the program.
The Cleco Appliance Recycling program offered monetary incentives to residential customers to recycle old,
inefficient refrigerators, freezers and window unit air conditioners. The program targeted both homeowners
and renters and was a seasonal program that was run from June 1 to October 31, 2015. Cleco proactively
marketed the program through retail appliance stores and directly to customers through bill inserts and
electronic media. The program achieved realized savings of 353,276 kWh, which was 39 percent of the
targeted energy savings goal. Because of the program’s energy-savings results, Cleco redirected efforts to
more successful Residential Solutions programs to help overcome savings shortfalls in this program
segment, as explained later in this report.
The Cleco Small Business Direct Install program targeted small business customers with an average peak
demand of 100 kW and less. The program achieved realized savings of 1,672,761 kWh in energy savings
and 278 kW in demand savings, which was 96 percent of the energy-savings goal. Energy assessments were
offered through participating contractors who identified lighting and refrigeration retrofit opportunities. Higher
level incentives were offered to make selected efficiency projects more affordable for small business owners.
The program was able to complete 106 projects during its initial program year. During the start-up phase of
this program, the Cleco program team spent a significant amount of time training local contractors to properly
perform walk-through assessments. The program was also successful in encouraging contractors who
normally worked in the larger metropolitan areas to offer these program services to smaller, more rural
communities in the Cleco service territory.
Cleco’s Commercial and Industrial (“C&I”) program targeted Cleco’s new and existing commercial customers
who had higher than 100 kW peak demand and Cleco’s industrial customers that elected to participate in the
EE program. Through direct outreach by Cleco’s program team, Cleco’s account management team and
participating contractors, the program achieved realized energy savings of 3,492,474 kWh and 205 kW of
customer demand, which was 140 percent of the program’s energy-savings goal. This program, as with the
other programs in Cleco’s EE portfolio, was focused on identifying and recruiting potential participants in each
of Cleco’s geographically separated operating districts. The program achieved energy savings through a
diverse mix of measures installed, including energy-efficient lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration measures. Cleco redirected additional efforts to these C&I programs as slower than anticipated
progress was realized in its Schools and Cities program, as explained below.
The Schools and Cities program (“CitySmart”) achieved realized energy savings of 715,818 kWh and 152
kW. This was 49 percent of the program’s total energy-savings goal. The Cleco program team identified and
met with school districts, colleges, parish officials and city staff to educate and identify energy-saving retrofit
project opportunities. Non-monetary incentives were offered and delivered in the form of energy-consumption
benchmarking and energy master-planning services. Program outreach was conducted at broadly attended
events like the Annual Louisiana Municipal Association meeting. As school districts and governmental
organizations typically have a structured, slower process for approving capital projects, the number of
projects completed prior the end of the program year was lower than anticipated. Cleco expects to achieve
savings closer to goals during the second program year.
5|P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
2.0 Portfolio Impact
2.1 Program Costs
The following tables summarize, by program, Cleco’s estimated and actual EE program costs and
energy savings for the initial program year November 1, 2014 through October 31, 2015.
Program Name
Cleco—Residential Solutions
Cleco—Small Business Direct Install
Cleco—School and Cities
Cleco—Large Commercial
Cleco—Appliance Recycling
Total
2.2
Year 1 Budget
Year 1 Cost
% of Budget
$1,762,242
$1,803,647
102%
$470,026
$450,171
96%
$345,343
$168,820
49%
$569,714
$710,130
125%
$185,566
$58,464
32%
$3,332,891
$3,191,232
96%
Program Savings (Energy & Demand)
Program Name
Cleco—School and Cities
Cleco—Large Commercial
Total
Peak Demand
Savings (kW)
Energy Savings
(kWh)
1,694
9,051,337
278
1,672,761
152
715,818
204
3,492,474
69
353,276
2,397
15,285,666
3.0 Program Portfolio
3.1
Residential Solutions Program
3.1.1 Program Description:
The Cleco Residential Solutions program was available to all residential customers residing in
the Cleco service territory and allowed customers multiple pathways for participation. By
6|P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
providing customers with many options, the program maximized the opportunity for residential
customer participation and helped customers understand the benefits of energy efficiency
improvements in their homes.
▪
Home Assessments: The program provided customers with access to participating trade
allies (contractors) within the Cleco service territory. A participating contractor would help the
residential customer identify energy efficiency improvements and would also directly install
CFLs, LEDs, low-flow showerheads, low-flow aerators and advanced power strips in their
homes so that the participants could start saving energy immediately. The contractor
performed a visual inspection of the interior and exterior of the home and asked the customer
about any concerns they had regarding energy efficiency. At the conclusion of the
assessment, the contractor presented a proposal that outlined recommendations for additional
home improvements that would improve energy efficiency. This approach enabled Cleco to
develop long-term customer relationships and increase customer adoption of energy
efficiency, while capturing some immediate energy savings. Incentives were offered to the
homeowner for the installation of high-efficiency air conditioning, heat pumps, attic insulation,
air infiltration sealing and air duct sealing. The incentives were offered to the customer as a
discount so there would be lower out-of-pocket expense to the customer.
Trade allies were trained in all components of the Residential Solutions program so that they
would be able to answer questions and offer suggestions on additional incentives that might
benefit the customer.
▪
ENERGY STAR® Appliances and Lighting in Retail Stores: This program offered customer
incentives through retail stores located in Cleco’s service territory. Residential customers had
the opportunity to receive incentives for the purchase of high-efficiency window unit air
conditioners, heat pump water heaters, high-efficiency pool pumps and ENERGY STAR
certified “Most Efficient” refrigerators. Cleco customers also took advantage of upstream buydown incentives that allowed them to purchase CFLs and LEDs at an already reduced sales
price. Retailers and manufacturers were provided tools and training to promote the energyand cost-saving benefits of such products to their customers. This program continues to have
high customer acceptance and has high customer and trade ally satisfaction. Cleco’s success
in expanding the program was achieved through a diverse marketing and outreach strategy.
Promotional materials in retail locations, online and other mass marketing channels drove
consumer awareness and generated consumer demand.
▪
Energy-Savings Kit: For a limited time, an online promotion was offered to Cleco residential
customers. They were able to purchase an energy-savings kit at a significantly reduced cost.
The kit included one 9-watt LED bulb, six 13-watt CFL bulbs and one advanced power strip.
The kit sold for $10 and was shipped to the customer’s home. Each individual kit is estimated
to achieve annual savings of 230 kWh.
▪
CoolSaver Tune-Ups: The CoolSaver program increases energy efficiency by providing
residential customers with high-performance A/C and heat pump system tune-ups. Energy
savings are achieved by identifying A/C and heat pump system inefficiencies during the tuneup evaluation and then correcting those inefficiencies (e.g., adjusting refrigerant levels,
cleaning the inside and outside of the unit, etc.). The program was able to penetrate the
market by providing the trade allies with training on best practices, state-of-the-art tools,
marketing and customer cash incentives to conduct the high-performance system tune-ups.
▪
New Homes: The New Homes program is designed to increase the energy efficiency of
housing by providing incentives to qualified home builders and homeowners to design and
build energy-efficient homes in the Cleco service territory. The program accomplishes this
task by providing incentives to local home builders and homeowners who complete and
7|P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
submit verifiable documentation of the construction of qualified energy-efficient prescriptive
measures, including air conditioners, heat pumps, ENERGY STAR lighting packages,
ENERGY STAR windows and heat pump water heaters. A further purpose of this program is
to help establish and create homeowner demand for new, energy-efficient homes in the Cleco
service territory. The program encouraged and supported a network of well-informed,
educated residential construction professionals who understand the benefits of building and
selling energy-efficient homes. The program serves Cleco residential customers who
purchase (and repurchase) these homes. It also generated consumer awareness of energy,
cost and comfort improvements associated with energy-efficient homes.
▪
Multifamily Direct Install: This program provides cost-effective energy efficiency measures
and a “common area” energy survey to multifamily properties throughout the Cleco service
territory. The program was designed to benefit the property owners and residents of
multifamily dwellings by providing trade allies with direct-install materials such as CFL bulbs,
low-flow showerheads and low-flow aerators to be installed in the dwellings at no cost to the
property owner or residents. This program was successful due to the cash incentive provided
to contractors for each installation. During these installations, customers were made aware of
additional energy saving opportunities, such as new insulation, air infiltration sealing and air
duct sealing.
▪
Energy Education through an Online Energy Audit: This program educates residential
customers on the benefits of energy efficiency improvements. An online energy audit is
available to customers through Cleco’s website and is offered to customers at no cost. To
participate, customers are required to answer a series of questions that pertain to their home’s
key features such as age, square footage, insulation levels, air conditioning/heating type,
water heating type and appliances. Based on the information provided by the customer, the
customer is provided recommendations on energy efficiency improvements that can reduce
energy consumption. The customer is then directed to utilize the corresponding energy
efficiency incentives through the Residential Solutions program.
The availability of Cleco’s EE program incentives and services was advertised on Cleco’s
website, periodic bill inserts and select media outlets. The program also utilized a toll-free
number as an alternative channel for customers to access EE program information, for those
without Internet access. All communication was targeted to make Cleco customers more
aware of the benefits of efficient equipment and the services available from Cleco. Program
staff and participating trade allies supported customers in navigating program participation
requirements and identifying those measures best suited for their home.
3.1.2
Program Highlights (Overall):
Feedback from customers on the program and trade allies has been positive. As measured by the
customer satisfaction survey completed during Quality Assurance verifications, the customers were
very satisfied with the program and the work that was done by the trade allies. Respondents had a
more positive opinion of Cleco and stated they would likely refer others to the program as a result
of their participation.
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
A customer satisfaction rating of 92.72 percent was achieved for the overall program.
Ten percent of all work performed by trade allies was evaluated by a Quality Assurance
program team member with a 100 percent passing rating.
All customer complaints were resolved and customers who had complaints were contacted
within one business day or less.
Energy efficiency measures were performed in 20 out of the 23 parishes that Cleco serves.
A total of 1,003 home assessments were performed.
8|P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
▪
A total of 9,291 direct-install measures were installed during single-home assessments,
including low-flow aerators, low-flow showerheads, CFL and LED light bulbs and advanced
power strips. A total of 12,919 direct-install measures were installed in multifamily homes. The
combined total for direct-install measures during home assessments and multifamily projects
was 22,210
Direct-Install Measures Implemented
Smart Strips,
239, 1%
Low-Flow
Aerators, 3,246,
15% Low-Flow
Showerheads,
1,593, 7%
CFL & LED Light
Bulbs, 17,132,
77%
▪
Retail Lighting and Appliances achieved a gross annual energy savings of 1,490,377 kWh and 333.84 kW.
There were approximately 12,000 participants.
o
Seventeen retail store locations participated in the point-of-purchase lighting discounts; all
were located within the Cleco territory. When selecting stores, an effort was made to reach as
many customers as possible while mitigating leakage. GIS mapping and analytics were used to
target participating stores. In addition to ensuring locations were within Cleco’s service territory,
the proximity to state border, population density and equal distribution across the service
territory were also considered.
▪
A total of 701 CoolSaver tune-ups were performed.
▪
Eight projects were submitted to the New Construction program by the St. Tammany Parish
Chapter of Habitat for Humanity.
▪
The Multi-Family Direct Install program achieved an estimated 362,288 kWh in energy savings and
52 in kW demand savings. A total of 11 (859 units) complexes participated in the program receiving
energy-saving, direct install items, including:
o
o
o
3.1.3
9,198 light bulbs
2,481 low-flow aerators
1,240 low-flow showerheads
Program Budget, Savings & Participants
Table 3.1: Program Budget, Energy Savings & Participants
Program
Budget
Program Year 2014 $1,762,242
Cost
Actual
$1,803,647
%
102%
Energy Savings (kWh)
Plan
Evaluated %
4,694,182
9,051,337 193%
Demand Savings (kW)
Participants
Plan Evaluated
%
Plan
Actual
%
1,421
1,694
119% 43,232
26,726
62%
9|P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
3.1.4
Program Events & Training
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
3.1.5
Cleco co-sponsored several Building Performance Institute (BPI) trainings with other
participating utilities in order to grow trade ally knowledge in the following fields: building
systems, thermal boundaries, air flow, proper use of blower door and duct blaster and other
topics as required for field testing. The Cleco Best Practices incorporated these standards and
they were emphasized by the QA/QC staff during field inspections.
In September, Cleco sponsored a meeting for the Teche Area Builders Association. The
policies and procedures regarding the Residential Solutions program for new homes/existing
homes and HVAC replacement incentives for the Energy Efficiency program were discussed.
This presentation was delivered to 20 area contractors.
In July, a webinar was held to recruit participating insulation contractors. During the discussion,
the proper gauging and calculation of the pre and post R-value of insulation was presented to
10 area insulation contractors; these guidelines were in accordance with the programs best
practices documentation.
Contractors were trained “in the field” on the installation of properly qualifying direct-install
items, including low-flow aerators, low-flow showerheads, and CFL and LED bulbs for
multifamily projects.
Several CLEAResult consultants attended the Butcher Distributors Sales event in Mandeville,
LA. Flyers and program materials were distributed to attendees with information about the
CoolSaver program as well as incentives for HVAC replacements.
For the CoolSaver program, formal instructional training on the iManifold™ app, refrigerant
analyzer, airflow measurement and tune-up best practices were conducted. Classroom training
was hands-on, utilizing demo data.
CoolSaver instructional field training was offered on the iManifold app, refrigerant analyzer,
airflow measurement, charging techniques and tune-up best practices while working on live
machines in a real-world scenario.
Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget
Energy assessments and direct-install measures offered in Program Year 1 (“PY1”) will be
discontinued for the Cleco Energy Efficiency program in Program Year 2 (“PY2”). During PY1,
these measures were incentivized to help contractors performing weatherization measures jumpstart the Quick Start Phase of the Cleco Energy Efficiency program. The energy-assessment
incentives were reduced from $75 to $50 in April 2015, and in August 2015 the energy assessment
incentive and the direct-install incentives ended altogether. Energy-assessment incentives and
direct-install measure incentives will not be offered for PY2 except for direct-install measures for
pre-approved, multifamily properties. No notable reduction in participation was noted at the end of
PY1 after these measures were discontinued. Funding that had been designated for energy
assessments and direct installs will be utilized in other areas of the Residential Solutions program
where greater savings can be achieved. No savings are generated from energy assessments and
the cost of kWh savings for direct-install measures by contractors were generally higher than other
weatherization measurers performed by contractors.
For PY2, contractor production allocations were put in place to better manage and monitor the
volume of applications being submitted over the course of each program year. The most active
contractors with the highest volume and best quality of work were given allotments of funding to be
used over a recommended period of time. This allows the program team to more accurately predict
monthly volume and the associated level of incentive funding that will be required. It also allows the
program team to direct contractors to service areas that are underserved. Allocations benefit
contractors by allowing them the ability to estimate staffing needs for installation of energy
measures.
10 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
The budget allocations for energy assessments and direct-install items will be utilized to incentivize
duct sealing, air infiltration reduction and insulation measures. We anticipate because of this
change that the cost-benefit value of the Residential Solutions program will increase due to more
incentives going toward demand and energy saving measures with longer lifetimes.
The appliance rebate “Most Efficient Refrigerator” is being discontinued due to a change in industry
standards that resulted in lower savings that could be claimed. Also, the list of approved, ENERGY
STAR certified “Most Efficient Refrigerators” is very limited and has the potential to cause
confusion between “efficient” and “most efficient” designations with customers who are attempting
to apply for the rebate.
Select CoolSaver trade allies have been chosen to perform a “Pre-Cleaned” duct-sealing measure.
Due to the seasonal nature of CoolSaver tune-ups, trade allies are allowed to perform duct-sealing
measures to assist in retaining their qualified, trained staff year-round. Pre-Cleaned projects are
divided into two segments which will be conducted at separate visits with different savings for each.
o
Pre-Clean: During the Pre-Clean portion, contractors will clean equipment to meet
requirements AND perform a duct-leakage test and/or make repairs. Pre-Clean savings will
come from ONLY the duct-sealing measure at this time.
o
Post Measurement: This step will be completed once the outdoor temperature is high enough
to verify refrigerant levels. Post-measurement savings will come from the actual tune-up of
HVAC equipment leading to test-out capacity and Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) rating. The
trade ally is incentivized for the CoolSaver tune-up only at this time.
3.2 Appliance Recycling
3.2.1
Program Description
The Cleco Appliance Recycling program (“ARP”) permanently removed older, inefficient refrigerators
and freezers that could be eliminated or replaced with newer/smaller appliances, thereby producing
long-term energy savings for the residential customer. When refrigerators/freezers are picked up, the
program also offers the customer the opportunity to recycle window-unit air conditioners. In addition to
free pickup and recycling of the unit(s), the program also offered an incentive to participants to help
further encourage them to remove and recycle their old appliances. Participants were educated on the
energy-saving benefits of the program. Many customers retain and operate spare appliances even
though the units are old, inefficient, and/or ineffectively operated (e.g., a secondary refrigerator is
mostly empty or used simply to keep beverages cold). These circumstances occur because the
customer does not recognize the full cost of operating the units in this way and/or perceives an
annoyance factor regarding the disposal of the unit. This program overcomes these obstacles by
publicizing the true costs of running the old, inefficient units, making unit disposal convenient and free
and offering an incentive to further persuade the customer. In addition to having very favorable costeffective attributes on its own, the ARP also provides a mechanism for cross-program promotion since
energy efficiency program materials (e.g., literature, kits, etc.) can be provided directly to the customer
at the time of unit collection.
The ARP also prevents the customer from either using a haul-away and resale service or transferring
the appliance to another Cleco utility customer. In either of these situations, the older, inefficient
appliance often continues to be utilized and operated inefficiently on the power grid.
To participate in the ARP, refrigerators, freezers or window-unit air conditioners must be located at a
residence and proven at the time of pick-up to be in operating condition. The program utilized a thirdpart contractor, JACO Appliance Recycling (“JACO”), for unit-collection services. Once appliances
were collected, incentive checks were issued to customers.
11 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
To enroll in the program, customers called JACO to qualify and schedule an appliance pick-up. When
the appliance crew arrived at the home, they verified that the appliance was operational and then
rendered the appliance permanently in-operable. Once the appliance was returned to the recycling
center, JACO de-manufactured the units. The de-manufacturing followed the U.S. EPA Responsible
Appliance Disposal program specifications.
To market the ARP, JACO used educational media messages that focused on the following:
▪
▪
▪
High cost of running older inefficient refrigerators, freezers and window unit A/Cs
No-cost, convenient collection service
Incentive paid to customer
The marketing of the program involved a variety of strategies and tactics, including, but not limited to:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
3.2.2
Program Highlights
▪
▪
3.2.3
Utility channels (bill inserts)
Press releases
Retail appliance stores
Web channels
Outreach through community organizations and schools
Collection truck signage
There were 363 units collected that qualified for the program: 259 refrigerators and 104 freezers.
There were 342 individual customers who participated.
Table 3.1 Program Budget, Energy Savings & Participants
Program
Program Year 2014
3.2.4
%
32%
Plan
Evaluated %
912,007
353,276 39%
Demand Savings (kW)
Plan Evaluated
%
116
69
59%
Plan
799
Participants
Actual
%
363
45%
▪
▪
3.2.5
Budget
$185,566
Cost
Actual
$58,464
The Appliance Recycling program was part of a training presentation offered to Cleco customer
service staff in Sept. 2014 prior to program kickoff and again in June of 2015 when the actual
recycling program began.
In July 2015, JACO put on an educational television demonstration called “Filet-O-Fridge” where a
JACO staff member disassembled a refrigerator on WWL‘s live TV morning show. This
demonstration effectively showed how the units are recycled. Also on hand was Eric Schouest,
Cleco’s General Manager of Governmental Affairs and Regional Sales, who was able to talk briefly
about energy efficiency programs. The Appliance Recycling program was also promoted through
different media outlets, including radio, Pandora, bill inserts and press releases.
The Appliance Recycling program has been discontinued due to JACO filing for receivership in early
Nov. 2015. While this program was popular with many Cleco customers, there are very few companies
who could step in to replace this vendor.
12 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
3.3 Small Business Direct Install Program
3.3.1
Program Description
The Cleco Small Business Direct Install program offers enhanced incentives to small business owners
to help overcome the first-cost entrance barriers that are unique to the small business market and
frequently interfere with small business adoption of energy efficiency measures. By offering enhanced
financial incentives and energy-savings education, the program generates significant cost-effective
energy savings for small businesses. Market-segmented program strategies were utilized that
encourage the adoption of diverse efficiency measures in target sub-sectors.
The Small Business Direct Install program resulted in a verifiable energy usage reduction, focusing on
direct-install measures that are listed in the Arkansas TRM 3.0. The program also offered technical
assistance based on other small commercial EE programs that have been shown to be cost-effective in
removing the market barriers for small business customers. A trained network of qualified trade allies
offers walk-through facility assessments, generates customer proposals and receives commitments
from the customer through a signed project application. The application is submitted to CLEAResult,
the program implementer, for approval. During the facility assessment, the trade ally directly installs
free, energy-saving devices while waiting for program staff to approve larger lighting projects. The
measures that are installed through the program include CFLs/ LEDs bulbs, fluorescent T-12 to T-8
lighting, aerators, pre-rinse spray valves, refrigeration lighting and ECMs.
The trade allies receive program training from CLEAResult and begin recruiting customers into the
program. The trade allies learn how to verify customer eligibility, perform facility surveys, generate
customer proposals and submit signed project applications for participation.
The program utilized consistent messaging and a standard participation process across small business
program initiatives to drive general awareness and ease of entry for the program. The program focuses
on targeted messaging for specific market segments. CLEAResult delivers information to customers
primarily through the qualified contractor network. Contractors identify opportunities and communicate
program participation requirements to customers. In addition, other upstream market channels are
utilized to market the program (e.g., trade and business groups, vendor organizations, etc.).
Information workshops, seminars, trade shows and engagement with trade and business organizations
are also utilized to continue to recruit qualified contractors.
The trade allies work directly with customers to help them understand the benefits of program
participation, identifying opportunities and enrolling. A clear web presence is provided to promote the
program as well and includes information for both contractors and customers.
Marketing to contractors involves a variety of strategies and tactics, including:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Direct outreach and recruitment by program staff
Program staff attending local trade shows, events and association meetings
Outreach and presentations through professional associations, meetings and events
Program website
Social media
Marketing collateral to contractors to support their sale of high-efficiency equipment include, but is not
limited to:
▪
▪
▪
Attractive project applications produced through the program tool
Approved logos and links for use on contractor websites
Direct outreach and recruitment by program staff, mostly through attending local trade shows,
events and association meetings
13 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
▪
▪
Outreach through local trade associations
Providing participating contractors with program toolkits that include marketing collateral, tools, and
other resources for program participation
Marketing to small business customers to drive participation include, but is not limited to:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
3.3.2
Bill inserts
Social media
Outreach through local business associations, meetings and events
Program website
Working with Cleco account managers to identify good program candidates
Conference calls with customers to introduce them to the program
On-site customer meetings and presentations
Program Highlights
▪
A total of 8,854 measures were completed.
▪
A total of 56 contractors signed up to participate in the program.
▪
The program achieved 1,672,761 kWh in energy savings (a 95.5 percent overall realization rate).
▪
Participants by business type:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
3.3.3
Gas stations/convenience stores: 31 percent
Restaurants: 28 percent
Retail: 23 percent
Grocery: 10 percent
Service (non-food): 3 percent
Education: 2 percent
Outdoor (projects that were entirely outdoor): 1 percent
Program
Budget
$470,026
Program Year 2014
3.3.4
Cost
Actual
$450,171
%
96%
Plan
Evaluated %
1,756,105
1,672,761 96%
Demand Savings (kW)
Plan Evaluated
%
409
278
68%
Plan
6,239
Participants
Actual
%
8,854 142%
▪
The Small Business Kickoff Business Direct Install Program
o
▪
Training for new and existing contractors on small business requirements and changes to the
program/field tool. Presentation detailed all process information and tips for contractor success
in the program. Approximately 20 contractors attended the remote training.
New Contractor Orientation Training
o All new contractors in the program must receive program orientation training that covers
among other things an introduction to the program, incentive rates, documentation
requirements and training on how to use the Open tool.
14 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
▪
▪
3.3.5
On-Site Training
o The first five projects from a new contractor must be pre- and post-inspected. Contractors are
invited to join the pre-inspection for additional training and to correct any issues with their
project.
.
Additional training is provided as required or requested.
None for Quick Start. Future follow-on phases beyond Quick Start must contemplate increasing
budgets for larger program incentive pools and program staffing to support increased project volume
and more complex EM&V activities.
3.4 SCORE/CitySmart Program
3.4.1
Program Description
The Cleco Schools and Cities program, also known as SCORE/CitySmart, is designed to provide viable
energy efficiency and demand reduction solutions for school districts, local governments, state
agencies and higher education institutions. In addition to providing cash incentives for energy-efficient
upgrades, this program also helps customers identify, prioritize and plan for energy-efficient projects
with expanded support for project identification and oversight. The program promotes both prescriptive
and custom measures that have deemed savings in accordance with the Arkansas TRM 3.0.
The Cleco SCORE/CitySmart program is designed to help the institutional customer overcome barriers
to energy efficiency improvements that are unique to this customer segment, such as conflicting
organizational goals, outdated specifications, limited technical knowledge and counter-productive
energy budgeting.
The program offers incentives for prescriptive and custom energy efficiency measures as well as
enhanced technical assistance, including:
▪
▪
▪
Technical and design assistance to help identify energy-savings opportunities
Support for securing cash incentives and financing to underwrite project costs
Project management support to ensure project completion
CLEAResult, the program implementer, worked with Cleco’s program staff to identify potential program
participants and then schedule and conduct outreach and face-to-face meetings to recruit those
participants. In these meetings, the program team provides the potential participants with an overview
of the program and guidelines for participation. The program team also works with the potential
participant to identify projects and illustrate how program participation by the team would provide the
needed motivation to complete these projects. Alternative financing sources that can help accomplish
additional energy efficiency work is also discussed.
The program develops tools, processes, procedures and marketing materials to support the following
key program elements:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Identifying local government and higher education prospects
Recruiting participation in the programs
Collecting and reviewing building and energy-use data
Benchmarking energy performance
Developing project and savings reporting forms and processes
Tracking program milestones and budget performance
Documenting and reporting energy-savings goal achievement
15 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
3.4.2
Program Highlights
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
3.4.3
Program participants were incentivized on multiple projects
Facilities’ energy benchmarking was conducted for St. Tammany Parish and the City of Slidell
Energy master planning was conducted for St. Tammany Parish
Acadia Parish Schools utilized the program to expand their ongoing, district-wide energy efficiency
initiatives
Opelousas Housing Authority improved over 400 housing units with direct-install energy efficiency
measures
Cleco—School & Cities
Program
Program Year 2014
3.4.4
%
49%
Plan
Evaluated %
1,466,008
715,818 49%
Demand Savings (kW)
Plan Evaluated
%
321
152
47%
Plan
5,045
Participants
Actual
%
1,470
29%
▪
▪
▪
3.4.5
Budget
$345,343
Cost
Actual
$168,820
February 3–5, 2015: Cleco sponsored and staffed a table at the Louisiana Municipal Association
Winter meeting held in Baton Rouge. Nearly all municipalities in the state of Louisiana attended the
event and program team members discussed the new energy efficiency program offerings. There
were an estimated 500 attendees
January 21, 2015: The program team presented the CitySmart program at the St. Tammany
Municipal Association meeting. Eight activities/towns/villages were represented at the event
May 19, 2015: Sample school assessments and overall program opportunities were presented to
the Rapides Parish School Board Finance Committee
No program changes are proposed for PY 2.
3.5 Commercial & Industrial Program
3.5.1
Program Description
The Cleco Commercial and Industrial Program offer prescriptive and custom incentives for projects that
produce electric energy consumption savings. The program targets large commercial and industrial
customers by identifying electric energy-savings opportunities and overcoming the market barriers to
implementing cost-effective, energy-efficient investments. The program helps customers identify
projects they might not otherwise undertake or be aware of the available options. The program utilizes
both prescriptive and custom measures to achieve deemed savings in accordance with the Arkansas
TRM 3.0.
A portion of the program segment funds are utilized to incorporate new innovative technologies
(measures) that are installed in commercial and industrial facilities. The energy-savings measures will
have an energy-savings measurement component and an education component. This encourages
customers and trade allies to be proactive in incorporating new and innovative measures into projects.
16 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
The program provides incentives for prescriptive measures such as lighting upgrades, HVAC upgrades,
refrigeration measures and ENERGY STAR certified cooking equipment. Custom incentives are offered
for process improvements, other system-level custom projects and/or projects involving unique
equipment not part of the prescriptive offerings. Program staff pre-approves projects for customer and
measure eligibility and provides EM&V services or review as needed to verify the savings for energy
efficiency measures. The program provides technical support for C&I customers to identify energy
inefficiencies and prioritize energy improvements. It also offers energy assessments, educational
resources, and incentives for the installation of energy efficiency measures.
Incentives are paid on a $/kWh saved per project. Incentives may be assigned from the customer to the
contractor in order to reduce first-cost, out-of-pocket expense to the customer.
The program implementer provides pre-approval of project and customer eligibility, and provides review
and approval of claimed savings. Prescriptive and custom projects must be able to show specific and
verifiable energy savings and must be cost-effective to obtain program approval. Customer savings
claims may be developed by a third-party engineering firm and are also subject to program
measurement and verification activities.
The C&I program offers technical assistance components to help customers evaluate energy efficiency
opportunities. The program is promoted to key trade allies (e.g., engineering firms, energy service
providers, and contractors) so that they can promote participation to their customers. Participating
contractors are required to participate in training sessions regarding program incentives, participation
processes and requirements, and eligible measures.
Contractors identify opportunities, communicate program participation requirements to customers, and
help customers enroll in the program. Customers receive rebates after projects are completed or the
measures have been installed. In addition, other upstream market sectors are utilized to market the
program (e.g., trade and business groups, vendor organizations). Information workshops, training
seminars, participation in trade shows, and engagement with trade and business organizations are also
utilized to continue to recruit qualified contractors.
The program works directly with customers to help educate them on the benefits of program
participation, identify opportunities and enroll in the program. A clear web presence is provided to
promote the program as well and includes information for both contractors and customers.
Program marketing to commercial customers to drive participation include:
▪
▪
▪
▪
Direct program outreach
Outreach and presentations through professional associations, meetings and events
Program website
Social media
Marketing to contractors involves a variety of strategies and tactics including:
▪
▪
▪
▪
Direct outreach and recruitment by program staff
Outreach through local trade ally associations
Program staff attending local trade shows, events and association meetings
Providing participating contractors with program toolkits that include marketing collateral, tools,
approved logos and links for use on contractor websites, as well as other resources for
program participation
Marketing to commercial customers through Cleco account managers, including:
▪
Working with Cleco account managers to identify viable program candidates
17 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
▪
▪
3.5.2
Conference calls with customers to introduce them to the program
On-site customer meetings and presentations
Program Highlights
▪
Participation was a diverse mix of both big-box retailers, large industrials and local business
entities ranging from automobile dealerships to insurance agencies to meat processing plants.
Conservation measures also highlighted a mix of capabilities ranging from new, energyefficient lighting technologies to more efficient HVAC and refrigeration equipment.
Projects were distributed throughout the geographically separated service territory.
Several, more comprehensive assessments were completed for large industrial participants
that offered a range of low-cost//no-cost measures to more capital-intensive investments,
thereby enabling the utility customer to plan for future budgeting needs.
▪
▪
▪
3.5.3
Cleco—Commercial & Industrial
Program
Program Year 2014
3.5.4
Budget
$569,714
Cost
Actual
$710,130
%
125%
Plan
Evaluated %
2,491,391
3,492,474 140%
Demand Savings (kW)
Plan Evaluated
%
646
204
32%
Plan
8,866
Participants
Actual
%
3,553
40%
Cleco program staff participated in the Edison Electric Institute’s (EEI) National Key Accounts
Workshop in New Orleans. The team interfaced with national big-box retailers like Wal-Mart, JC
Penny, McDonalds, Home Depot and RaceTrac and educated them on the Cleco program
incentives available to them.
3.5.5
No program changes are proposed for PY 2.
4.0 Evaluation, Measurement & Verification
4.1 Overview
For PY1 an independent, third-party evaluator (“TPE”) was selected to evaluate ex ante savings for each
program. Two standards were used to evaluate these savings. For deemed savings measures, adherence
to prescriptive savings as specified in Arkansas TRM V3.0 was evaluated. For measures not addressed in
Arkansas TRM V3.0 requiring measurement and verification, adherence to International Performance
Measurement and Verification Protocols (“IPMVP”) was assessed.
4.2 Program Evaluation
Residential Solutions and Appliance Recycling Program EM&V Procedures
The evaluation approach for both of these programs was very similar. The programs provided
comprehensive energy savings through on-site technical assessments and recommendations for lighting,
HVAC, building envelope improvements and appliance recycling. Savings calculation verifications were
completed as well as standard process evaluation activities (e.g., satisfaction surveying, contractor
interviewing). The TPE reviewed the implementation plan, marketing materials and outreach efforts
18 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
associated with reaching the target market for the programs. Upon completion of the review, the TPE
prepared a sampling plan as part of a preliminary measurement and valuation plan for the programs.
As part of the deemed-and-verify approach, on-site visits to a sample of participants were required to
obtain primary data to verify installation rates. This site evaluation plan specified the specific
measurements, equipment, duration and calculations for each energy-conservation measure. An early
sample was taken shortly after initiation of the program, and this data was used in the process evaluation
report as well as for real-time feedback on the success of the program.
The data collected from the tracking system and on-site visits was used to support two estimates of
program impacts: an ex ante gross impacts estimate (from the tracking system) and the ex post “verified”
gross impacts estimate from the documentation review and on-site evaluation efforts.
Large Commercial & Industrial Program / Schools and Cities Program EM&V Procedures
Small and large commercial as well as the schools and cities market sectors received incentives based on
prescriptive measures. Custom measures were not completed in PY1; however, for future program years,
the evaluation procedures are covered here. The TPE’s general approach to conducting program EM&V
was to develop samples for each program channel, with projects selected by expected kWh savings. Using
this process, the TPE selected most, if not all, of the largest projects and a sample of smaller projects.
Custom Track
If custom measures are installed in the future, the TPE will conduct EM&V in real-time in partnership
with Cleco. The TPE will perform real-time monitoring on a census of custom projects. This will have
the net effect of being less costly than traditional M&V (where the evaluator would draw a separate
sample for on-site monitoring) in that it removes duplication of effort. Customers will only be subjected
to one round of on-site verification and monitoring, minimizing the time and hassle on the part of the
participating customer.
Prescriptive Track
The EM&V of the prescriptive track within the program applied an approach that utilized Arkansas
TRM V3.0 deemed savings specifications. As part of the evaluation, the TPE carefully reviewed the
analyses and calculations that were used to develop deemed or stipulated savings values for the
measures that are incentivized through the program. The TPE evaluated the analysis for each
measure, according to the degree to which the savings calculations are supported and defensible and
documentation is adequate. To facilitate review of savings calculations, the TPE recorded whether the
methodology used for the calculation was appropriate, assumptions used were reasonable and
appropriate and savings calculations were done correctly.
Small Business Program EM&V Procedures
The program provided customers with no- and low-cost energy efficiency improvements. The measures
were prescriptive with established deemed savings values in the Arkansas TRM V3.0. As a result, the
EM&V effort for small businesses focused around independent verification inspections for a sample of
participating facilities. One difference in how impact evaluation was conducted for the program, however, is
that a sampling approach was dependent on the trade ally rather than project size for the following
reasons:
•
Projects in the program will typically have less variation than in programs such as the Commercial
& Industrial program. There is typically a more limited menu of measures, and most facilities are of
relatively similar size.
19 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
•
This program is reliant upon a mix of participating trade allies and implementation staff in engaging
customers and installing measures. The risk associated with direct-install programs is that a
QA/QC failure shortfall from an installing contractor can be multiplied to a large number of projects
should it go unnoticed. By sampling by installer, the program mitigates this issue by Identifying
specific issues with each contractor.
When conducting the process evaluation of the program, a primary focus was on the training of the
participating contractors. The process evaluation included a review of the training procedures of the
participating trade allies and a review of the trade ally agreements in order to ensure there are the
necessary QA/QC safeguards and that trade allies are properly incentivized to provide the types of
outreach and installations that Cleco needs.
4.3 Cost Benefit
Table: Cost-Effectiveness by Program, PY1
Verified Peak
Program
Verified Annual
Demand
Energy
Reduction
Savings (kWh)
(kW)
Total Program
Expenditures
TRC
UCT
(b/c
(b/c
ratio)
ratio)
Residential Solutions
1,693.6
9,051,337
$1,762,826
1.82
2.89
Appliance Recycling
68.9
353,276
$111,614
.89
.89
Small Business
277.7
1,672,761
$458,157
1.64
1.72
Large C&I
204.5
3,492,474
$681,801
1.81
2.40
CitySmart
151.9
715,818
$173,355
1.53
2.04
Total – EE Programs
2,396.6
15,285,666
$3,187,753
1.76
2.50
5.0 Supplemental Requirements
5.1 Program Training
Table: Training Events
Training
Sessions
Attendees
Man Hours
Certificates
Cost
External
104
446
3,141
70
$57,015
Internal
8
80
90
0
$7,782
112
526
3,231
70
$64,797
Total
Details of individual training events are listed in the SARP workbook, included as a part of this filing.
20 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
5.2 Lost Revenue
Section VI of the Commission’s Energy Efficiency Rules (“EE Rules”) permits utilities to recover lost
revenues from participating customers that are a direct result of energy efficiency measures. These lost
revenues were defined as Lost Contribution to Fixed Costs, or “LCFC” in the EE Rules. The Commission
approved Cleco Power’s LCFC recovery mechanism prior to the start of Phase I of the Quick Start Energy
Efficiency Program, as part of a joint filing with other participating Louisiana utilities. The approval allowed
Cleco Power to adjust its Energy Efficiency Rider rates for inclusion of anticipated LCFC and to recover
these costs from participating customers commensurate with other program costs over the first year of the
EE Program.
The initial year of Cleco Power’s EE Program yielded higher kWh savings than anticipated. Cleco Power’s
LCFC calculation based on measured/verified kWh savings for the period November 1, 2014 through
October 31, 2015 follows:
LCFC Energy
Savings (MWh)
LCFC Cost Recovery
($)
Cleco - Residential Solutions
9,051,337
$ 617,534
Cleco - Small Business Direct Install
1,672,761
$ 38,379
715,818
$ 16,423
3,492,474
$ 80,129
353,276
$ 24,103
15,285,666
$ 776,568
Program Name
Cleco - School & Cities
Cleco - Large Commercial
Cleco - Appliance Recycling
Total
5.3 Staffing
To implement Cleco Power’s Quick Start Energy Efficiency Program, the utility hired CLEAResult to help
design, implement and administer the program. CLEAResult administered this program out of their
Covington office. CLEAResult delivered the two residential and three commercial programs utilizing seven
full-time employees and three part-time employees. To deliver the Energy Depot Online Audit and the
Refrigerator Recycling programs, two additional sub-contractors were utilized.
By use of a third-party administrator for its Energy Efficiency Program, Cleco Power was able to handle
overall management and accounting for the program, as well as provide assistance to the CLEAResult
staff, with existing internal company resources.
5.4 Information Provided to Consumers to Promote Energy Efficiency
For the Cleco program, various marketing tactics were deployed to generate program awareness and drive
program participation in both the commercial and residential programs. For the commercial programs, a
21 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
library of informational handouts was created, as well as collateral that program-approved trade allies could
use to promote the programs.
For the residential programs, a wide range of tactics generated program awareness, including:
▪
▪
▪
Print ads
Radio ads
Digital ads
To drive program participation in specific measures and programs, marketing materials included:






Bill inserts
Customer emails
Door hangers
Customer newsletters
Point-of-purchase materials for the retail program
Contractor collateral to promote the programs
Examples of the residential and commercial program marketing are included in Appendix Section 6.0.
22 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
6.0 Appendix
PY1 Cleco EE Program – Sample Marketing Materials
Print Ads – Residential Solutions Program
23 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
Door Hangers
Digital Ads
24 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
Tri-Fold—CoolSaver Tune-Ups
Point of Purchase—Lighting & Appliance Program
25 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
Bill Insert—Refrigerator Recycling
26 | P a g e
Cleco, LLC
Docket No R-31106
7.0
ATTACHMENT
Evaluation of PY1 Energy Efficiency Programs
Cleco Power LLC
February 2016
27 | P a g e
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................. ES-1
2. General Methodology.............................................................................................. 2-1
3. Residential Solutions .............................................................................................. 3-1
4. Appliance Recycling................................................................................................ 4-1
5. Small Business Program......................................................................................... 5-1
6. Commercial & Industrial Solutions Program ........................................................... 6-1
7. SCORE/CitySmart .................................................................................................. 7-1
8. Appendix A: Cost-Benefit Testing .............................................................................. 1
9. Appendix B: Site Reports ........................................................................................... 1
Table of Contents
i
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Impact Summary ....................................................................................... ES-2
Table 1-2 Summary of kWh Goal Attainment ............................................................ ES-3
Table 1-3 Summary of kW Goal Attainment .............................................................. ES-3
Table 1-4 PY1 Total Resource Cost Results ............................................................. ES-4
Table 3-1 Summary of Measures of Measure Offerings – Residential Solutions ......... 3-2
Table 3-2 Summary of Measures and Expected Savings – Residential Solutions ....... 3-3
Table 3-3 TRM Sections by Measure Type .................................................................. 3-4
Table 3-4 Deemed Savings Values for Air Infiltration Reduction .................................. 3-5
Table 3-5 Deemed Savings Values for Duct Sealing Calculations ............................... 3-6
Table 3-6 Parameters for kWh Savings Calculation of ENERGY STAR® Pool Pump . 3-8
Table 3-7 Parameters for kWh usage of conventional and ENERGY STAR® Pool Pump
.............................................................................................................................. 3-9
Table 3-8 Conventional Pool Pumps Assumptions .................................................... 3-10
Table 3-9 ENERGY STAR® Multi-Speed Pool Pumps Assumptions ......................... 3-10
Table 3-10 ENERGY STAR® Variable Speed Pool Pumps – Deemed Savings Values 310
Table 3-11 ENERGY STAR® Multi-Speed Pool Pumps – Deemed Savings Values . 3-11
Table 3-12 Expected and Realized Air Sealing Savings ............................................ 3-12
Table 3-13 Effect of Zone Mapping on HVAC Savings by Parish ............................... 3-13
Table 3-14 Home Improvement Leakage Rates ......................................................... 3-20
Table 3-15 Mass Merchant Leakage Rates................................................................ 3-20
Table 3-16 Leakage Results ...................................................................................... 3-20
Table 3-17 Efficiency Loss Percentage by Refrigerant Charge Level ........................ 3-22
Table 3-18 Realization Summary – Audit & Downstream Rebate .............................. 3-22
Table of Contents
ii
Table 3-19 Realization Summary – Markdown Lighting ............................................. 3-23
Table 3-20 Verified Savings by Measure Type ........................................................... 3-23
Table 3-21 Summary of Participant Survey Responses ............................................. 3-25
Table 3-22 Home Assessment Incentives .................................................................. 3-27
Table 3-23 Lighting and Appliance Component Incentives ........................................ 3-27
Table 3-24 Number of Participating Lighting Retailer Locations................................. 3-27
Table 3-25 New Home Component Incentives ........................................................... 3-28
Table 3-26 Program Activity by Measure ................................................................... 3-30
Table 3-27 Share of Assessment Projects and Measure Projects ............................. 3-31
Table 3-28 Other Residential Energy Efficiency Programs ........................................ 3-34
Table 3-29 Lighting Discounts Offered by Regional Utilities....................................... 3-36
Table 3-30 Appliance and Discounts Offered by Regional Utilities ............................ 3-37
Table 3-31 Review of Energy Assessment Report ..................................................... 3-38
Table 3-32 Review of Online Audit Tool ..................................................................... 3-39
Table 3-33 Residential Solutions Housing Summary ................................................. 3-50
Table 3-34 Low Income Probability Scoring by Household Size and Income Level ... 3-51
Table 3-35 How Participants Learned of the Program ............................................... 3-52
Table 3-36 Factors Affecting Decision to Participate .................................................. 3-53
Table 3-37 Likelihood of Completing Assessment without Rebate or Discount.......... 3-53
Table 3-38 Likelihood of Implementing Measure without Assessment ....................... 3-54
Table 3-39 Likelihood of Completing Assessment without Rebate or Discount.......... 3-55
Table 3-40 Who Completed the Rebate Application .................................................. 3-58
Table 3-41 Time since Last Tune-up .......................................................................... 3-60
Table 3-42 Reasons for Dissatisfaction with the Program .......................................... 3-64
Table 3-43 Impact of Participation on Satisfaction with Cleco .................................... 3-65
Table of Contents
iii
Table 3-44 Trade Ally Satisfaction Levels of Program Elements................................ 3-69
Table 4-1 Data Sources for Impact Parameters – Appliance Recycling Program ........ 4-2
Table 4-2 Refrigerator Recycling Regression Model Coefficients ................................ 4-3
Table 4-3 PY1 ARP Savings Summary ........................................................................ 4-4
Table 4-4 Appliance Recycling Measure-Level Savings............................................... 4-5
Table 4-5 Type of Units Recycled ................................................................................ 4-8
Table 4-6 Use of Unit Prior to Recycling ...................................................................... 4-8
Table 4-7 Appliance Recycling Program Inter-Utility Comparison .............................. 4-10
Table 4-8 Common Marketing Practices .................................................................... 4-15
Table 4-9 Low Income Probability Scoring by Household Size and Income Level ..... 4-19
Table 4-10 Time in Use by Appliance Type................................................................ 4-20
Table 4-11 Appliance Condition by Appliance Type ................................................... 4-21
Table 4-12 Appliance Location by Appliance Type .................................................... 4-21
Table 4-13 Reasons for Recycling Appliance............................................................. 4-21
Table 4-14 Factors Motivating Program Participation ................................................ 4-22
Table 4-15 Action Taken without the Program’s Recycling Service ........................... 4-23
Table 4-16 Appointment Scheduling Issues ............................................................... 4-23
Table 4-17 Incidence of Confirmation and Reminder Calls ........................................ 4-24
Table 4-18 Experience with Appliance Collector ........................................................ 4-24
Table 4-19 Impact of Participation on Satisfaction with Utility .................................... 4-26
Table 5-1 PY1 Small Business Program Participation Summary ................................. 5-2
Table 5-2 Small Business Sample Summary ............................................................... 5-2
Table 5-3 Small Business Program Sample Design ..................................................... 5-2
Table 5-4 Summary of kWh Savings for Small Business Program by Sample Stratum 5-3
Table 5-5 Expected and Realized Savings by Project .................................................. 5-3
Table of Contents
iv
Table 5-6 Small Business Program-Level Realization by Stratum ............................... 5-4
Table 5-7 Small Business – Causes of Low Realization .............................................. 5-4
Table 5-8 Small Business Program Process Evaluation – Summary of Data Collection 56
Table 5-9 Small Business Direct Install – Regional Benchmarking .............................. 5-9
Table 5-10 Reasons for Participating in the Program ................................................. 5-15
Table 5-11 Likelihood of Installation without Assessment .......................................... 5-16
Table 5-12 Likelihood of Installation without Financial Incentives .............................. 5-16
Table 5-13 Effect of Participation on Satisfaction with Utility ...................................... 5-19
Table 6-1 PY1 LCIP Participation Summary ................................................................ 6-1
Table 6-2 LCIP Sample Summary ................................................................................ 6-1
Table 6-3 LCIP Savings by Measure Category ............................................................ 6-2
Table 6-4 LCIP Sample Design .................................................................................... 6-2
Table 6-5 Summary of kWh Savings for Large C&I by Sample Stratum ...................... 6-3
Table 6-6 Expected and Realized Savings by Project .................................................. 6-3
Table 6-7 Large C&I Program-Level Realization by Stratum........................................ 6-3
Table 6-8 Large C&I – Causes of Low Realization ....................................................... 6-4
Table 6-9 Large Commercial & Industrial Solutions Process Evaluation – Summary of
Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 6-4
Table 6-10 Incentive Amount by End-Use for the C&I Program ................................... 6-5
Table 6-11 How Participants Learned of the Program ............................................... 6-11
Table 6-12 Best Forms of Outreach ........................................................................... 6-11
Table 6-13 Reasons for Participating in the Program ................................................. 6-12
Table 6-14 Likelihood of Installation without the Recommendation............................ 6-12
Table 6-15 Likelihood of Installation without Financial Incentive ................................ 6-12
Table 6-16 People who Worked on Completing Program Application ........................ 6-13
Table of Contents
v
Table 6-17 Effect of Program Participation on Satisfaction with Cleco ....................... 6-14
Table 7-1 PY1 CitySmart Participation Summary ......................................................... 7-2
Table 7-2 CitySmart Program-Level Realization .......................................................... 7-2
Table 7-3 Incentive Amount by End-Use for the CitySmart Program ........................... 7-3
Table 8-1 Cost-Effectiveness by Program, PY1 ...........................................................A-2
Table 8-2 Energy Efficiency Programs – Verified Impacts ...........................................A-2
Table 8-3 Energy Efficiency Programs – Reported Costs ............................................A-3
Table 8-4 Residential Solutions Benefit/Cost Tests .....................................................A-3
Table 8-5 Appliance Recycling Benefit/Cost Tests .......................................................A-3
Table 8-6 Small Business Solutions Benefit/Cost Tests ...............................................A-4
Table 8-7 Large Commercial & Industrial Solutions Benefit/Cost Test .........................A-4
Table 8-8 CitySmart Benefit/Cost Test .........................................................................A-4
Table of Contents
vi
1. Executive Summary
This report is a summary of the evaluation effort of the 2014-2015 (“Program Year 1” or
“PY1”) Quick Start portfolio of Cleco Power LLC (Cleco). This evaluation was led by
ADM Associates Inc. (“ADM”, “The Evaluators”).
1.1
Summary of Cleco Energy Efficiency Programs
In PY1, the Cleco EE portfolio contained the following programs:

Residential Solutions;

Appliance Recycling;

Small Business Direct Install; and

Large Commercial and Industrial Solutions; and

CitySmart.
1.2
Evaluation Objectives
The goals of the PY1 EM&V effort are as follows:

For prescriptive measures, verify that savings are being calculated according to
appropriate Arkansas TRM V3.0, adapted for Louisiana weather, guidelines.

For custom measures, this effort comprises the calculation of savings according
to accepted protocols (such as IPMVP). This is to ensure that custom measures
are cost-effective and provide reliable savings.

Conduct process evaluation of all Cleco programs and of the portfolio overall.
This is to provide a comprehensive review of program operations, marketing and
outreach, quality control procedures, and program successes relative to goals.
From this, the Evaluators are to provide program and portfolio-level
recommendations for Cleco. Process evaluation activities include interviews of
key program actors, surveys of participants and non-participants, literature
reviews and best-practices assessments, and documentation of program
activities, successes, and shortcomings.
1.3
Impact Findings
1.3.1 Verified Savings
Table 1-1 presents verified impacts by program. The values in this table are a
comparison of the savings listed by Cleco and their program implementation staff
(“Expected Savings”) and those verified by the Evaluators (“Verified Savings”).
Executive Summary
ES-1
Table 1-1 Impact Summary
Annual Energy
Savings (kWh)
Program
Expected
8,797,844
Verified
9,051,337
397,051
Small Business
Realization
Rate
Peak kW
Realization
Rate
102.9%
Expected
1,757.1
Verified
1,693.6
353,276
89.0%
45.2
68.9
152.4%
1,752,145
1,672,761
95.5%
282.8
277.7
98.2%
Large C&I
3,496,774
3,492,474
99.9%
196.3
204.5
104.2%
CitySmart
716,535
715,818
99.9%
145.8
151.9
104.2%
15,160,349
15,285,666
100.8%
2,427.2
2,396.6
98.7%
Appliance Recycling
Total
96.4%
The contribution to portfolio savings by program is summarized in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1 Contribution to Portfolio Savings by Program
1.3.2 Goal Attainment
Table 1-2 and Table 1-3 summarize the program goal attainment for kWh and kW,
respectively. This table compares the verified savings values from Table 1-1 to the
program goals filed by Cleco prior to the program launch.
Executive Summary
ES-2
Table 1-2 Summary of kWh Goal Attainment
Program
Verified
kWh
kWh Goal
% of Goal
Attained
9,051,337
4,694,182
192.8%
353,276
912,007
38.7%
Small Business
1,672,761
1,736,105
96.4%
Large C&I
3,492,474
2,491,391
140.2%
CitySmart
715,818
1,466,008
48.8%
15,285,666
11,299,693
135.3%
Appliance Recycling
Total
Table 1-3 Summary of kW Goal Attainment
Program
Verified
kW
kW Goal
% of Goal
Attained
1,693.6
1,421.0
119.2%
68.9
116.0
59.4%
Small Business
277.7
409.0
67.9%
Large C&I
204.5
646.0
31.7%
CitySmart
151.9
321.0
47.3%
2,396.6
2,913.0
82.3%
Appliance Recycling
Total
The portfolio overall met 135.3% of the kWh goal. Residential Solutions and Large
Commercial and Industrial notably over-performed, attaining 192.8% and 140.2% of
first-year goal savings respectively. Small Business met 96.4% of the savings goal.
The two programs to have significantly shortfalls were Appliance Recycling and
CitySmart. Appliance Recycling has been cancelled for PY2 due to the implementation
subtrade ally (JACO Environmental Services) unexpectedly declaring bankruptcy.
CitySmart was slow to launch due to the difficult procurement processes associated
with public sector facilities. However, it is the Evaluators view that this program will
more easily meet kWh savings goals starting in PY2, as program participation took off
only in the last quarter of PY1 (attaining 47.3% of savings goal just in those three
months).
The portfolio reached 82.3% of the filed kW goal, a significant shortfall in light of
reaching 135.3% of the kWh goal. This difference in goal attainment is attributable to
two factors:
1) In the residential sector, kWh savings was driven largely by building envelope
improvements (duct sealing, air sealing, ceiling insulation) in homes with electric
resistance heating. This occurred at a significantly higher rate than anticipated in
Executive Summary
ES-3
program planning, resulting in lower kW savings than planned for this level of
kWh savings.
2) In the commercial sector, the Small Business Direct Install and Large
Commercial & Industrial Solutions programs both had a significant amount of
exterior lighting projects. For example, in Large C&I Solutions, 61.3% of program
savings were attributable to exterior lighting, which yields no peak kW reductions.
1.3.3 Cost-Benefit Results
The Evaluators conducted cost-benefit analysis of the Cleco programs and portfolio.
The primary test of interest was the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test. Table 1-4
summarizes TRC results. More detailed results are presented in Appendix A.
Table 1-4 PY1 Total Resource Cost Results
Program
Total
Total
Benefits
Costs
TRC
(b/c
ratio)
$5,093,862
$2,803,191
1.82
Appliance Recycling
$99,037
$111,879
.88
Small Business
$787,063
$481,063
1.64
Large C&I
$1,633,816
$904,367
1.81
CitySmart
$353,068
$231,017
1.53
$7,966,846
$4,531,517
1.76
The portfolio overall was cost-effective, with a TRC of 1.76. All programs other than
Appliance Recycling passed TRC. Appliance Recycling has been cancelled for PY2.
1.4
Process Findings
1.4.1 Portfolio Findings
1.4.1.1
Program Staffing
The Evaluators found that the programs were well-staffed and that Cleco and
CLEAResult collaborated effectively in administering the PY1 programs. CLEAResult
uses 16 full time staff to support the programs. This staffing includes engineers, field
associates, and two program coordinators. Oversight is provided by two program
managers who oversee all of the Cleco programs.
CLEAResult is responsible for the primary program implementation tasks, namely:

Perform onsite pre and post inspections and other quality control and quality
assurance activities;
Executive Summary
ES-4

Customer and trade ally education and outreach;

Process qualifying incentives;

Review and approval of proposed projects; and

Oversight and training of program trade allies.
Cleco is responsible for authorization and issuing payments to CLEAResult for
reimbursement of incentives paid and general oversight of CLEAResult. Cleco also
provides quality control related to program communications including review and
approval of the program website.
1.4.1.2
Program Communications
CLEAResult holds weekly or biweekly meetings with staff supporting all of the
residential programs. During these meetings, staff discusses plans and any current
issues faced.
The program manager also attends a weekly meeting with Cleco CLEAResult staff
because of the proximity of the two utilities’ service territories. The purpose is to cover
any issues affecting both programs, such as trade ally performance.
Cleco staff and the CLEAResult program manager and district manager meet on a
monthly basis. The purpose of the meeting is to review program status in relation to
energy saving goals and the program budget, discuss any issues that the program is
facing, any issues with program trade allies or customers. Additionally, there are regular
unscheduled communications between the two parties.
Cleco and CLEAResult report that communications and coordination between the utility
and the implementer have been effective.
1.4.2 Residential Solutions Program
1.4.2.1 Program Design and Participation Process

Cleco provides a comprehensive set of financial incentives and services to help
residential customers save energy.

The program provides customers with informational support to identify
energy saving improvements through onsite assessments performed
through the Home Energy Assessments component as well as lower cost
tools delivered through the program’s online audit software and
complementary informational resources. Incentives are provided for home
improvements such as insulation, duct and air sealing, and HVAC system
replacements and tune-ups. Midstream incentives are provided for light
emitting diode (LED) lamps and specialty compact fluorescent lamps
(CFLs). Rebates are also provided for window air conditioning units, pool
Executive Summary
ES-5
pumps, heat pump water heaters, and refrigerators designated as
ENERGY STAR® Most Efficient.


Incentives are provided to builders and home owners for incorporating
energy efficient HVAC systems, lighting, water heaters and building
envelope design features into new construction projects.

Cleco is not currently offering a program for income qualified customers. A
program was considered but was determined to be unlikely to pass cost
effectiveness testing.
The home energy assessment process is generally effective and incorporates
best practice design characteristics. Program participants were generally
satisfied with the participation process, but a few issues were noted.

The program includes best practice elements including use of electronic
tools to complete assessments that minimize program paperwork and
incorporation of direct install measures during assessments.

77% of participants that received assessments were satisfied with the
participation process overall. 90% of participants that had measures
implemented without assessments were satisfied with the participation
process.

The majority of participants agreed that the home energy assessment
recommendations were relevant and easy to understand. However, 13%
disagreed that the recommendations were relevant and 9% disagreed that
they were easy to understand. Additionally, 52% stated that the consultant
did not discuss rebates available to them.

Most participants provided favorable assessments of the trade allies and
energy consultants they worked with. 94% agreed that their energy
consultant was courteous and professional and 78% were satisfied with
the quality of work performed by their trade ally.

11% of participants that completed home energy assessments had
interactions with program staff. 82% of these customers were satisfied
how long it took staff to address questions and 91% were satisfied with the
thoroughness of staff’s response. Three participants that implemented
discounted measures without an assessment contacted staff with
questions or concerns and all were satisfied with thoroughness and
timeliness of response.

Interviewed trade allies reported that the program staff is responsive to
inquiries. They also reported not having significant difficulty using the
program software.
Executive Summary
ES-6


The Lighting and Appliance component design and participation process is
generally effective.

The program has recruited 13 retailer locations in Cleco’s service territory
to deliver lighting rebates. The discounts for LEDs and specialty CFLs are
comparable to discounts provided through other regional programs.
Appliance rebates are also comparable to rebates offered through other
programs.

Program staff has yet to establish store contacts and training of retailer
staff has been generally informal (program staff discuss the program with
retail staff available during visits).

Refrigerator rebates are limited to ENERGY STAR® Most Efficient units.
This has likely limited program activity because few units are designated
as Most Efficient and they cost more than other ENERGY STAR®
qualified units.

Rebates are provided for ENERGY STAR® qualified pool pumps but
incentive levels are the same for multi-speed and variable speed pumps,
despite differences in energy savings potential. Although there has been
limited activity for pool pumps, enhanced training provided to trade allies
on the proper programming of the units will enhance the savings potential
and improve customer satisfaction with the units.

All but one participant was very satisfied with the program participation
process. No participants indicated dissatisfaction with the process.
Additionally, all participants that contacted staff with questions or concerns
were very satisfied with the thoroughness of the response and two-thirds
were very satisfied with the time it took for staff to provide a response.
The AC Tune-Up component is well designed to enhance the efficiency of
residential HVAC systems.

Training provided is comprehensive and trade allies are provided with a
manual of how to complete the tune-ups.

Electronic tools and gauges are used to transmit data on the efficiency of
the unit, which is effective for providing a “live snapshot” of the unit’s
energy-use performance. A refrigerant stability indicator recently
introduced was praised by trade allies.

Indoor fan measurement is not currently implemented with the automated
data acquisition system. There are two types of measurement procedures
approved for the program, although each is susceptible to errors. Program
staff has since added differential pressure measurement and subsequent
Executive Summary
ES-7
airflow calculation to the automated data acquisition system to improve
calculation accuracy.



Participants that had interactions with program staff were all very satisfied
with those interactions. Nearly all participants (90% or more) agreed that
the trade ally that completed the tune-up was courteous and professional
and that the work was scheduled and completed in a reasonable amount
of time. 93% of participants were satisfied with the quality of work
performed by the trade ally.
The online audit tool design is generally consistent with best practice design
characteristics.

The survey is user friendly, flexible to account for different user
motivations, comprehensive in coverage of energy use factors, provides
consumption information by end-use, provides multiple types of
recommendations, and provides results on energy and non-energy
benefits.

Critically, the program does not provide links to or information on Cleco
incentive programs. This represents a missed opportunity for using the
tool to drive program activity.

Home energy usage requires using typical values or customer data entry.
The system does not integrate with customer billing records.

Information is not provided on pay back for energy efficiency investments
and energy and cost saving potentials are presented by end-use rather
than recommendation, which make customer’s decisions about specific
actions to take more difficult to make.
New home incentives have seen little activity. Cleco staff work with new
construction trade allies through their Power Miser program and are coordinating
the promotion of the energy efficiency rebates with Power Miser program
activities. Staff should continue to leverage these relationships to encourage
trade allies to implement the new construction efficiency measures.
1.4.2.2 Program Marketing and Outreach

The generally rural and non-contiguous nature of Cleco’s service territory creates
challenges for effectively marketing the program and to trade ally recruitment.
Marketing to customers is hindered by the cost of providing advertisements in
multiple media markets. The utility channel (i.e., bill messaging and inserts) is
likely to be the most cost effective means of direct customer outreach. Staff
noted that service territory has also made the recruitment of trade allies a
challenge.
Executive Summary
ES-8

trade allies and energy consultants were the initial source of program awareness
for 31% of home assessment participants. Friends, family members, and
colleagues were also cited by 31% of respondents as the source of program
awareness. Similarly, 59% of customers receiving appliance rebates or trade ally
discounted measures learned of the program from an energy consultant or trade
ally. 21% of surveyed AC Tune-Up participants learned of the program from a
trade ally. Friends, family members, or colleagues were the most frequently cited
(38%) source of awareness for the AC Tune-Up program.

Despite a limited budget, a variety of marketing channels have been utilized to
promote the residential programs. Cleco has promoted the program through bill
messaging and inserts, as well as radio, print, and online advertisement.
CLEAResult staff has performed outreach with trade ally groups, builder
associations, and trade groups. Additionally, CLEAResult and Cleco staff
participated in the Louisiana Municipal Association convention and promoted the
program with elected municipal officials.

Lighting discounts are promoted through point-of purchase materials. However,
no in-store promotional days were held. Rebates for window AC units,
refrigerators, pool pumps, and heat pumps are promoted through retailer
displays.
1.4.2.3 Quality Control and Verification

Verification requirements for trade ally projects are generally sufficient. However,
staff reported a different verification standard from what is stated in the program
manual. The program manual states that 10% of the first 25 projects receive
verification, followed by a minimum of 5% verification visits following that. Staff
reported that they quality check the first five projects or five of the first ten
projects completed, and then 10% of projects after that. Staff should clarify what
the verification requirement is.

Verification visits are performed with participating lighting retailer to ensure that
the terms of the MOU are complied with. Consistent with common practice, these
visits occur on a monthly basis and are unannounced. Additionally, lighting sales
data are reviewed for anomalous purchase activity such as large purchases
exceeding the program limit.
1.4.2.4 Participant and Contractor Satisfaction

75% of surveyed participants reported overall satisfaction with the home energy
assessments component and 17% reported dissatisfaction. The two most
common reasons given for dissatisfaction were not seeing energy savings and a
lack of follow-up or follow-through by energy consultants. 82% of participants in
the home energy assessment component reported satisfaction with Cleco as its
Executive Summary
ES-9
electrical service provider and 63% indicated that participation in the program
increased their satisfaction with Cleco.

Customers who received discounts on measures implemented by trade allies
without an energy assessment or who received a rebate for an appliance were
generally satisfied with multiple aspects of their program experience. 76% of
those that installed rebated appliances and 46% of those that implemented trade
ally discounted measures reported that participation increased their satisfaction
with Cleco.

93% of AC Tune-Up participants were satisfied with the program overall. 90%
were satisfied with Cleco as their electrical service provider and 86% indicated
that participation in the program increased their satisfaction with Cleco.

Contractors performing home energy assessments reported that they were
satisfied with the program.
1.4.3 Appliance Recycling
1.4.3.1
Program Design and Participation Process

The Cleco program is offered on a seasonal basis, which is a less common
design characteristic. The program is offered on a seasonable basis because it
was added to augment the existing residential customer offerings and has a
limited budget.

Program procedures were also modified because of inconsistent cellular phone
service in Cleco’s service territory. As a result of the inconsistent cellular phone
service, in some instances, pick-up drivers are unable to contact customers 30
minutes prior to pick-up. If the driver is not able to reach the customer prior to the
pick-up, he or she will wait 10 or 15 minutes if the customer is not home at the
time of pick-up. Despite the difficulty reaching participants, 89% of survey
respondents reported receiving a reminder call on the day of the pick-up.

Staff reported that the program had received customer complaints about long
hold times during the scheduling of appliance pickups. However, none of the
survey respondents reported difficulty scheduling the appliance pick-up. It is
possible that customers who had difficulty scheduling a pickup appointed decided
to not participate in the program.

All indicated that the collector was courteous and professional, and 95%
indicated that the collector verified that the appliance worked (5% did not know if
it was checked).

Approximately 70% of survey respondents reported that it took more than 6
weeks to receive the incentive checks. This is a relatively long period of time.
Executive Summary
ES-10
1.4.3.2
Program Marketing and Outreach

Program activity was less than anticipated. Staff identified challenges in
marketing the program to customers in the geographically broad and rural Cleco
service territory as a barrier to program participation.

The program was marketed through a bill insert; however, a second planned
insert was cancelled because of customer complaints about hold times during
sign-up. The program has also received media attention including a broadcast
television news story in the Covington area.

Information on the incentive was not consistent between the Cleco program
website and the JACO portal during the promotional $75 period. The Cleco
website correctly displayed the promotional incentive ($75) but the JACO web
portal stated the incentive was $50.
1.4.3.3

Quality Control and Verification Processes
Program quality and verification practices are consistent with common practices
for appliance recycling programs. These practices include;
o Procedures for flagging customers attempting to recycle more than two
appliances in a calendar year;
o Verification of the working appliance condition at the time of pick-up; and
o Procedures to render the unit inoperable to prevent its reuse.

One survey respondent (< 3% of respondents) reported that the unit recycled
was not in working condition. It is not uncommon to see some survey
respondents report that their appliance was inoperable when it was recycled.
Additional verification procedures, such as not rendering the unit inoperable at
the time of pick-up and verifying operation at the recycling facility, may mitigate
the risk of inoperable units being recycled. However, this procedure may not be
worth the cost of its implementation.
1.4.3.4
Participant Satisfaction

Overall, participants were satisfied with their program experience. Nearly 90%
were satisfied with the program overall. The aspect of the program that the
largest share of participants indicated dissatisfaction with was the wait time to
receive the rebate. 18% of customers were dissatisfied with this aspect of the
program experience.

54% of participants reported that their experience with the program increased
their satisfaction with Cleco.
Executive Summary
ES-11
1.4.4 Small Business Program
1.4.4.1


The program utilizes a paperless process for completing the energy assessments
and submitting customer proposals that reduces paperwork. These submissions
can be made through the program software tool or by email. Submissions are
sent to CLEAResult’s central team in Austin. Neither program staff nor trade
allies identified any significant issues with the participation process or software.
Contractors are also provided the option of using spreadsheet based calculators
to perform the onsite assessments and customer proposal.
Contractors receive training from CLEAResult on the program processes and use
of the program software. Interviewed trade allies provided favorable assessments
of the program training. One trade ally suggested offering online training.
1.4.4.2





The program has sufficient verification procedures in place. The first five projects
completed by a new trade ally receive pre- and post-verification, followed by 20%
of subsequent projects.
Projects are identified for pre- and post-inspection by central CLEAResult staff
located in Austin. Cleco program CLEAResult staff perform pre- and postinspections.
1.4.4.4

Program staff recruited trade allies through internet searches, telephone
contacts, and a postcard campaign. Staff indicated that the program would
benefit if additional trade allies were recruited, particularly those that serve rural
areas of the service territory. As of October 2015, the program listed 20
participating trade allies.
The program is designed to have trade allies perform the majority of direct
customer outreach. Interviewed trade allies indicated that they were performing
direct outreach to customers and that most projects were initiated this way.
While attempting to contact trade allies for interviews, the Evaluators identified
listed trade allies who did not provide services through the program.
Participants most frequently reported learning of the program from a program
representative (53%) or a trade ally (20%). It should be noted that customers
may consider trade allies promoting the program to be program representatives.
1.4.4.3

Customer and Contractor Satisfaction
Most participants were satisfied with their experience with the program. One
respondent indicated dissatisfaction with multiple aspects of the program
experience. This respondent identified a door heater control that did not fit their
Executive Summary
ES-12

equipment properly, and was ultimately removed, was the reason for
dissatisfaction.
94% of participants stated that their participation increased their satisfaction with
Cleco.
1.4.5 Large Commercial & Industrial Program
1.4.5.1



Incentives are based on energy savings. The program appropriately offers higher
incentives for non-lighting measures of $0.15 per kWh that typically have longer
payback periods. Lighting incentives are $0.10 kWh.
None of the survey respondents reported that the application process was
unclear and the majority (83%) indicated that it was clear who they should
contact for additional assistance.
No customers reported dissatisfaction with the steps required to participate in the
program or the range of equipment that qualifies for the program. All participants
were satisfied with the project support received from program staff and staff’s
response to their questions and concerns.
1.4.5.2



Overall the program uses a broad outreach strategy that is consistent with
outreach approaches used in other programs targeting business customers. The
strategies identified by program staff include:
o Upstream outreach to distributors and installers;
o Working with Cleco key account representatives;
o Materials provided on the program website; and
o Community outreach and speaking events such as presentations to
business associations.
Facility assessments provided by program staff are another key outreach
approach. These assessments vary in scope depending on the customer’s needs
or interests. They may be focused on a specific retrofit or identify multiple
opportunities at the customer’s facility. Staff reports that these assessments have
initiated multiple program incentive projects. Additionally staff indicated that they
not had any customers decline an assessment and that following up with
customers after the completion of the assessment is standard procedure.
Staff identified trade ally engagement as another important component of the
program’s outreach strategy. Program staff identified the geographically
distributed service territory as a barrier to recruiting trade allies. Some trade allies
prefer to work in a single region of the state with greater density of potential
customers.
Executive Summary
ES-13
1.4.5.3

The program has robust quality control and verification procedures in places.
These include pre- and post-installation site visits for all projects, engineering
review of all projects, and a review of all projects by at least two staff members.
1.4.5.4


Contractor and Participant Satisfaction
Interviewed trade allies were satisfied with the program overall. Although none
reported dissatisfaction with any element of the program, satisfaction ratings
were lowest for the time required to receive the rebate.
A few issues were noted in regards to responsiveness of program staff, such as
longer than anticipated wait times to receive the rebate and program staff being
unavailable. However, overall, interviewed trade allies indicated receiving
sufficient support from program staff. All participants who contacted program staff
with questions or received project support from program staff were satisfied with
those interactions.
1.4.6 CitySmart
1.4.6.1



The program provides incentives and services to municipalities, schools, and
universities to reduce energy use in these facilities. The services are designed to
meet the specific needs of public sector entities and include technical assistance
for projects, communications support, energy performance benchmarking, and
energy master planning. The services are well designed to mitigate barriers to
energy efficiency in the public sector.
The program did not achieve its energy saving goals. Not reaching the goal was
likely a result of the slower planning and procurement processes in the public
sector as well as other common challenges to completing projects in the public
sector. Additionally, the program intervention strategy may be more effective at
generating energy saving projects in subsequent years than in the first year. The
program provides a variety of technical assistance and planning services to
assist customer with identifying and developing plans to implement efficiency
projects. These services are likely necessary in many cases, but time is required
to complete the process to the point where a customer is ready to implement a
project.
Staff assisted St. Tammany Parish in developing a press release that explained
the services the Parish was receiving to help it reduce its energy use.
Executive Summary
ES-14
1.4.6.2

Overall the program uses a broad outreach strategy that includes best practice
approaches to customer engagement. The strategies identified by program staff
include:
 Upstream outreach to distributors and installers;
 Working with Cleco key account representatives to promote the program
directly to customers;
 Materials provided on the program website; and
 Community outreach and speaking events such as attendance at
municipal association meetings, city council meetings, and school board
meetings.
1.5
Report Organization
This report is organized with one chapter providing the full impact and process summary
of a specified program. The report is organized as follows:

Chapter 2 provides general methodologies;

Chapter 3 provides results for the Residential Solutions program;

Chapter 4 provides results for the Appliance Recycling Program;

Chapter 5 provides results for the Small Business Program;

Chapter 6 provides results for the Large Commercial and Industrial Solutions
Program;

Chapter 7 provides results for the CitySmart Program;

Appendix A provides the site-level custom reports for the Small Business and
C&I Solutions Program.
Executive Summary
ES-15
2. General Methodology
This section details general impact evaluation methodologies by program-type as well
as data collection methods applied. This section will present full descriptions of:

Savings Estimation;

Sampling Methodologies;

Process Evaluation Methodologies; and

Data Collection Procedures.
2.1
Glossary of Terminology
As a first step to detailing the evaluation methodologies, the Evaluators provide a
glossary of terms to follow1:

Ex Ante – Forecasted savings used for program and portfolio planning purposes
(from the Latin for “beforehand”)

Ex Post – Savings estimates reported by an evaluator after the energy impact
evaluation has been completed (From the Latin for “From something done
afterward”)

Deemed Savings – An estimate of an energy savings or demand savings
outcome (savings) for a single unit of an installed energy efficiency measure.
This estimate (a) has been developed from data sources and analytical methods
that are widely accepted for the measure and purpose and (b) is applicable to the
situation being evaluated (e.g., assuming 112 kWh savings for a residential
advanced power strip)

Savings – The change in energy consumption and/or demand that results directly
from program-related actions taken by participants in an efficiency program

Realization Rate – Ratio of Ex Post Savings / Ex Ante Savings (e.g., if the
Evaluators verify 105 kWh per showerhead, Realization Rate = 105/112= 93.8%
realization rate
2.2
Overview of Methodology
The proposed methodology for the evaluation of the PY1 Cleco Portfolio is intended to
provide:

impact results; and

Program feedback and recommendations via process evaluation
1 Arkansas TRM V3.0, Volume 1, Pg. 80-86
General Methodology
2-1
In doing so, this evaluation will provide the verified savings results, provide the
recommendations for program improvement, and ensure cost-effective use of ratepayer
funds. Leveraging experience and lessons learned from impact evaluation can provide
greater guidance as to methods by which program and portfolio performance could be
improved.
2.2.1 Sampling
Programs are evaluated on one of three bases:

Simple Random Sample

Stratified Random Sample
2.2.1.1
Simple Random Sampling
For programs with relatively homogenous measures (largely in the residential portfolio),
the Evaluators conducted a simple random sample of participants. The sample size for
verification surveys is calculated to meet 90% confidence and 10% precision (90/10).
The sample size to meet 90/10 requirements is calculated based on the coefficient of
variation of savings for program participants. Coefficient of Variation (CV) is defined as:
=
Where x is the average kWh savings per participant. Without data to use as a basis
for a higher value, it is typical to apply a CV of .5 in residential program evaluations.
The resulting sample size is estimated at:
=
Where,
1.645 ∗
1.645 = Z Score for 90% confidence interval in a normal distribution
CV = Coefficient of Variation
RP = Required Precision, 10% in this evaluation
2.2.1.2
Stratified Sampling
For the Cleco Commercial & Industrial programs, Simple Random Sampling is not an
effective sampling methodology as the CV values observed in business programs are
typically very high because the distributions of savings are generally positively skewed.
Often, a relatively small number of projects account for a high percentage of the
estimated savings for the program.
To address this situation, we use a sample design for selecting projects for the M&V
sample that takes such skewness into account. With this approach, we select a number
General Methodology
2-2
of sites with large savings for the sample with certainty and take a random sample of
the remaining sites. To further improve the precision, non-certainty sites are selected for
the sample through systematic random sampling. That is, a random sample of sites
remaining after the certainty sites have been selected is selected by ordering them
according to the magnitude of their savings and using systematic random sampling.
Sampling systematically from a list that is ordered according to the magnitude of
savings ensures that any sample selected will have some units with high savings, some
with moderate savings, and some with low savings. Samples cannot result that have
concentrations of sites with atypically high savings or atypically low savings. As a result
of this methodology, the required sample for the C&I Solutions Program was reduced to
9 with one certainty stratum and three sample strata.
2.2.2 Impact Calculations
The general approach for calculation of verified kWh and kW savings applied deemed
savings specified from the Arkansas TRM V3.0. There were exceptions to this, largely
pertaining to weather-updating specific high-impact measures. Weather updates were
completed for residential duct sealing and air sealing. The details of these updates can
be found in Section 3.3.
2.2.3 Process Evaluation
The Evaluators’ general approach to process evaluation begins with a review of the
tests for timing and appropriateness of process. In this review, the Evaluators determine
what aspects of the program warrant a process evaluation. Most Cleco programs overperformed, and as such most of the PY1 process evaluation activity was focused
around first year implementation.
The PY1 process overviews began with interviews of program staff. These interviews,
inform the establishment of goals for the process evaluation, provide background history
of programs, and give an introduction to portfolio-level issues. From this, the Evaluators
then develop a list of data collection activities. The data collection procedures for
process evaluations typically included:

Participant Surveying. The Evaluators surveyed statistically significant samples
of participants in each program in order to provide feedback for the program and
provide an assessment of participant satisfaction. Surveys cover topics including:
o
Source of program awareness;
o
Their decision to participate and complete an efficiency project;
o
Experience with the participation process; and
o Satisfaction with various elements of the program and the program overall
General Methodology
2-3



Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators conducted in-depth interviews with
high-level program actors, including staff from Cleco and CLEAResult. These
interviews are semi-structured, in having general topics to be covered, without
fully prescribed question and answer frameworks. Topics discussed in program
staff interviews include:
o
Program goals and objectives;
o
Marketing and outreach;
o
Communication processes;
o
Program management and staffing; and
o
Quality control and verification processes.
Trade Ally Interviews. The Evaluators completed interviews with program trade
allies. These interviews are conducted in a manner similar to program staff
interviews. Topics discussed in trade ally interviews include:
o
Promotion of the program and barriers to participation;
o
Program marketing;
o
The program participation process;
o
Training and communication with program staff;
o
Business and market impact; and
o
Overall impressions and satisfaction
Review of Marketing Materials. The Evaluators reviewed marketing materials for
each program, providing feedback as to the appropriateness of the message in
reaching its target audience, the breadth of the audience that the effort is
attempting to reach, and identifying possible cross-promotional opportunities.
General Methodology
2-4
3. Residential Solutions
3.2
Program Description
The Residential Solutions Program (RSP) is designed to promoted energy efficiency by
offering home energy surveys and/or deeper energy assessments to its residential
customers through a participating trade ally. The RSP provides residential customers
with access to qualified vendors and installation trade allies (trade allies) within the
Cleco service area. The participating trade allies are to help the residential customer
analyze their energy use, identify energy efficiency improvements, and install low cost
measures in their home. The trade ally inspection includes consultation about the
customer’s concerns, a visual inspection of the living space, attic, crawl
space/basement, and exterior of the home, as well as installation of direct install
measures (e.g., CFL lighting and faucet aerators). Following the assessment, the trade
ally recommends home improvements to increase energy efficiency. The RSP provides
incentives for installing ceiling insulation, duct sealing, air infiltration sealing, central air
conditioning, heat pump systems, and high performance tune-ups for central air
conditioning and heat pump systems.
Prescriptive incentives were available to residential customers for installing efficiency
equipment such as heat pumps, heat pump water heaters and other measures.
Program approved trade allies were allowed to install certain energy efficiency
measures without an initial survey or assessment, such as ceiling and wall insulation.
The direct install measures include:
3-1
Table 3-1 Summary of Measures of Measure Offerings – Residential Solutions
Delivery Mechanism
Measure Name
Advanced Power Strips
Direct Install Measures
CFLs
Faucet Aerators
Low flow showerhead
LED Lightbulbs
Air Sealing
Ceiling Insulation
Duct Sealing
Refrigerator Replacement
Incentive Measures
Variable Speed Pool Pump
Radiant Barrier
Room Air Conditioner
Central AC Replacement
Heat Pump Replacement
Air Conditioning Tune-Up
A total of 1,6312 households participated in Residential Solutions an Income Qualified.
Below, Table 3-2 summarizes the total number of homes a measure was installed
in/performed at, total measures installed/performed and the expected kWh and peak kW
savings by measure.
2 This total does not equal the sum of the “Number of Homes” column in Table 3-2 due to individual
residences receiving multiple measures.
3-2
Table 3-2 Summary of Measures and Expected Savings – Residential Solutions
Measure
Total
Total
Number
Expected
Expected
of Homes
kWh
peak kW
Savings
Savings
Assessment – Tier 1
886
148
Inspection
262
Duct Sealing – Retrofit
1,614
5,294,296
827.00
Markdown CFLs
46,105
1,158,041
157.89
CoolSaver Tune-Up
738
775,005
319.49
Showerhead
372
400,095
41.81
13,285
266,308
57.58
Air Sealing – Retrofit
361
225,465
83.53
CFL
870
202,703
67.00
Faucet Aerator
492
127,595
13.32
Ceiling Insulation
38
124,715
30.57
Central AC
23
53,040
16.19
Heat Pump
17
44,921
12.48
Pool Pump
21
44,751
6.87
Advanced Power Strip
240
30,534
3.80
LEDs
237
27,470
7.00
Room AC
103
15,324
17.07
Radiant Barrier – New Construction
4
2,488
1.02
Duct Sealing – New Construction
4
1,424
0.22
Heat Pump Water Heater
1
1,333
0.21
Heat Pump – New construction
1
1,110
0.43
Air Sealing – New Construction
2
1,060
0.06
ES Most Efficient Refrigerator
3
525
6,598,849
0.07
1,128.65
Markdown LEDs
Total:
65,827
In PY1, the Residential Solutions Program had goals of 4,694,182 kWh and 1,421 kW.
Verified program savings were:

9,051,337 kWh – 192.8% of goal; and

1,693.51 – 119.2% of goal
3-3
3.3
Impact Savings Calculation Methodology
For equipment and retrofits rebated through the PY1 RSP, calculation methodologies
were performed as described in the TRM. Table 3-3 identifies the sections in the TRM
that were used for verification of measure-level savings under the RSP.
Table 3-3 TRM Sections by Measure Type
Measure
AC Tune up
Section in TRM
2.1.5
Central AC Replacement
2.1.6
Heat Pump Replacement
2.1.8
Room AC Replacement
2.1.10
Duct Sealing
2.1.11
Ceiling Insulation
2.2.2
Radiant Barrier
2.2.6
Air Sealing
2.2.9
Water Heater Replacement
2.3.1
Faucet Aerators
2.3.4
Low Flow Showerhead
2.3.5
Refrigerator
2.4.3
Advanced Power Strips
2.4.4
CFLs
2.5.1
LEDs
2.5.1
Pool Pump
Oklahoma Deemed Savings Documents
In addition to the TRM, the evaluators also examined the Excel workbook distributed to
trade allies and trade allies to assess savings by measure. The workbook utilizes TRM
savings algorithms with trade ally or trade ally inputs to calculate savings based on the
measure and input parameters. The evaluators verified the factor tables for each
measure to ensure the values were appropriate.
3.3.1 Air Infiltration Reduction Savings Calculations
The deemed savings values for air infiltration reduction were developed through
EnergyGauge, a simulation software program. Multiple equipment configurations were
simulated in each of the four Louisiana weather zones in developing savings values
denominated in deemed savings per CFM50 of air leakage rate reduction. Table 3-4
summarizes the deemed savings values for the Louisiana weather zones.
3-4
Table 3-4 Deemed Savings Values for Air Infiltration Reduction
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
(New Orleans)
.3267
(Baton Rouge)
.2740
(Alexandria)
.2433
(Shreveport)
0.2689
Elec. Resistance w/ AC
.9334
.9574
1.0849
1.3605
Heat Pump
.6376
.6233
.6734
0.8268
Equipment Type
Electric AC with Gas Heat
For example, consider a residence with electric AC and gas heat located in Tangipahoa
Parish (Zone 4). If the residence had a leakage rate of 7,200 CFM50 before air infiltration
reduction and a leakage rate of 3,500 CFM50 after, then the residence would have an
annual savings of:
= 0.2740
ℎ
∙ 7,200
= 1,019
3.3.2 Duct Sealing Savings Calculations
ℎ
− 3,500
Duct sealing savings was calculated using the following savings algorithms from the
TRM.
3.3.2.1
Cooling Savings (Electric):
ℎ
,
=
(
−
) (ℎ
1,000 −ℎ
) 60
Where:
3
= Pre-improvement duct leakage at 25 Pa (ft /min)
3
= Post-improvement duct leakage at 25 Pa (ft /min)
ΔDSE = Assumed improvement in distribution system efficiency = 5% = 0.05
= Equivalent Full Load Hours. See
Table 3-5
ℎ
= Outdoor design specific enthalpy (Btu/lb) See
Table 3-5
ℎ
= Indoor design specific enthalpy (Btu/lb.) See
3-5
Table 3-5
Table 3-5 Deemed Savings Values for Duct Sealing Calculations
Parameter
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
EFLHC
HDD
hout
hin
ρin
Ρout
SEER
(New Orleans)
2,040
1,842
40
30
.076
.074
11.5
(Baton Rouge)
1,807
1,322
40
30
.076
.074
11.5
(Alexandria)
2,035
1,229
37
30
.076
.074
11.5
(Shreveport)
2,426
925
37
30
.076
.074
11.5
3
= Density of outdoor air at 95°F = 0.0740 (lb/ft )3
3
= Density of conditioned air at 75°F = 0.0756 (lb./ft )4
60 = Constant to convert from minutes to hours
= Cooling capacity (Btu/hr)
1,000 = Constant to convert from W to kW
= Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio of existing system (Btu/W·hr)
Default value for SEER = 11.54
As an example, assume the duct leakage before sealing was measured at 360 CFM
and the leakage after sealing was 90 CFM for a home in Metairie (Zone 3). Using the
SEER value of 11.5, the annual savings would be:
kWh per year = (360-90) x 2,426 x (37x0.076 – 30x0.074) x 60 / (1000 x 11.5) = 2,023 kWh per year.
3.3.2.2
Heating Savings (Heat Pump):
Where:
ℎ
,
=
−
60 1,000 24 0.018
3
3
= Equivalent full load heating hours (see
3 ASHRAE Fundamentals 2009,
Chapter 1: Psychometrics, Equation 11, Equation 41, Table 2
4 Average of Department
of Energy minimum allowed SEER for new air conditioners from 1992-2006 (10 SEER) and
after January 23, 2006 (13 SEER)
3-6
Table 3-5)
= Heating degree days (see
Table 3-5)
24 = Constant to convert from days to hours
3
0.018 = Volumetric heat capacity of air (Btu/ft °F)
= Heating capacity (Btu/hr)
1,000 = Constant to convert from W to kW
= Heating Seasonal Performance Factor of existing system (Btu/W·hr)
5
Default value for HSPF = 7.30.
3.3.2.3
Heating Savings (Electric Resistance):
ℎ
Where:
=
,
−
60 3,412
24 0.018
3
3
HDD = Heating degree days (see
Table 3-5)
3
EFLHH = Equivalent full load heating hours (see
Table 3-5)
CAP = Heating capacity (Btu/hr)
3,412 = Constant to convert from Btu to kWh
3.3.2.4
Where:
Heating Savings (Gas Furnace):
ℎ
,
=
−
60 100,000 24 0.018
3
DLpre = Pre-improvement duct leakage at 25 Pa (ft /min)
5
Average of Department of Energy minimum allowed HSPF for new heat pumps from 1992-2006 (6.8 HSPF) and
after January 23, 2006 (7.7 HSPF)
3-7
3
DLpost = Post-improvement duct leakage at 25 Pa (ft /min)
HDD = Heating degree days (see
Table 3-5)
3
EFLHH = Equivalent full load heating hours (see
Table 3-5)
CAP = Heating capacity (Btuh or Btu/hr)
100,000 = Constant to convert from Btu to therms
AFUE = Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of existing system
Default value for AFUE = 0.8.
3.3.2.5
Demand Savings (Cooling):
,
Where:
ℎ
=
,
kWhsavings,C = Calculated kWh savings for cooling
EFLHC = Equivalent full load cooling hours (see
Table 3-5)
CF = Coincidence factor = 0.87
3.3.3 ENERGY STAR Pool Pump
Energy savings for this measure were derived using the ENERGY STAR® Pool Pump
Savings Calculator.
ℎ
=
ℎ
−
ℎ
Table 3-6 Parameters for kWh Savings Calculation of ENERGY STAR® Pool Pump
Conventional single-speed pool pump energy
ENERGY STAR® variable speed pool pump energy
ℎ
ℎ
Algorithms to calculate the above parameters are defined as:
ℎ
=
× 60 × ℎ
×
× 1000
3-8
ℎ
ℎ
ℎ
=
=
ℎ
=
=
× 60 × ℎ
× 60 × ℎ
=
×
ℎ
+
×
×
ℎ
× 60
× 60
× 1000
× 1000
Table 3-7 Parameters for kWh usage of conventional and ENERGY STAR® Pool Pump
ℎ
ℎ
ℎ
ℎ
ℎ
ℎ
ℎ
,
,
,
,
v
,
,
,
,
,
, S
,
,
PT
ENERGY STAR® variable speed pool pump energy at high speed
ENERGY STAR® variable speed pool pump energy at low speed
Conventional single-speed pump daily operating hours
ENERGY STAR® variable speed pump high speed daily operating hours = 2 hours
ENERGY STAR® variable speed pump low speed daily operating hours = 10 hours
ENERGY STAR® multi-speed pump high speed daily operating hours = 2 hours
ENERGY STAR® multi-speed pump low speed daily operating hours
Operating days per year = 212.8 days
Conventional single-speed pump flow rate (gal/min)
ENERGY STAR® variable speed pump high speed flow rate = 50 gal/min
ENERGY STAR® variable speed pump low speed flow rate (gal/min) = 30.6
ENERGY STAR® multi-speed pump high speed flow rate (gal/min)
ENERGY STAR® multi-speed pump low speed flow rate (gal/min)
Conventional single-speed pump energy factor (gal/W·hr)
ENERGY STAR® variable speed pump high speed energy factor = 3.75 gal/W·hr
ENERGY STAR® variable speed pump low speed energy factor = 7.26 gal/W·hr
= ENERGY STAR® multi-speed pump high speed energy factor (gal/W·hr)
ENERGY STAR® multi-speed pump low speed energy factor (gal/W·hr)
Pool volume = 22,000 gal
Pool turnovers per day = 1.5
3-9
,
,
Variable speed pump time to complete 1 turnover = 12 hours
Multi-speed pump time to complete 1 turnover
Table 3-8 Conventional Pool Pumps Assumptions
Pump
HP
hoursconv
PFRconv
(gal/min)
EFconv
(gal/W·h)
0.5
0.75
1
1.5
2
2.5
11.0
10.4
9.2
8.6
8.5
8.1
50.0
53.0
60.1
64.4
65.4
68.4
2.71
2.57
2.40
2.09
1.95
1.88
Table 3-9 ENERGY STAR® Multi-Speed Pool Pumps Assumptions
S
PFRHS,MS
(gal/min)
EFHS,MS
(gal/W·h
)
PFRLS,MS
(gal/min)
EFLS,MS
(gal/W·h
)
9.8
9.5
9.0
8.8
7.9
56.0
61.0
66.4
66.0
74.0
2.40
2.27
1.95
2.02
1.62
31.0
31.9
33.3
34.0
37.0
5.41
5.43
5.22
4.80
4.76
Pump
HP
tturnover,M
hoursMS,L
S
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
11.8
11.5
11.0
10.8
9.9
Demand savings calculations are as follows:
=
ℎ
ℎ
CF = Coincidence Factor = .31
−
ℎ
ℎ
+
ℎ
+ℎ
×
Deemed kWh and kW savings are summarized in Table 3-10 and Table 3-11.
Table 3-10 ENERGY STAR® Variable Speed Pool Pumps – Deemed Savings Values
Pump HP
0.5
0.75
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
kW
Savings
0.24
0.28
0.36
0.47
0.52
0.57
0.72
kWh
Savings
1,713
1,860
2,063
2,465
2,718
2,838
3,364
3-10
Table 3-11 ENERGY STAR® Multi-Speed Pool Pumps – Deemed Savings Values
Pump HP
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.4
kW
Savings
0.30
0.40
0.41
0.46
0.54
kWh
Savings
1,629
1,945
1,994
2,086
2,292
Verified Savings by Measure – Residential Solutions
After reviewing the tracking data and inputs for savings calculations, the evaluators
provided verified savings according to TRM protocols. Savings from the following
measures were verified and matched the calculations provided by CLEAResult:

AC Tune-up;

Advanced Power Strips;

Ceiling Insulation;

Window AC Replacement;

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (Direct Install);

Faucet Aerators;

Heat Pump replacement;

ENERGY STAR Most Efficient Refrigerators;

Heat Pump Water Heaters;

LED Lightbulbs (Direct Install); and

Low Flow Showerheads.
The following measures had revisions which are detailed in the subsections to follow:

Air Sealing;

Duct Sealing;

Central Air Conditioner Replacement;

High Efficiency Pool Pumps;

Markdown CFLs; and

Markdown LEDs.
3-11
3.4.1 Infiltration/Air Sealing
1) The calculator uses values from the AR TRM for El Dorado, AR and the New Orleans
area.
2) Tracking information provided for review does not indicate cooling type and leaves
the question open as to whether there is cooling.
3) The CFM check requires a drop down menu to effectively use the formulas. The
current index(match) function is non-functioning.
4) The following values were not included program in tracking data:

Wind shielding of home

Number of bedrooms per home

Approximate square footage of home

Number of stories of home
These omissions did not affect savings calculations.
Table 3-12 Expected and Realized Air Sealing Savings
Expected
Heating Type
Air Source Heat Pump
Realized
kWh
Expected
kWh
kWh
Realization
Peak kW
Savings
Savings
Rate
Savings
Realized
Peak
kW
Savings
Peak kW
Realization
Rate
6,157
8,230
133.66%
3.38
2.89
85.42%
Electric Resistance/
201,807
237,783
117.83%
63.42
53.98
85.12%
Natural Gas Furnace
17,500
17,826
101.86%
16.73
14.38
85.93%
225,465
263,839
117.02%
83.53
71.25
85.30%
Total
3.4.2 Duct Sealing
1) 1) EFLH and HDD used IECC 2009 weather zones, which apply two weather zones
to Louisiana. These were adjusted to reflect IECC 2003 weather zone mapping,
which divides Louisiana into four zones. The impact of applying IECC 2009 in
expected savings calculations was an over-weighting of weather for the New Orleans
3-12
area (which is aggregated with Baton Rouge in 2009 mapping). This resulted in a
minor overstatement of cooling savings and a very large understatement of heating
savings.
2) No cooling type listed in tracking data. All expected savings calculations assumed
central or window air conditioning cooling equipment with a SEER of 11.5.
Table 3-13 summarizes the zone mapping for each parish served by Cleco under IECC
2003 and 2009 mapping. The subsequent columns indicate whether the change to 2003
mapping by the Evaluators had a positive (+) or negative (-) effect on verified savings.
Table 3-13 Effect of Zone Mapping on HVAC Savings by Parish
Heating Type
IECC09
IECC03
Effect on
Effect on
Weather
Weather
Cooling
Heating
3-13
Zone
Zone
Savings
Savings
Acadia
2
4
(-)
(+)
Allen
2
4
(-)
(+)
Avoyelles
2
5
(-)
(+)
Beauregard
2
4
(-)
(+)
Calcasieu
2
4
(-)
(+)
Catahoula
3
5
(+)
(-)
De Soto
3
5
(+)
(-)
Evangeline
2
4
(-)
(+)
Grant
3
5
(+)
(-)
Iberia
2
4
(-)
(+)
Jefferson Davis
2
3
(-)
(+)
La Salle
2
5
(-)
(+)
Natchitoches
3
5
(+)
(-)
Rapides
2
5
(-)
(+)
Red River
3
5
(+)
(-)
Sabine
3
5
(+)
(-)
St. Landry
2
4
(-)
(+)
St. Martin
2
4
(-)
(+)
St. Mary
2
3
(-)
(+)
St. Tammany
2
4
(-)
(+)
3.4.3 Central Air Conditioner Replacement
The program rebated 23 central air conditioners in PY1. The Evaluators identified two of
these 23 as being non-qualifying (less than 14.5 SEER). No other revisions were made
to savings for this measure, resulting in overall savings of:

47,468 kWh (89.5% realization); and

4.56 kW (89.9% realization).
3.4.4 High Efficiency Pool Pump
The deemed savings for high efficiency pool pumps assumed a mix of multi-speed and
variable speed models. Variable speed pool pumps produce greater savings as they
allow for continuous speed adjustment (in contrast, multi-speed pool pumps have preset values for different loads). The program rebated 21 pool pumps in PY1, and 20 of
these units were variable speed. Further, the average horsepower (HP) of these units
was 2.54. Deemed savings for this measure assumed an average pump size between
1.0 and 1.5 HP.
The resulting overall savings are:

64,157 kWh (143.3%); and
3-14

13.30 kW (193.68%).
3.4.5 Lighting Markdown
The Lighting Markdown channel provides point of sale rebates for efficient lighting. In
PY1, the RSP marked down 46,105 CFLs and 13,285 LEDs. The models rebated in this
channel in PY1 included:

LED and CFL standard spiral;

BR30 LEDs;

R30s; and

R40 CFLs
Rebates were administered through 21 participating big box retail locations.
3.4.5.1
Energy Savings Calculation
Energy savings for markdown lighting is calculated as follows:
Where,
ℎ
=
×(
−
)×
×
⁄1000

Hours = Annual hours of use, 803.6

Wbase = Baseline watts

Wpost = Installed watts

IEF = Energy Interactive Factor, .79 for unknown heating system type in an
upstream program

ISR = In Service Rate, .95 for LEDs, .85 for CFLs in markdown programs

1000 = W/kW conversion
This calculation was completed for a census of markdown lighting, with overall
realization of 70.1%. The Evaluators found that this was due to 11,437 14W CFLs
having savings calculated with a 60W baseline. In accordance with the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA), this baseline was changed to 43W, effective
January 1, 2014. The Arkansas TRM V3.0 stipulated that the allowable sell-through
period for old lamps would last through June 1, 20146.
6 Arkansas TRM V3.0 Vol. 2.
Page 123. www.apscservices.info/EEInfo/TRM.pdf
3-15
3.4.5.2
Leakage Analysis
Cleco enrolled 20 stores to participate in the Lighting rebate program year 2015. Of the
20 stores, 7 fell into the category of do it yourself (DIY)/home improvement stores. The
remaining 13 are considered big box/mass merchants
3.4.5.2.1
Home Improvement Stores
Figure 3-1is a map indicating home improvement store locations in Louisiana (LA) by
participation status. Non participating stores are marked in black and participating blue.
Figure 3-1 Home Improvement Store Locations
Both non and participating stores were considered in this analysis as it is assumed that
individuals will choose to drive to the nearest store of any given category. This
information was analyzed in conjunction with 2010 census data to estimate the leakage
that would occur given radii of drive time. Drive time was broken into 5, 10, 15, 20, 25,
30, 40, 50 and 60 minutes from each facility.
Figure 3-2indicates drive times from each of the considered facilities.
3-16
Figure 3-2 Home Improvement Drive Times
3.4.5.2.2
Mass Merchants
Figure 3-3is a map indicating mass merchant locations in Louisiana (LA) by participation
status. Non participating stores are marked in black and participating green.
3-17
Figure 3-3 Mass Merchant Retailer Locations
The same analysis as home improvement stores was applied to mass merchants.
Figure 3-4 is a map of the above stores drive time radii.
3-18
Figure 3-4 Mass Merchant Drive Times
Each census track in LA was mapped as a latitude longitude coordinate based on the
center of the census block. Each point that fell within the radii was summed to get the
percentage of population in and out of each Investor Owned Utility (IOU) and state
boarder. This program is concerned with three major factors:
1. The percentage of customers who will buy rebated bulbs in an IOU territory then
drive to non-IOU territory
drive to a different IOU territory (transfer)
drive out of state
3-19
Table 3-14 Home Improvement Leakage Rates
Leakage
Transfer from
City
from Cleco
Cleco to
HomeImprov1
Opelousas
to non IOU
1.43%
another IOU
1.02%
HomeImprov2
Covington
12.74%
0.00%
2.59%
HomeImprov3
Iberia
1.63%
4.52%
0.00%
HomeImprov4
Pineville
2.25%
0.16%
0.00%
HomeImprov5
Slidell
0.60%
0.00%
0.00%
HomeImprov6
Slidell
6.22%
0.00%
0.00%
HomeImprov7
Covington
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Store ID
Leakage Out
of State
0.00%
Table 3-15 Mass Merchant Leakage Rates
Store ID
City
Leakage
Transfer from
from Cleco
Cleco to
to non IOU
10.54%
another IOU
0.00%
Leakage Out
of State
MassMerch1
Slidell
MassMerch2
Covington
11.21%
0.33%
2.50%
MassMerch3
Slidell
8.38%
0.00%
0.01%
MassMerch4
Mandeville
5.51%
0.00%
0.00%
MassMerch5
Slidell
0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
MassMerch6
Pineville
4.26%
0.00%
0.00%
MassMerch7
Oakdale
2.00%
0.00%
0.00%
MassMerch8
Mansura
0.49%
1.70%
0.00%
MassMerch9
Crowley
8.49%
1.71%
0.00%
MassMerch10
Ville Platte
1.31%
0.00%
0.00%
MassMerch11
Leesville
0.51%
0.00%
0.00%
MassMerch12
New Iberia
0.43%
0.00%
0.00%
MassMerch13
Opelousas
3.96%
5.11%
0.00%
0.00%
Overall leakage is summarized in Table 3-16.
Table 3-16 Leakage Results
Measure
Leakage to Non-IOU
kWh
kW
Leakage to Other IOU
kWh
kW
Leakage Out of State
kWh
kW
CFL
28,033
6.08
3,763
.82
3,013
.65
LED
8,481
1.84
1,425
.31
816
.18
Total
36,514
7.92
5,188
1.13
3,829
.83
3-20
The values listed under Leakage to Non-IOU provide a benefit to Louisiana ratepayers
and as such are credited to the program. They are, however, factored out of Lost
Contribution to Fixed Cost (LCFC) calculations.
Values under Leakage Out of State are deducted from program savings.
3.4.6 CoolSaver AC Tune-Up
The deemed savings values for air infiltration reduction were developed through
weather-adjustment of Arkansas TRM values.
The formula for calculating savings from air conditioning tune-ups is as follows:
=
ℎ
=
×
×
1
1000
1
1000
×
1
×
1
−
+
−
×
+
Where,

Capacity = Rated tons

EERpre = Adjusted efficiency of equipment prior to the tune-up (11.2 if unknown)

EERpost = Nameplate efficiency of existing equipment

HSPFpre = Measured efficiency of heating equipment before tune-up

HSPFpost = Measured efficiency of heating equipment before tune-up

CF = Coincidence Factor, .87

EFLHC = Equivalent full-load cooling hours

EFLHH = Equivalent full-load heating hours
Baseline EER is calculated as follows:
Where,

= (1 −
)×
EL = Efficiency Loss
3-21
Table 3-17 Efficiency Loss Percentage by Refrigerant Charge Level
% Charged
≤70
EL – Fixed Orifice
.37
EL – TXV
.12
75
.29
.09
80
.20
.07
85
.15
.06
90
.10
.05
95
.05
.03
100
.00
.00
≥120
.03
.04
The program rebated 738 tune-ups in PY1.
3.5
Overall Verified Savings
Realized savings is presented by program channel in Table 3-18 through Table 3-20.
Table 3-18 Realization Summary – Audit & Downstream Rebate
Measure
Number
Homes
886
148
Inspection
262
Expected
kWh
Savings
Expected
kW
Savings
Verified
kWh
Savings
Verified
kW
Savings
827.22
5,928,674
864.66
41.81
400,095
Realization
kWh
kW
104.5%
41.81
112.0%
100.0%
Duct Sealing
1,619
Showerhead
372
5,295,720
400,095
Air Sealing
363
226,525
83.59
263,839
71.25
116.5%
85.2%
CFL
870
202,703
67
202,703
67
100.0%
100.0%
Faucet Aerator
492
127,595
13.32
127,595
13.32
100.0%
100.0%
Ceiling Insulation
38
124,715
30.57
124,715
30.57
100.0%
100.0%
Central AC
23
53,040
16.19
47,468
14.56
89.5%
89.9%
Heat Pump
18
46,031
12.91
46,031
12.91
100.0%
100.0%
Pool Pump
21
44,751
6.87
64,157
13.3
143.4%
193.6%
240
30,534
3.8
30,534
3.8
100.0%
100.0%
LEDs
237
27,470
7
27,470
7
100.0%
100.0%
Room AC
103
15,324
17.07
15,324
17.07
100.0%
100.0%
Radiant Barrier
4
2,488
1.02
2,488
1.02
100.0%
100.0%
1
1,333
0.21
1,333
0.21
100.0%
100.0%
Refrigerators
3
525
0.07
525
0.07
100.0%
100.0%
6,598,849
1128.65
7,282,951
1158.55
Total:
100.0%
110.4%
3-22
Table 3-19 Realization Summary – Markdown Lighting
Number
of
Lamps
Expected
kWh
Savings
Markdown CFLs
46,105
1,158,041
Markdown LEDs
13,285
Measure
Total:
Verified
kWh
Savings
Expected
kW
Savings
Verified
kW
Savings
727,889
251.19
266,308
265,492
1,424,350
993,381
Realization
kWh
kW
157.89
62.9%
62.86%
57.76
57.58
99.7%
99.69%
308.95
215.47
69.7%
69.74%
Table 3-20 Verified Savings by Measure Type
Measure
Audit/Downstream Rebate
Ex Post
Ex Ante
Ex Post
kWh
Ex Ante
kWh
kWh
Realization
Peak kW
Savings
Savings
Rate
Savings
6,598,489
7,282,951
110.37%
1,128.65
1,158.55
102.65%
Peak
kW
Savings
Peak kW
Realization
Rate
CoolSaver Tune-Up
775,005
775,005
100.00%
319.49
319.49
100.00%
Lighting Markdown
1,424,350
993,381
69.74%
308.95
215.47
69.74%
8,797,844
9,051,337
102.88%
1,757.09
1,693.51
96.38%
Total
3.6
Process Findings
This chapter presents the results of the process evaluation of the Residential Solutions
Program. The process evaluation focuses on aspects of program policies and
organization, as well as the program delivery framework.
The process chapter begins with an overview of the program. This is followed by a
discussion of the methodological approach used in the evaluation. A summary of
findings and recommendations for program improvement follow the discussion of the
methodology. This discussion is followed by detailed findings of the evaluation activities.
3.6.1 Data Collection Activities
The process of evaluation of the Residential Solutions Program included the following
data collection activities:

Cleco Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed staff at Cleco
involved in the administration of the Residential Solutions. These interviews were
to collect information from program staff as to any changes or developments, as
well as response to program recommendations.

CLEAResult Program Staff Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed staff at
CLEAResult, who implements the program. These interviews were to collect
information on implementation activities and clarify questions about program
design or processes.
3-23

Participant Surveying. The Evaluators surveyed a sample of program
participants. These surveys addressed issues including participant satisfaction
with the program offerings, demographics, and other contextual issues regarding
the participation process.

Contractor Interviews. The Evaluators interviewed a sample of trade allies that
completed projects through the program. The interviews addressed topics such
as trade allies’ perception and understanding of the program participation
process, efforts to market the program, perception of barriers to participation that
their customers may face, and satisfaction with the program.

AC Tune-Up Contractor Ride Alongs. The Evaluators completed ride along with a
sample of trade allies during AC tune-up projects. The ride alongs were
completed to collect information on procedures used by trade allies and identify
areas where procedural changes or additional training may improve the program
delivery.
3.6.1.1
Program Staff Interviews
Interviews were completed with four CLEAResult staff and one Cleco staff member. The
interviews provided information on program operations and covered the following topics:





3.6.1.2
Participant Survey
Surveys were administered to samples of participants to gain insight into the
participant’s experience with the program. Respondents answered questions on the
following topics:


Their decision to participate and complete an efficiency project;


Satisfaction with various elements of the program and the program overall.
Different surveys were administered to participants based on the component.
3-24
Table 3-21 Summary of Participant Survey Responses
Program Component
Number of
Respondents
Home Energy Assessment
Home Improvement, HVAC, and Equipment
Discount/Rebate
AC Tune Ups
3.6.1.3
79
23
29
Contractor Interviews
Interviews were completed with program trade allies that deliver the energy
assessments and implement the program measures. The interviews covered the
following topics:

Promotion of the program and barriers to participation;

Program marketing;

The program participation process;

Training and communication with program staff;

Business and market impact; and

Overall impressions and satisfaction.
Nine interviews were completed with program trade allies.
3.6.1.4
AC Tune-Up Contractor Observations
The Evaluators observed five trade allies performing air conditioner tune-ups. The
purpose of the observations was to:

Validate test-in baseline and test-out values;

Identify any training issues;

Observe trade ally interactions with customers; and

Observe assistance provided by program staff.
3.6.2 Program Overview
Cleco’s Residential Solutions Program is composed of the following components:

Home Assessment Component

Lighting and Appliances Component

New Homes Component

Online Energy Audit Component
3-25

AC Tune-Up Component
Each component is described in greater detail below.
3.6.2.1
Home Assessment Component
The Residential Solutions Program provides financial incentives for home energy
assessments and energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption among
residential customers. The program is available to any Cleco residential customer who
lives in an existing single-family home, duplex, triplex, or fourplex.
Cleco customers were initially offered a $75 rebate on the cost of a trade ally provided
home energy assessment. However, the amount was dropped later in the year to $50.
Tier 1 and Tier 2 Assessments comprise:


Tier 1 Assessment: Contractor completes a walk-through inspection to identify
energy saving opportunities. The trade ally provides a written report identifying
opportunities to save energy in the household.
Tier 2 Assessment: In addition to the services provided under the Tier 1
assessment, customers also receive diagnostic testing including blower door
testing, duct testing, and combustion safety testing.
Direct install measures provided with Tier 1 and Tier 2 assessments include:



Up to six CFLs or LEDs (60W equivalent);
One smart power strip; and
Faucet aerators and low-flow showerheads (electric hot water heating).
Upon completion of the energy assessment, customers have up to six months to
receive incentives for energy saving home improvements. Customers that receive a Tier
1 assessment are eligible for insulation incentives.
Customers may receive incentives for completing air sealing, duct sealing, ceiling
insulation, mobile home belly insulation, floor insulation, central air conditioning units,
and heat pumps. To receive incentives for air sealing or duct sealing, customers must
have the pre- and post- testing completing, although they do not necessarily need to
receive a full Tier 2 energy assessment.
Incentives for these measures are as follows:
3-26
Table 3-22 Home Assessment Incentives
Measure
Incentive Amount
Duct sealing
Up to $1.50 per CFM reduced
Ceiling insulation R5-R8
Up to $.25 /sqft
Ceiling insulation R0-R4
Up to $.35 / sqft
Mobile home belly insulation
Up to $.25 / sqft
Floor insulation
$.25 / sqft
Air conditioner
Up to $550
Heat Pump
Up to $700
Residential Cleco Louisiana customers are eligible for the program. The program is
available for single family homes and multifamily homes with four units or fewer.
Owners and renters are both eligible.
3.6.2.2
Lighting and Appliances Component
The lighting and appliance program component provides mail-in rebates for window AC
units, pool pumps, heat pump water heaters, and refrigerators that are designated as
ENERGY STAR Most Efficient. Point of purchase discounts are provided for compact
fluorescent lamps and light emitting diode lamps. Table 3-23 summarizes the incentives
provided through the program.
Table 3-23 Lighting and Appliance Component Incentives
Measure
Incentive Type
Rebate Amount
Window AC
Mail-In Rebate
$35
Pool Pump
Mail-In Rebate
$250
Mail-In Rebate
$250
Mail-In Rebate
$50
CFLs
Point of Purchase Discount
$3 per lamp
LEDs
Point of Purchase Discount
$3 - $6 per lamp
Refrigerators designated as ENERGY STAR® Most
Efficient
Table 3-24 displays the number of retail locations offering discounts in Cleco’s service
territory. In total, 20 retail locations offered the lighting discounts.
Table 3-24 Number of Participating Lighting Retailer Locations
Retailer
Number of Participating Locations
Hardware Retailer #1
2
Big Box Retailer
13
Hardware Retailer #2
5
Total
20
3-27
3.6.2.3
New Homes Component
Incentives are provided to home builders and home owners who build a new home and
install equipment that exceeds the current building energy code. Prescriptive incentives
are available for air conditioners, heat pumps, ENERGY STAR ® lighting, ENERGY
STAR ® windows, and heat pump water heaters. Table 3-25 summarizes the
prescriptive new construction incentives.
Table 3-25 New Home Component Incentives
Measure
Incentive Amount
SEER 16 or higher central air conditioner
Up to $550
SEER 16 / 9.0 HSPF or higher heat pump system
Up to $650
SEER 20 / 10 HSPF or higher heat pump system
ENERGY STAR ® Advanced Lighting Package (100% ENERGY STAR ® hardwired
light fixtures and 100% ENERGY STAR ® fans)
Up to $700
$100 per home
$250 per unit
Air Sealing ACH50 < 5
$150 per home
Duct Sealing < 8 CFM per 100 sqft of floor area
$150 per home
Radiant Barrier
$75 per home
3.6.2.4
Online Audit
Cleco provides access to an online audit tool to help residential customers identify
energy saving opportunities. Customers that complete the online assessment receive a
report of recommended measure implementations. The program provides
recommendations for behavioral measures, low cost equipment measures such as
installing faucet aerators, as well as costlier retrofits such as replacing HVAC systems.
3.6.2.5
Air Conditioning Tune Ups
Cleco provides discounts of up to $150 on air conditioning tune-ups provided by a
program qualified trade ally.
3.6.3 Detailed Findings
3.6.3.1
Residential Solutions Participation Data Quality Review
The Evaluators reviewed the final program participant tracking data submitted by
CLEAResult. The following issues were noted for the Residential Solutions data:

Contact name was missing for 2% of projects.

Phone number was missing or invalid (i.e., not 10 digits) for 13% of projects.
Additionally, some issues were identified for the tune-up project data:

Contact name was missing or incomplete 8% projects.
3-28

Contact phone number was missing for 9% of projects.
The Evaluators recommend that the following fields be added to the mass-market and
income qualified reports:

Account number

Premise ID

Housing Type

Primary Space Heating System Type

R-Value (Pre)

R-Value (Post)

Quantity Installed

Contractor Contact Phone
3.6.3.2
Analysis of Participation Data
Table 3-26 displays program activity by project type. As shown, most expected energy
savings were the result of building leakage and envelope improvements. The direct
install measures also accounted for a large portion of program savings. HVAC tune-ups,
replacements, downstream rebate projects, and new construction projects accounted
for relatively smaller Table 3-26 displays expected energy savings by measure. As
shown, duct sealing, low-flow showerheads, and HVAC tune-ups, and ceiling insulation
all accounted for more than 100,000 kWh in expected savings.
3-29
Table 3-26 Program Activity by Measure
Measure
Duct Sealing – Retrofit
Number of Projects
Total Expected kWh
1,614
5,294,296
Showerhead
372
400,095
Air Sealing – Retrofit
361
225,465
CFL
870
202,703
Faucet Aerator
492
127,595
Ceiling Insulation
38
124,715
Central AC
23
53,040
Heat Pump
17
44,921
Pool Pump
21
44,751
240
30,534
LEDs
237
27,470
Room AC
103
15,324
Radiant Barrier – New
Construction
Duct Sealing – New
Construction
4
4
2,488
1,424
1
1,333
Heat Pump – New construction
1
1,110
Figure 3-5 displays the share of energy savings associated with trade ally firms that
completed projects through the program. As shown, six contactors accounted for more
than 90% of program energy savings. It is not atypical to find a relatively small share of
contactors account for a large share of program savings.
Figure 3-5 Share of Expected kWh Savings by Contractor (Excluding Cool Saver TuneUps)
3-30
Figure 3-6 displays results of the same analysis for AC Tune-Up trade allies. As shown,
one-half of the trade allies accounted for most of the program savings, with the two
most active firms accounting for more than 70% of expected program savings.
Figure 3-6 Share of Expected AC Tune- Up kWh Savings by Contractor
The Evaluators summarized the number and share of assessment and measure
installation projects completed by the four trade ally firms that completed assessments.
The purpose of the analysis was to determine if some trade allies were more
aggressively completing assessments but not generating energy saving projects. The
results are summarized in Table 3-27. Although the first trade ally listed accounted for
51.8% of the assessment projects and only 33.2% of the measure installation projects,
this firm was the most active firm for both project types.
Table 3-27 Share of Assessment Projects and Measure Projects
Number of
Assessment
Projects
Percent of Total
Assessment
Projects
Number of
Rebate Projects
% Rebate
Projects
Contractor 1
536
51.8%
683
33.2%
Contractor 2
93
9.0%
86
4.1%
Contractor 3
88
8.5%
180
8.8%
Contractor 4
73
7.1%
141
6.9%
Contractor 5
70
6.8%
75
3.7%
Contractor
Further, the Evaluators reviewed program tracking to assess whether the incremental
program offerings of technical assistance resulted in increased participation. Data
indicating a participant having received an Inspection, Tier 1 Assessment, Tier 2
3-31
Assessment, or no assessment at all were cross-tabulated with measure installation
and expected kWh savings. These findings are summarized in Figure 3-7 and Figure
3-8.
Figure 3-7 Number of Measure Installations by Engagement Type
Figure 3-8 Mean Savings by Engagement Type
As seen in Figure 3-7, number of measure installations is strongly correlated to
engagement level, with Assessment Tier 2 customers installing an average of 3.01
distinct measures7. However, this does not align with program savings. As seen in
7
The Evaluators removed the Assessment/Inspection measure from this tally, and as such the values in Figure 1-4
reflect total energy saving measures.
3-32
Figure 3-8, the highest saving level is associated with participants that received an
Inspection, followed by participants that received no assessment at all. Based on trade
ally interviews, the Evaluators posit that this is due to the No Assessment and
Inspection projects comprising a large share of “low-hanging fruit”, where a home is in
clear need of weatherization services and has electric radiant heating.
3.6.3.3
Comparison with Regional Whole House Programs
The Evaluators reviewed multiple residential, regional whole house programs to assess
how Cleco’s Residential Solutions Program compared in terms of audit processes,
available measures, eligibility, and incentives.
Table 3-28 provides a summary of the programs reviewed. Each of these programs
provides an onsite whole house audit, although they vary in their comprehensiveness.
The Cleco program offers a two-tier system. The first tier includes a walkthrough
assessment, while the second tier offers diagnostic home performance testing. Three of
four programs have a direct install component which includes CFLs and/or water saving
devices.
The eligible measures offered by the Residential Solutions Program are very much inline with other program offerings from around the county, which emphasizes insulation
and sealing, but also includes HVAC and heat pump replacement incentives. The
biggest difference for incentives is the amount offered for the audit where the incentives
range from $75 to $300. TVA’s eScore program offers the same incentive, but the costs
are paid for by the customer rather than the trade ally invoicing the service. SWEPCO
Arkansas’ program has the highest audit incentive as well as the highest incentivized
measures in their program. Overall, the Cleco program is comparable with other whole
house programs regionally.
3-33
Table 3-28 Other Residential Energy Efficiency Programs
Utility
Audit Component
Direct Install
Program
Measures
Incentive Amount
Tier 1: $50 deducted
from survey invoice.
Tier 2: $50 deducted
from survey invoice.
Air sealing:
Tier 1 –
Up to $0.13/CFM50
Informational
reduction.
Energy Survey -
Duct sealing:
Direct install,
visual walk-
Air sealing,
through
duct sealing,
inspections, Tier 1
Cleco
report.
Residential
Tier 2 – Energy
Solutions
Assessment –
Program
Direct install,
walk-through
CFLs (max 6),
low-flow
showerhead,
faucet aerator,
power strip.
floor
insulation and
belly
insulation.
HVAC
replacement,
inspection, blower
heat pump
door test, duct
replacement.
blaster test,
Up to $1.50/CFM 25.
Max 35% leakage cap.
Floor insulation:
Up to $0.20/sq.ft.
installed area.
Belly insulation
(mobile homes):
Up to $0.25/sq.ft.
HVAC:
SEER 15: $75-$250
SEER 16: $100-$350
SEER 17: $150-$475
combustion safety
SEER 18+: $175-$550
education, Tier 2
Heat Pump:
report.
SEER 15: $100-$325
SEER 16: $125-$400
SEER 17: $175-$575
SEER 18: $200-$650
SEER 20: $225-$700
Comprehensive
Eligibility
Criteria
Residential
customer of
utility.
Single-family
home or a
multifamily
unit of no
more than four
units (renters
and owners
eligible).
Property must
be at least one
year old.
Electric
cooling.
Tier 2 survey If a customer’s
home meets or
exceeds
$.10/sq. ft.
(see Energy
Usage
Analysis), the
home qualifies
for a Tier 2
Energy
Assessment.
Comprehensive
Any residential
Attic
energy assessment:
dwelling
SWEPCO
energy
Faucet
insulation,
$300
served by
Arkansas
assessment –
aerator, low-
central air
Duct Sealing: $175-
SWEPCO –
Residential
diagnostic and
flow
conditioner,
$325
condominiums,
Home
combustion safety
showerhead,
windows, duct
Duct Insulation:
apartments,
Performance
testing, and
advanced
sealing, air
$0.50/linear ft. of
townhomes,
with ENERGY
energy
power strip,
sealing, and
insulated duct
multifamily
STAR®
assessment
and CFLs
electric water
Air Infiltration: $100
dwellings,
heating.
Ceiling Insulation:
manufacture,
$0.25/sq.ft.
and mobile
report.
3-34
Utility
Audit Component
Direct Install
Program
Measures
Incentive Amount
Eligibility
Criteria
Extra incentive: $100
homes. Units
bonus if 2 or more
must be
measures installed
occupied.
within six months of
assessment.
Assessment: $85
A/C: One pound of
Oklahoma Gas
& Electric
Home Energy
Efficiency
Program
Cooling
inspections and
N/A
A/C tune-up.
(HEEP)
Duct repair
A/C system refrigerant
and
and filters.
OG&E
tightening,
Duct sealing: up to
customers with
duct sealing,
$300.
central air
and attic
Attic insulation: Up to
conditioning.
insulation.
30% of costs of
additional insulation
(max $500).
Air sealing: 50% of
total installation cost
(max $200/home).
Attic Insulation: 50%
of total installation
cost (max
$250/home).
Duct sealing: 50% of
Air sealing,
Tennessee
eScore evaluation
Valley
($75) –
Authority
customized list of
eScore
upgrades and
Program
rebates available.
attic
insulation,
CFLs (max 12)
duct sealing,
HVAC, water
heaters, and
windows and
doors.
total installation cost
(max $200).
Heat Pump:
$250/unit.
Geothermal: $500.
Central AC: $150/unit.
Single-family
homeowners.
Dual Fuel Heat Pump:
$250/unit.
Tune-up: $15/unit.
Window
Replacement:
$25/window (max
$500).
Exterior Door:
$50/door (max $300).
Storm Windows:
$12.50/window (max
3-35
Utility
Audit Component
Direct Install
Program
Measures
Incentive Amount
Eligibility
Criteria
$250).
3.6.3.4
Review of Program Lighting and Appliance Incentives
The Evaluators reviewed discounts offered on lighting products for utilities operating in
the southern region to benchmark Cleco’s discounts of $3 per specialty CFL and $3 to
$6 per LED. As shown in Table 3-29, Cleco’s discounts are similar to those offered by
other utilities.
Table 3-29 Lighting Discounts Offered by Regional Utilities
State
Utility
Lamp Type
Discount
Amount
MO
Ameren
LED Light Bulbs
Up to $10
MO
Kansas City Power & Light
LED Light Bulbs
$4.00
AR
AEP Southwestern Electric Power Company
LED Light Bulbs
$3.00
AR
Entergy Arkansas
LED Light Bulbs
$4.00 - $8.00
MO
Ameren
Specialty CFLs
Up to $3.00
MO
Specialty CFLs
$1.35
AR
AEP Southwestern Electric Power Company
Specialty CFLs
$1.00
AR
Entergy Arkansas
Specialty CFLs
$1.50 - $3.00
Source: ENERGY STAR® Summary of Lighting Programs: September 2014 Update.
https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/downloads/FINAL_2014_ENERGY_STAR_Summary_of_Lighting_Programs
.pdf?0544-2a1e
Table 3-30 displays rebates and discounts provided through regional utility programs on
the appliance offered through Cleco’s program. As shown, Cleco’s $250 rebate for pool
pumps is near the midpoint of the discounts provided in other jurisdictions. The window
AC unit rebate is also towards the middle of the amount offered in other jurisdictions,
although there is greater variability for this rebate. The $50 rebate for refrigerators and
$250 rebate for heat pump water heaters are also comparable to rebates offered in
other jurisdictions.
3-36
Table 3-30 Appliance and Discounts Offered by Regional Utilities
State
Utility
Measure
Incentive
AR
SWEPCO
ENERGY STAR® Window AC
Up to $35
FL
Gulf Power
$75
MO
Ameren
$20
MO
$25
AR
SWEPCO
ES Refrigerator
$75
TX
CPS Energy
ES Refrigerator
$35
AL
Tennessee Valley Authority Partnership
$200
AR
Entergy
$350
MO
Ameren
$500
TX
CPS Energy
Up to $300
FL
Gulf Power
Pool Pump
$100
MO
Ameren
Pool Pump
$350
TX
CPS Energy
Pool Pump
$200
Source: Data retrieved from http://www.dsireusa.org and/or utility program websites.
Currently a $250 incentive for ENERGY STAR® qualified pull pumps, which includes
multi-speed and variable-speed pumps. Given the differences in potential energy
savings between these two pumps, staff should consider offering different incentive
amounts for these types of pumps.8
3.6.3.5
Review of Home Energy Assessment Report
The Evaluators reviewed an example home energy assessment report provided to
participants in the Residential Solutions Program. Overall, the home energy report is
well laid out and includes the following:

A cover page summarizing home characteristics, the top recommended
improvements for the customer, the program website address, and the program
contact information.

A page summarizing energy costs by end-use.

A summary of direct install measures.

Separate pages for the results of the assessment by type and any relevant
energy saving recommendations.
Table 3-31 displays the criteria used and the Evaluators’ assessment of the report on
those standards. Based on the review of the report, the Evaluators suggests staff
consider the following modifications:
8 Consortium for Energy Efficiency (2012). CEESM High Efficiency Residential Swimming Pool Initiative.
3-37

If practicable, consider providing estimated customer cost to aid customer
decision making.

Reference specific incentives available for projects.

Highlight program discounts provided for lighting.
Table 3-31 Review of Energy Assessment Report
Criteria
Provides information on energy use for all enduses
Provides energy saving recommendations for all
end-uses
Expected cost savings are provided for
recommended measures
Provides estimates of expected improvement
costs
Payback for measure implementation is
provided
Includes information on non-energy benefits
Assessment
Mixed
Yes
Comments/Notes
Does not cover appliances not incentivized by
program such as washer/dryers/dishwashers
Analysis does not include all appliance types,
namely clothes washing and drying equipment.
Summary chart does not state what period of
Yes
time they will be realized in. This is shown later
in the report.
No
No
Yes
Report describes home comfort and safety
benefits.
Incentives are not specifically referenced for
Provides information on available incentives
Mixed
recommended measures;
No recommendations for reference to smart
power strip rebates
Provides information on next steps
Yes
Analysis and recommendation sections are
Report is accessible, easy to understand
Yes
clearly laid out;
Results in tables state next steps for the
participant to take.
Prioritizes recommendations
Yes
Note some fields in analysis tables were
All information is complete
Mixed
empty, namely, efficiency ratings for furnace
and water heater. Consider marking these as
“unknown” or “not applicable.”
Provides information on locating a qualified
trade ally
Yes
Low cost changes such as refrigerator
Report provides low/no cost energy saving tips
Yes
temperature setting and using cold water for
laundry are examples of energy saving tips.
3-38
3.6.3.6
Review of Online Audit Tool
This section of the report provides a high level review of the audit tool provided to
Cleco’s customers through the Energy Depot website. For this review, we drew on
previous evaluations of online audit tools including a 2004 report entitled Evaluation of
Home Energy Audit Tools by The Center for Energy, Economic & Environmental Policy,
a 2002 report by Evan Mills entitled Review and Comparison of Web- and Disk-based
Tools for Residential Energy Analysis, and a 2001 report by John Westerman entitled
Home Energy Analysis Software Study.
Information on the audit tool and its purpose was collected through a review of materials
provided in June 2015 and from interviews with CLEAResult staff. Table 3-32 displays
the criteria used and the Evaluators’ assessment of the tool on those standards. Based
on the review of the tool, the Evaluators suggest staff consider the following
modifications:

Add descriptions of available rebates and services provided through the program
with links to the relevant information on the program website. Provide this
information in conjunction with relevant recommendations.

If not cost prohibitive, allow the tool to access customer billing data to improve
the quality of analysis, reduce customer data entry requirements, and enable
tracking of energy use over time.

Consider providing estimated energy and cost savings for specific
recommendations rather than end-use. This will allow customers to make better
informed decisions about what actions to take.

Provide payback information for energy investment recommendations to enable
customers to see the longer term benefits from the paying the additional cost of
the energy efficient equipment.
Table 3-32 Review of Online Audit Tool
Criteria
Description
Survey makes use of multiple choice
answers, is easy to navigate, and presents
Audit survey is user friendly
questions with pictures or other graphics.
The survey can be completed in a
reasonable amount of time.
Assessment
Yes, except that the customer must
manually enter billing information in
order to utilize actual energy
consumption in the audit.
Yes there are separate modules and
Audit survey is flexible to
Users can audit a single measure or
it allows you to create multiple
account for different users
complete a whole house audit. Users can
snapshots and compare the energy
motivations
run alternative “what if” scenarios.
impacts of appliances with differing
efficiency levels.
3-39
Criteria
Audit survey coverage of
energy use factors is
comprehensive
Description
Assessment
Audit survey collects information on
major sources of energy consumption in
the home including major end-uses and
Yes.
building envelope characteristics.
Results are based on accurate inputs and
sufficient information to provide
Audit results are accurate and
credible
reasonably accurate estimates of energy
use and the savings potential of the
Not assessed.
recommendations. Users of the tool find
the results and projected savings to be
credible.
Audit benchmarks energy use
Users of the tool can compare their
energy use to other similar homes.
Audit provides historical
User can see how their energy use
energy use
changes seasonally and over time.
Audit provides information on
Users can see the share of energy use for
energy consumption by end-
each of the primary end-uses found in a
use
residence.
Audit recommends behavioral changes,
Multiple types of
changes suitable for customers
recommendations are
remodeling their home, and equipment
provided
retrofits. Recommendations cover lower
and higher cost measures.
Multiple types of benefits
No.
No. Customer would have to
manually track their home energy
consumption based on energy bills.
Yes
Yes, a variety of recommendations
are presented, but they are not all
accurately classified in the sample
report. The energy investment
recommendation for kitchen
appliances is a behavioral tip.
Report presents carbon reduction
from implementing
Energy and non-energy benefits are
benefits and there is reference to
recommendations are
presented in the audit report.
other benefits in select
presented
recommendations.
Information on payback for
Recommendations include
costs and a comparison of
costs to benefits
Recommendations include information
on costs of implementation, the
estimated annual savings, and the
estimated payback period.
efficiency investments is not
provided. Savings associated with
implementing recommendations is
not clear because a single savings
number associated with multiple
recommendations.
Recommendations promote
Audit recommendations include
Information on incentive programs is
utilities energy efficiency
information on utility programs and links
not presented.
programs
to program websites as appropriate.
3-40
3.6.4 Program Design, Operations and Activities
The following sections describe operations and activities and were developed from
reviews of program documentation and interviews with CLEAResult and Cleco staff.
3.6.4.1
Program Objectives
The primary program objective is to assist residential customers in achieving electric
energy savings and peak demand reductions. The energy saving goal for the program is
4,694,182 kWh and the peak demand reduction target is 1,421.00 kW. The program
also has ancillary objectives related to educating customers and trade allies about
energy efficient technologies and home characteristics, and generally transforming the
market for residential equipment and services. Staff reported that they have some
targets for program components and measures, but that the program is primarily
focused on the overall residential savings goal.
Utility staff also emphasized the importance of customer satisfaction and ensuring that
customers have a positive experience with the program.
The retail lighting portion was launched later than the other program components. The
original plan for the lighting program was to only offer LED lighting, but CFLs were
added near the end of the program year. The program will also offer kits of LEDs, CFLs,
and smart power strips in the coming months. Customers will be able to purchase the
items at a reduced cost through the program website.
Overall, both Cleco and CLEAResult staff indicated that the program is well designed to
meet its goals and objectives. Program staff did not foresee any difficulty in meeting the
first year savings goals.
3.6.4.2
3.6.4.2.1
Program Participation Process
Home Energy Assessments
Figure 3-9 provides an overview of the participation process for the home energy
assessment component. Customers can receive an assessment that includes a walkthrough of the residence to identify energy saving opportunities, direct installation of
energy efficient light bulbs, low-flow faucet aerators and shower heads, and smart
power strips. Customers may also opt for additional performance testing such as blower
door testing and duct tightness testing. Completing the performance testing qualifies
customers for air sealing incentives and duct leakage reduction incentives.
Customers that do not elect to have a home energy assessment performed may also
receive incentives for implementing the program measures. Customers receiving
incentives for air sealing and duct sealing must complete the necessary performance
testing before and after the implementation of the measures.
3-41
Figure 3-9 Home Assessment Component Program Participation Process
3-42
3.6.4.2.2
Lighting and Appliances
CLEAResult staff work with lighting product manufacturer retailer representatives to
establish an agreement between CLEAResult, the lighting product manufacture, and the
retailer. The terms of the agreement are set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) signed by the parties. Under the terms of the MOU, retailers agree to the
following:

Provide discounts on the qualified products;

Display point of purchase materials and advertising with the utility’s logo;

Submit point of sale data to corroborate information provided in invoices; and

Limit purchases to 12 bulbs per customer.
Manufacturers agree to the following:

Notify the program of any proposed changes to the approved product mix; and

Submit invoices for the discounted products purchased.
Once the MOU is signed and the program is in place, customers participate by receiving
an instant discount on the incentivized products.
The following are the key steps in the participation process for customers to receive the
rebates on the appliances:

Customer purchases a qualifying product;

Customer completes the rebate form and submits it and a sales receipt by mail,
email, or fax;

CLEAResult staff review the rebate submission for completeness;

CLEAResult staff request complete information from customer if needed; and

CLEAResult staff approves the rebate and mails payment to the customer.
3.6.4.2.3
New Homes Component
Builders may receive rebates on the prescriptive measures offered through the new
homes component by completing the rebate program, completing required performance
testing, and submitting project documentation.
3.6.4.2.4
Online Audit
Cleco customer access the online audit program through the Energy Depot section of
the utility website. The Energy Depot website offers customers multiple tools to educate
them on ways to save energy. These tools are:

A full-home energy audit tool;

A tool for comparing the energy use of two appliances;
3-43

A tool for estimating the energy use for an appliance; and

Additional materials on energy efficiency and household energy use.
To access the audit tool, customers register for access and log onto the system.
Customers answer a series of questions about their home, the equipment installed in it,
and its occupants. Customers are provided the option of entering 12 months of energy
use data to improve the analysis of their home energy use. Customers then receive a
report that details how much customers can save in energy costs and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by end-use. For each end-use the report provides low cost
energy tips and energy investment recommendations.
3.6.4.2.5
CoolSaver A/C Tune-up
Figure 3-10 provides an overview of the tune-up participation process. Customer
participation may be initiated either through the customer contacting program staff, the
tune-up trade ally, or through trade ally outreach. Once a customer is verified as eligible
for the program, an appointment is scheduled to complete the tune-up. During the tuneup, the trade ally completes an inspection of the unit and discusses the tune-up
measures with the customer. Once the tune-up is completed, the information is
submitted electronically to CLEAResult. CLEAResult staff review the submissions and
provide payment to the trade ally.
3-44
Figure 3-10 AC Tune-Up Program Participation Process
3.6.4.3
Roles and Responsibilities

Perform onsite inspections and other quality control and quality assurance
activities;

Customer and trade ally education and outreach;
3-45

Review and approval of proposed projects;

Review and approval of rebate applications;

Verification that participating lighting retailers are complying with the terms of the
MOU;

Review of sales reports and invoices submitted for lighting discounts;

Providing training to retailer staff;

Process and payments of rebates to customers and trade allies; and

CLEAResult staffing for the residential solutions program includes a specialist assigned
to the program, a program coordinator who provides support to the Residential
Solutions program and the nonresidential programs, and a program manager who
oversees the implementation team for the Cleco programs. Towards the end of the
program year, CLEAResult added an additional staff member to support the residential
programs.
The online audit software tool is developed and managed by OpSolve.
3.6.4.4
The program primarily relies upon trade allies to promote the incentives for the energy
assessments and the trade ally installed measures. In addition to promotion of the
incentives by trade allies, Cleco has promoted the program through bill messaging,
inserts, radio advertisement, print advertisement, and online advertisement. Rebates for
appliances are promoted at the point of purchase as well.
CLEAResult staff promoted the program through outreach to trade ally groups, home
builder associations, and trade groups. CLEAResult and Cleco staff participated in the
Louisiana Municipal Association convention. At the convention, program staff met with
mayors and council members to explain the availability of the programs.
Customers may also access the program website to learn about the assessments and
program. Staff reported that accessing program materials online is one of the key ways
that customers initiate participation in the program. The website includes a short
summary of the program and a one-page overview document. This document explains
who eligible and what incentives are available.
The lighting discounts are primarily promoted through point of service materials.
CLEAResult staff supplies participating retailers with materials for display in
participating stores. These materials include shelf stickers that display the program
name and utility next to every item, as well as, larger signs. Program staff reported that
no in-store promotion days were held during the program year. However, the program’s
3-46
field representative speaks with customers and retailer staff about the discounts during
monthly store visits.
Similarly, the rebates for Window AC units, refrigerators, pool pumps, and heat pump
water heaters are promoted through materials displayed at retailers and include copies
of the application forms. Staff reported that instore promotion of advanced power strips
is challenging because of the number of standard power strips that are sold, which cost
less. Additionally, not all retailers carry the power strips. The advanced power strips are
primarily promoted through the program website where customers can download the
rebate form.
To promote the availability of the rebates for ENERGY STAR ® qualified pool pumps,
program staff met with pool pump trade allies to promote the availability of discounts on
the pool pumps at two events. Staff also provided a large pool supply chain with rebate
applications and a display board.
The online audit tool offered through the program is also a marketing tool for the
program. Staff reported that the tool is one of the strategies employed to reach its
broadly distributed, rural customer base.
3.6.4.5
Barriers to Participation
Cleco’s service territory is largely rural, noncontiguous, and broadly distributed across
the state of Louisiana. These characteristics create challenges for increasing
awareness of the programs. Staff reported that to reach these regions, the program has
to work with a large number of small local trade allies.
Another barrier the program has faced is overcoming customer skepticism about the
program offerings. Staff indicated that customers are hesitant to participate because
they are concerned that there is a “catch,” but noted that continued promotion of the
programs will increase awareness and mitigate this issue.
Staff also identified barriers to specific measures in the program. The program has had
less success with the insulation measures as opposed to duct sealing. Staff indicated
that the relative lack of success for the insulation measures is that the incentives are too
low to motivate customers to install additional insulation. Consequently, it is more
difficult for insulation trade allies to get sufficient customer response to enable them to
schedule multiple projects in the same geographic area. As a result, insulation
installation has a greater travel cost relative to the revenue generated in comparison to
duct sealing. Staff also noted that there are fewer trade allies that provide insulation.
Staff also noted that there has been little customer interest in the refrigerator rebates.
To qualify for the rebate, the refrigerators must be designated as ENERGY STAR ®
“Most Efficient” and that units with this designation tend to be costly. A review of
qualifying appliances retrieved from the ENERGY STAR ® website indicated that only
3-47
17 of the 1,214 ENERGY STAR® qualified appliances were designated as “Most
Efficient.”9 An internet search of common retailers such as Lowe’s and Home Depot
found that the lowest cost units sold for $1,700, whereas other ENERGY STAR®
refrigerators can be purchased for less than $1,000. Consequently, the high cost and
lack of models to choose from may inhibit program activity for this measure.
3.6.4.6
For projects completed by trade allies, staff reported that they target the first five, or the
first five out of 10 projects completed by a new trade ally firm for an inspection visit and
that 10% of the projects are inspected after that. If a trade ally firm has a change in crew
leader staffing, the firm is subject to the first five project verification requirement again.
Project verification visits check for consistency between reported performance testing,
site information, and measure information. Additionally, staff reported that they discuss
the customer’s satisfaction with the trade ally during visits.
Staff report that few issues have been identified with the work performed by trade allies.
For the lighting discount component, CLEAResult performs two types of quality control
activities: monitoring participating retailer compliance with the MOU and verification and
review of lighting sales and submitted rebates.
Activities related to monitoring compliance with the terms of the MOUs include:

Verifying that the products provided at a discount are ENERGY STAR® qualified;

Completing monthly visits to retail locations to verify that signage is displayed,
product pricing is displayed, and that the pricing is accurate; and

Educating retail staff to ensure that they are aware of the program discounts and
the purchase limit. To date, this education has been relatively informal and
involves the field representative discussing the discounts and program
requirements with available staff during the instore visits.
A review of lighting sales data is performed to ensure that invoiced sales match point of
purchase sales data and to identify sales anomalies such as large sales for items that
suggest the purchase limit was not adhered to.
Quality control procedures for rebated appliances consist of reviewing the submitted
rebate form for completeness of data, verifying that a sales receipt was submitted, and
verifying that the rebate was requested for qualifying equipment.
9
th
Retrieved October 4 , 2015 http://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-residentialrefrigerators/results
3-48
CLEAResult staff reported that few quality issues have occurred during the program
year. One issue arose where a retail staff member removed the product pricing because
the staff member assumed it was incorrect. A second issue occurred when there was a
large purchase for a lighting item that was detected during review of sales data. The
program was not charged for this sale.
3.6.4.7
Contractor Recruitment and Management
As of September 2015, the program had nearly 40 trade ally firms in the network.
Contractors must provide evidence of competency such as current BPI Certification,
RESNET Certification, or verifiable skills and knowledge.
Program staff noted that the program has had some challenges in recruiting
participating trade allies into the program due to the rural dispersed nature of the Cleco
service territory. The program recruited trade allies through direct mailings and through
trade association and other professional group meetings. Additionally, Cleco operates a
program for new home construction that provides a bill discount for homes that meet a
set of efficiency standards. Staff stated that they have been promoting the efficiency
programs with the trade allies in this program.
CLEAResult staff reported that concerns or issues with trade allies that arise in one
program are shared with CLEAResult staff implementing efficiency programs in other
programs in the region. Staff noted that there have been few issues with trade allies, but
that one trade ally was put on probation after staff was unable to verify that the reported
direct install measures were installed. The trade ally subsequently corrected the issue.
Staff has performed outreach and educational activities with pool pump trade allies, but
training on the proper programming of multi- and variable- speed pool pumps has been
limited. Maintaining water quality and energy savings through the installation of high
efficiency pool pumps requires programming so that flow rates are higher when needed
to support auxiliary systems and lower at other times to provide effect filtration with the
least energy use.10
3.6.5
Participant Survey Results
The following sections summarize the findings from a survey of participants in the
following groups:

Mass Market Home Assessment: participants which received an Inspection, Tier 1
Assessment, or Tier 2 Assessment. This group is comprised with both participants who
followed through with a rebate measure and participants that did not install a rebate
measure subsequent to the assessment. (n=79)
10Consortium
SM
for Energy Efficiency (2012). CEE
High Efficiency Residential Swimming Pool Initiative.
3-49

Mass Market Non-Assessment: participants that installed a rebate measure, but did
not receive an assessment. The measures included in this survey group were duct
sealing and air sealing (n=23)
3.6.5.1
Demographic Summary
Table 3-33 summarizes housing characteristics collected for the Residential Solutions
Mass Market respondents.
Table 3-33 Residential Solutions Housing Summary
Home
Assessment
(n = 79)
NonAssessment
(n =23)
AC Tune-Up
(n=29)
% in Single Family
84%
87%
45%
% owning home
85%
91%
45%
Average number home occupants
2.6
3.8
2.6
Housing Characteristic
Figure 3-11 summarizes the income brackets for the Residential Solutions survey
groups (Home Assessment, Non-Assessment, and AC Tune-Up). A significant number
of respondents in both groups stated income levels less than $25,000 per year (16.5%
and 8.7%, and 48.3% for Assessment, Non-Assessment, and AC Tune-Up,
respectively).
Figure 3-11 Income Brackets of Residential Solutions Survey Respondents
Figure 3-12 summarizes the education levels of program participants in the two
Residential Solutions channels.
3-50
Figure 3-12 Education Level Residential Solutions Survey Respondents
The Evaluators cross-tabulated income levels and the number of home occupants to
assess the probability of a given participant who qualified as low income. The criterion
used was 200% of federal poverty line (the criterion applied by the federal
Weatherization Assistance Program). The probability scoring is summarized in Table
3-34.
Table 3-34 Low Income Probability Scoring by Household Size and Income Level
Income Bracket Response from Survey
Less than
$25k-$50k
$51k-$75k
$76k-100k
$25k
94.2%
27.4%
100%
1
200% of
Fed.
11
Poverty
$23,540
2
$31,860
3
$40,180
100%
60.7%
4
$48,500
100%
94.0%
5
$56,820
100%
100%
27.8%
6
$65,140
100%
100%
60.6%
7
$73,460
100%
100%
93.8%
≥8
$81,780
100%
100%
100%
Family
Size
27.1%
After cross-tabulating income and occupancy data from participant surveys, the
Evaluators found the following rates of low income participation by program channel:

Home Assessment: 20.47%
11 https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/.
th
Accessed October 10 , 2015.
3-51



Home Assessment with a rebate measure12: 15.14%
Non-Assessment Direct Rebate: 20.71%
AC Tune-Up: 60.79%
There was significant low income customer participation in the Residential Solutions
Program, particularly in the AC Tune-Up program channel.
3.6.5.2
Sources of Awareness
Participant sources of awareness are summarized in Table 3-35. The most common
way participants first learned about the program was through a program representative,
followed by a friend, family member, or colleague, and through a program trade ally.
Further, 21% of AC Tune-Up participants learned about the program through their
landlord or property manager.
Table 3-35 How Participants Learned of the Program
Percent Indicating
How did you first learn of the
[PROGRAM]?
Home
Assessment
(n = 79)
NonAssessment
(n = 23)
AC Tune-Up
(n=29)
Friend, family member, or colleague
32%
9%
38%
Contractor
31%
57%
21%
Program Representative
18%
9%
7%
Bill insert or utility mailer
7%
13%
10%
From utility's website
1%
4%
0%
Social media post (e.g.,Facebook, Twitter)
1%
0%
0%
Through an internet search (e.g. Google)
0%
4%
0%
A radio or television advertisement
1%
0%
0%
Landlord / Property Management
0%
0%
21%
Other
5%
0%
0%
Don't know
3%
4%
3%
3.6.5.3
Decisions to Participate
Table 3-36 summarizes the factors identified by survey respondents that affected their
decision to participate in the Residential Solutions Program. Energy assessment
participants were most likely to indicate “saving money on energy bills” as their primary
motivation for participating (77%). Participants in the non-assessment group were most
likely to indicate “improving home comfort” (52%).
12
This represents the percent of participants that had a measure other than walkthrough direct install equipment
that qualified as low income.
3-52
Table 3-36 Factors Affecting Decision to Participate
Home
Assessment
(n = 79)
NonAssessment
(n = 23)
AC Tune-Up
(n=29)
Saving money on energy bills
77%
39%
55%
Conserving energy/Protecting the environment
41%
39%
17%
Improving the comfort of your home
35%
52%
28%
Improving the value of my home
28%
26%
10%
Getting the rebate or discount
18%
26%
21%
Becoming as energy efficient as my friends or neighbors
34%
30%
14%
Identifying structural problems with my home
24%
0%
0%
Other
6%
13%
0%
Don't know
0%
4%
7%
Refused
0%
0%
0%
Which of the following factors helped you decide to
install the [MEASURE]?
3.6.5.4
Decision to Receive an Assessment
Among Home Assessment respondents, 27% of stated that they were considering a
home energy assessment before they learned of the rebate or discount available
through the Cleco program, while 70% said they were not planning to do one.
As shown in Table 3-37, 36% of respondents reported they “probably” or “definitely”
would have had the home energy assessment completed without a rebate or discount,
while 25% “probably would not have”, 20% “definitely would not have”, and 13% “don’t
know” if they would have completed an energy assessment without a program rebate.
Table 3-37 Likelihood of Completing Assessment without Rebate or Discount
If the rebate or discount had not been provided for the home energy
assessment, do you think you would have had the assessment completed
anyway?
Home Assessment
Respondents
(n = 79)
Definitely would have
16%
Probably would have
25%
Probably would not have
25%
Definitely would not have
20%
Don't know
14%
Refused
0%
In reviewing the responses Table 3-37 as well as the indications from survey
respondents that 27% were considering a home assessment, the Evaluators’ conclusion
is that:
1) Most participants are not considering examining their home for energy-saving
opportunities until they learn of the program;
2) A significant share of audit participants would complete the audit without the
incentive for doing so.
3-53
This would imply that for a portion of the target market for Residential Solutions home
assessments, the greater market barrier is in customer awareness of energy-saving
opportunities, rather than the cost of the assessment itself.
When participants who implemented project measures following a home energy
assessment were asked if they would have implemented the same measures without
the assessment, 15% said they definitely would have, 17% said they probably would
have, 42% said they probably would not have, and 26% said they definitely would not
have. These responses suggest that the energy assessments were influential in
customer’s decisions to complete energy saving projects.
Table 3-38 Likelihood of Implementing Measure without Assessment
Had you not had the home energy assessment, do you think you would
have implemented the project measures?
Home Assessment
Respondents
(n = 53)
15%
Probably would have
17%
42%
26%
Don't know
0%
Refused
0%
3.6.5.5
Decision to Install without an Assessment
74% of respondents from the non-assessment group said they were considering
installing the measure before learning of the rebate or discount available through the
program, while 26% said they were not planning the project prior to learning of the
program.
Participant survey responses suggested that a significant share would have
implemented the measure without the rebate or discount provided. 83% of participants
reported they probably (22%) or definitely would have (61%) implemented the measure
without a rebate or discount. The remaining participants indicated they probably would
not have (17%). These results suggest that rebate or discount may not have been a
critical factor in a sizable share of participants’ decisions about completing the energy
assessment.
3-54
Table 3-39 Likelihood of Completing Assessment without Rebate or Discount
If the rebate or discount had not been provided for the [MEASURE], do you
think you would have installed it anyway?
Percent of
Respondents
(n = 23)
61%
Probably would have
22%
17%
0%
Don't know
0%
Refused
0%
3.6.5.6
3.6.5.6.1
Participation Process
Participation Process – Home Assessment
Overall, participants thought the energy saving recommendations were easy to
understand, the energy consultant was courteous and professional, and the energy
recommendations were relevant for their home. As shown in Figure 3-13, at least 65%
gave favorable assessments of the recommendations provided and the energy
consultant. Respondents were least likely to agree that the energy recommendations
were relevant for their home, although a clear majority thought that they were.
Figure 3-13 Participants Rating of the Home Energy Assessments
Participants reported the energy consultant discussed the availability of rebates or
discounts for energy saving recommendations 42% of the time, while 52% said this was
not discussed, and 6% did not know.
Respondents that completed Inspections or Tier 1 audits were then asked if trade allies
discussed the Tier 2 audit offering with them. If they were discussed, the respondent
3-55
was then asked to identify why they did not elect to have more in-depth testing on their
home. The responses to these questions are presented in Figure 3-14 and Figure 3-15.
Figure 3-14 Discussion of In-depth Diagnostic Testing with Walkthrough Participants
Figure 3-15 Reasons for Declining More In-depth Testing
3-56
Further, the Evaluators then identified customers that received recommendations from a
home energy consultant but then did not follow through with any incentive measures.
19% of survey respondents completed an assessment but did not install subsequent
incentive measures. The reasons identified by these respondents are presented in
Figure 3-16.
Figure 3-16 Reasons for not Installing Recommended Improvements
These respondents were also asked to identify their likelihood of installing
recommended improvements in the future. As shown in Figure 3-17, 52% indicated they
were very likely to do so in the future, while 10% said they were somewhat likely to do
so, and 10% said this was very unlike
3-57
Figure 3-17 Likelihood of Installing Recommended Measures at a Later Date
The majority of participants reported that finding a participating trade ally was either
very easy (88%) or somewhat easy (4%). Participants who installed measures were
asked how they found the contact information for their trade ally. The most common
way was through the energy consultant (32%), followed by a friend, family member, or
neighbor (15%), the utility program website (13%), a program representative (11%), or a
trade ally who found them (11%).
3.6.5.6.1
Participation Process – Non-Assessment
79% of non-assessment respondents indicated that they or someone else in their
household completed the rebate application.
Table 3-40 Who Completed the Rebate Application
Who completed the application for the utility rebate for the [MEASURE]?
I filled it out
Percent of
Respondents
(n = 23)
70%
Someone else in my household filled it out
9%
The salesperson or installation trade ally filled it out
22%
Don't know
0%
Refused
0%
Figure 3-18 displays participants responses regarding assessments of their experience
in working with the trade ally that installed the measures implemented through the
program. As shown, most respondents provided favorable assessments of their trade
3-58
ally, although a minority disagreed that the work was completed and scheduled in a
reasonable amount of time or that the trade ally was courteous and professional.
Figure 3-18 Respondents Assessments of Installing Contractor
3.6.5.6.2
Participation Process – AC Tune-up
Respondents most commonly found the contact information for their trade ally from a
friend, neighbor, or colleague (33%), a prior trade ally (23%), or from a program
representative (10%).
87% of respondents strongly agreed that the trade ally was courteous and professional,
and that they scheduled and completed the work in a reasonable amount of time.
3-59
Figure 3-19 AC Tune-Up Participants Rating of the Contractor
.
The average age of the serviced air conditioner was 7.8 years, while the median age
was 8.5 years. 72% of respondents had not had the air conditioner tuned-up before,
while 28% had a prior tune-up completed. For those respondents who had a prior tuneup, 38% had it completed less than one year prior, 38% one to two years prior, and 13%
two to three years before the tune-up completed through the program.
Table 3-41 Time since Last Tune-up
When was the last tune-up completed?
Percent of Respondents
(n = 29)
Never have had AC tune-up
72.4%
0-6 months ago
10.4%
7-12 months ago
0%
1 to 2 years ago
10.4%
2 to 3 years ago
3.4%
3 to 5 years ago
0%
More than 5 years ago
Don't know
Refused
3.6.5.7
0%
10.4%
0%
Figure 3-20 through Figure 3-23through summarizes participant satisfaction with
multiple aspects of the program. Participants were most satisfied with the quality of the
trade ally’s work and the walkthrough measures installed.
Satisfaction scores were generally high across all categories.
3-60
3.6.5.7.1
Assessment Participant Satisfaction
Participants were most satisfied with the time it took staff to address questions or
concerns, and the thoroughness of staff in addressing questions/concerns. Participants
were least satisfied with the rebate or discount for the energy assessment and the
energy savings on their utility bill. Reasons for dissatisfaction for participants who listed
some level of dissatisfaction are listed in the table below. The most commonly provided
reasons were: a higher bill (33%), lack of follow-up or follow-through by trade allies or
consultants (29%), and no rebate provided and/or discussed (21%). These responses
suggest that trade allies may not be informing all participants that they are receiving a
discount provided by the utility.
Figure 3-20 Participant Satisfaction Scores – Home Assessment Group
3.6.5.7.2
Non-Assessment Participant Satisfaction
Participant satisfaction is displayed separately for customers that implemented rebated
measures (room air conditioners, pool pumps, and heat pump water heaters) and those
that installed trade ally discounted measures (HVAC replacements, air sealing, and duct
sealing). As shown in Figure 3-21, the majority of rebate participants were satisfied with
their experience with the program. Nearly all participants that had interactions with
3-61
program staff were satisfied with those interactions, the measure installed, and the
program participation process.
One participant noted dissatisfaction with the rebate amount and one participant was
dissatisfied with the time it took to receive the rebate
Figure 3-21 Participant Satisfaction Scores – Non-Assessment Direct Rebate
Participants that received discounts through measures implemented by trade allies were
also generally satisfied with their experience with the program overall. As shown in
Figure 3-22, nearly all participants were satisfied with the quality of work performed by
the trade ally, the program participation process, and the measure installed. Those
customers that contacted program staff with questions or concerns were satisfied with
the thoroughness and timeliness of staff’s response.
A few participants indicated dissatisfaction with the rebate amount and the energy
savings on their bill.
3-62
Figure 3-22 Non-Assessment Contractor Discount Participant Satisfaction Scores
3.6.5.7.3
AC Tune-Up Participant Satisfaction
As shown in Figure 3-23, participants were most satisfied with the time it took staff to
address questions or concerns, how thoroughly staff addressed questions or concerns.
Respondents were also overwhelmingly satisfied with the program overall, the process
of applying for the rebate, and the amount of the rebate or discount. Respondents
reported lower satisfaction levels with the energy savings on their utility bill and the
quality of work performed by the trade ally.
3-63
Figure 3-23 Participant Satisfaction Scores – AC Tune-Up
3.6.5.8
Reasons for Dissatisfaction
Table 3-42 summarizes reasons for dissatisfaction specified by survey respondents.
Many respondents stated reasons for dissatisfaction that were not at all related to their
experiences with the program, citing reasons that relate to electric rates or other
reasons for general dissatisfaction with the utility.
Table 3-42 Reasons for Dissatisfaction with the Program
Percent of
Dissatisfied
Respondents
(n = 24)
Percent of
Dissatisfied
Respondents
(n = 5)
Percent of
Dissatisfied
Respondents
(n = 4)
Higher bill
33%
20%
0%
Lack of follow-up or follow-through
29%
0%
0%
No rebate provided and/or discussed
21%
20%
0%
Program too expensive
8%
20%
No savings noted
8%
0%
0%
25%
Pushy sales tactics
8%
8%
Generally dissatisfied with Cleco
0%
20%
0%
75%
Other
8%
20%
0%
Reason for dissatisfaction
3-64
Table 3-43 summarizes respondents’ self-reported impact of participation on
satisfaction with the utility. Across all survey groups, the Residential Solutions Program
largely increased satisfaction with Cleco.
Table 3-43 Impact of Participation on Satisfaction with Cleco
Home
Assessment
(n = 79)
NonAssessment
(n = 23)
AC Tune-Up
(n=29)
Greatly increased your satisfaction with Cleco
Somewhat increased your satisfaction with Cleco
Did not affect your satisfaction with Cleco
Somewhat decreased your satisfaction with Cleco
Greatly decreased your satisfaction with Cleco
33%
30%
19%
6%
5%
38%
38%
23%
0%
0%
7%
31%
31%
17%
10%
Don't know
5%
0%
0%
Refused
1%
0%
3%
Effect of participation in Cleco’s Program?
3.6.6
Participating Contractor Interviews
The Evaluators completed interviews with nine participating trade allies who had all
completed at least one project in the Residential Solutions program. The interviewed
trade allies participate in the Cleco, Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Gulf States, or
SWEPCO programs and many of the trade allies interviewed participate in more than
one program.
3.6.6.1
Background
Six of the nine respondents were energy consultants that deliver energy assessments
and all were installing trade allies. Four respondents stated that their business
specialized in energy efficiency, while others offer more generalized services including
insulation, infiltration, and duct efficiency. All of the respondents provide services for
residential (single and/or multi-family), and one-half provide for the commercial sector
as well.
3.6.6.2
Contractor Feedback - Motivations for Participating
In order to gain insight into their decision making processes, respondents were asked
what motivated them to participate in the Residential Solutions program. The evaluators
asked about how participating trade allies learned of the program, their motivation for
becoming a trade ally, and any concerns they had about participating.
Five respondents first learned of the program through direct utility or program staff
outreach. One respondent stated that he or she learned about the program from other
trade allies in the area, and another said their firm was seeking out energy efficiency
programs to participate in Louisiana. One respondent had been a participant of the
Residential Solutions program and decided to expand their business to provide the
program sponsored services to become a participating trade ally.
3-65
Contractors provided information on any initial concerns they had about participating in
the program. The most common concerns cited were with program processes like the
application process and the wait time to receive the rebates. One respondent had a
concern about the incentive levels, but noted that this did not end up being a problem.
Another said that they were worried that customers would be uninterested in
participating, but noted that their business is doing very well.
The major factors that influenced the respondents’ decision to participate was the
opportunity to expand their business (60%; either revenue or market sectors) and to
help customers make their homes more energy efficient (30%).
3.6.6.3
Contractor Feedback - Program Marketing
Many of the respondents stated that their marketing or promotion of the program is
through word-of-mouth and direct referrals. Those respondents have found that this was
one of the most effective and cost effective means to promote the program. One
respondent specifically uses the approach of canvasing neighborhoods to generate
business. Contractors also reported using other approaches such as purchasing mailing
lists, distributing fliers, magazine ads, social media, and emails. One respondent
contacted to the utility to get approval to distribute their own marketing materials to
promote the program to potential customers.
Contractors provided estimates ranging from 0% to 15% for the number of projects that
are initiated by customers approaching them first, indicating that most projects are
initiated through trade ally outreach efforts. The relatively small share of projects
initiated by customers may also indicate a general lack of awareness of the program. A
low level of customer awareness of the program is not surprising given that program are
new.
When trade allies were asked about the program marketing efforts directed at
customers, a few responded that they had seen television advertisements or knew that
the utility websites were used to promote the programs. However, many were unable to
specify the utility’s marketing efforts for the program. Even though they were unsure
about the specific materials being used to promote the program, the respondents
thought the program outreach and marketing efforts were effective because they had
received some phone calls from customers about the program.
All of the respondents received guidelines on the use of the utility and program name for
their marketing materials. Respondents were asked if the program or utility staff had
provided them with any marketing materials for them to distribute to promote the
program. Approximately one-half the trade allies confirmed they had received materials
from the program staff. The available materials included brochures, other paperwork,
and business cards. One respondent stated:
3-66
“They had a few brochures, but they were limited in supply. I never had very many of
them and I probably didn't ask for a larger supply. They did give me some brochures
that I used quickly.”
However, even though the program staff had given some of the respondents marketing
materials, about one-half of them stated that they have not used the materials while the
remainder said to have used them frequently.
Respondents were asked for any suggestions on how to improve on the materials to
make them more effective. Some suggestions included the addition of a place to input
their own company information on the flyer and clearer messaging about using a
specific trade ally for the program.
3.6.6.4
Contractor Feedback - Barriers to Participation
In order to identify any customer barriers to participation, respondents were asked about
customers’ awareness of the Residential Solutions program, concerns they may have
had before participating, and feedback on the financial incentives offered.
About one-half of the respondents said that the several of their customers were initially
skeptical about the program offerings. Contractors indicated that some customers are
worried that the program is “too good to be true” and assume there is a “catch” to it.
Additionally, some customers are wary about allowing the trade ally into their home to
conduct the audit. Another customer concern that was mentioned is whether or not they
will see a lower utility bill as a result of their participation.
A customer’s primary concern when deciding whether or not to implement a trade ally’s
recommendations is cost. One respondent stated that in many cases the customer
knows about the problems in their home before the assessment is performed, but
solving the problem is cost prohibitive. Other potential barriers to participation noted
include customers not wanting to let people in their homes to perform the work and
concerns about the time required to complete the energy saving improvements.
Almost 70% of the trade allies said that they think the rebate for the audit is not a
sufficient enough incentive to encourage customers to have an energy assessment
performed. Their suggested incentive range should be between $100 and $150.
When asked whether or not the financial incentives are sufficient to encourage
customers to install energy efficient equipment, respondents replied:
“I think it's a nice gesture when we offer the rebate. I'm not sure if it would be a ‘game
changer.’ It's not a ‘make or break situation.’”
“If they’re going to do it anyway, they like [the recommendations]. If they don’t want it,
they’re less inclined.”
3-67
“If the incentives were larger, more people would be inclined to do it, because
everyone wants something for nothing…The rebates are reasonable. I think they
need to be higher for me to able to attract people out here. The main thing is
advertising and letting people know about the programs.”
3.6.6.5
Contractor Feedback - Participation Process
Several questions were asked of trade allies regarding the application procedures, the
level of effort to complete the program steps, feedback on the OPEN tool software, and
any suggestions for improvement.
All of the respondents choose to fill out the application for the customer and return the
paperwork for them to sign. They prefer this method, as opposed to having the
customer fill it out, because it “takes a lot of the hassle away from the customer” and
they “like to make it as simple as they can for them.” Also, respondents said that it took
them “minimal” effort to fill out the applications. None of the respondents had
suggestions for improving the application.
Respondents provided feedback on the use of the OPEN tool. About one-half of the
respondents did not experience any major issues, and all indicated that it was fairly
easy to use. However, some did have issues such as difficulty logging into the system,
input data not showing up in real-time, having to input data multiple times, and being
unable to edit data inputs. Example comments on use of the tool include the following:
“I always have trouble logging on. The main issue is getting kicked out. I’ve been
having a problem with inputting data multiple times and only one name showing up.
Sometimes it gets stuck.”
“It would be a very good tool if they could have worked all the kinks out. Going back
to edit, it wouldn’t allow you to edit an address. Some things didn’t show up in realtime and it repeated values later.”
3.6.6.6
Contractor Feedback - Training and Staff Support
Contractors provided information on the training they received. 78% of the respondents
had received training; some received more formal training and others received informal
training. Some respondents noted that program staff came to them to give the training
while another said they went to the program staff’s office to receive training. Those
respondents that did receive training said that it was comprehensive and easy, and the
timing and location were convenient. The only suggestion provided by interviewed trade
allies for improving the training would be to hold additional trainings to cover program
changes.
All but one respondent was provided written documentation describing program
procedures and requirements. Overall, the information provided to the trade allies was
assessed as clear, simple, and user-friendly.
3-68
3.6.6.7
Contractor Feedback - Market Effects
Energy efficiency programs may cause market effects such as altering the products and
services provided by trade allies. One-third of respondents indicated that they had made
changes to the products or services they offer as a result of participating in the program.
One-third also said that they did not provide residential energy audits prior to their
involvement in the program.
In addition to changes in the services provided, two respondents said that participation
in the program has led them to increase their staffing by two to three full-time
employees. Two other trade allies reported that to meet the needs to deliver the
program services, they have hired between 10 and 12 full-time employees. One of
these respondents also indicated that their firm opened a new office location in
Louisiana.
3.6.6.8
Contractor Feedback - Overall Satisfaction
Respondents were then asked to rate their satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 10, with “1”
meaning very dissatisfied and “10” meaning very satisfied, on a range of elements
related to their program experience. Table 3-44 tabulates the satisfaction results.
Table 3-44 Trade Ally Satisfaction Levels of Program Elements
Very
Satisfied
(10 -9)
Somewhat
Satisfied
(8-7)
Neither
Satisfied or
Dissatisfied
(6-5)
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
(4-3)
Very
Dissatisfied
(2-1)
Don't
Know
The application process
33%
44%
0%
0%
0%
22%
The wait time to receive the
rebate
11%
22%
22%
0%
33%
11%
Incentive levels
22%
33%
11%
33%
0%
0%
The range of measures
covered by the program
44%
56%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Service from program staff
44%
33%
11%
11%
0%
0%
Overall program
44%
33%
11%
11%
0%
0%
Element of Program
Experience
Overall satisfaction with the Residential Solutions program is high. A majority of the
trade allies reported high satisfaction with most of the program elements such as the
range of measures covered by the program, the service from program staff, and the
application process. Respondents who rated specific program elements lower than 5
were asked to clarify the low rating. Specifically, respondents who had issues with the
wait to receive the rebate said:
3-69
“You submit the stuff and you wait a couple of weeks to hear back…We’re
waiting between 3-4 weeks. The turnover is slower than expected.”
“We email them daily. They had some ‘communication errors’ on their end and
lost some rebates. We had to reissue applications…They are still delayed on
some, but it’s better.”
Respondents were also asked to describe the greatest strengths of the Residential
Solutions program. Many of them said the greatest strength was the ability to help
people. More specifically, they responded:
“Helping improve peoples’ lives.”
“You’re helping a customer. Helping someone who can’t afford to insulate their
home.”
“The fact that the program is easy for people to understand and implement the
program. There are people available to answer questions. There is little effort on
what to do and how to do it because it’s explained so well.”
Lastly, respondents were asked for recommendation or suggestions on how to improve
the program or the role that they play as trade allies in the program. Three respondents
mentioned advertising; one specifically said that the opportunity for the creation of
marketing materials that would allow them to add their contact information would be
very helpful in future promotion of the program. Two respondents mentioned providing
more program money for future years. Two other respondents mentioned faster rebate
processing. Overall, respondents were generally satisfied with the program.
3.6.6.9
Contractor Feedback - Conclusions and Recommendations
Key findings from the participating trade ally interviews were as follows:

Of the nine interviewed trade allies, more than one-half of them learned about the
program through utility or program staff directly contacting them about the program.

The major factors that influenced the respondents’ decision to participate as a trade ally
was the opportunity to expand their business (either revenue and/or market sectors) and
to help customers make their homes more energy efficient.

Many customers are still unaware about the program, where respondents cited that up to
15% of their customers contacted them about the Residential Solutions Program.

A customer’s primary concern when deciding whether or not to implement a trade ally’s
recommendations is cost.

Almost all respondents received training, but would like trainings in a more convenient
location and whenever there are program changes.

All the respondents said that the program documents they received from the utility were
clear and easy.
3-70

When trade allies used the OPEN Tool, approximately one-half of the respondents did
not experience any major issues, and everyone found it fairly easy to use. However,
others did not some issues with operating the software including not being able to edit
entered information or having to enter information multiple times.

Respondents are generally satisfied with the Residential Solutions program.
The evaluators recommend the following:

Marketing materials – Marketing materials are utilized by a number of trade allies.
Ensure that trade allies have sufficient supplies or access to electronic versions for
printing. Ensure that trade allies have access to materials that promote the program and
include space for their contact information.

Training – Schedule training events at slower times of the year (late fall or early winter).
Additionally, provide program updates on any changes. To provide trainings in more
convenient locations, the evaluators recommend that utilities co-sponsor training events
to reach all service territories.

OPEN tool software – Include an “Edit” feature for trade allies to fix input data in realtime and offer the tool in bigger font sizes.
3.6.6.10 Findings from AC Tune-Up Contractor Observation
The Evaluators observed five trade allies performing air conditioner tune-ups. The
purpose of the observations was to:

Validate test-in baseline and test-out values;

Identify any training issues;

Observe trade ally interactions with customers; and

Observe assistance provided by program staff.
Contractors were observed completing jobs at multifamily and single-family sites. It was
noted that trade allies completing multifamily jobs used a “batch” approach to efficiently
complete the work. Overall, single-family units received a more thorough tune-up and
cleaning, likely because the multi-family technicians were seeking to complete the
largest quantity of units in the least amount of time.
The program uses electronic sensors and refrigerant gauges which transmit readings to
a tablet running the correct software application. This approach is an effective way to
capture the live data and take a system “snapshot” with all the data points from the
same moment. The recent addition of a refrigerant system “stability” indicator in the
software also helps the technicians wait for the system to stabilize after work has been
performed before taking their measurement snapshot. Multiple technicians expressed
positive comments regarding feature.
3-71
The indoor fan airflow measurement is not currently implemented with the automated
data acquisition system. As a result, there is greater variation in the type of
measurement and its accuracy compared to other measurements made.
There are two types of measurement approved for the program: 1) Differential pressure
measurement and 2) Vane anemometer. Both types of measurement are susceptible to
errors.
1) The differential pressure measurement is intended to measure the differential
static pressure across the indoor supply fan only. Some technicians were taking
static pressure measurements wherever it was most convenient, many times
including the cooling coil and also the furnace.
2) Vane anemometer measurement was either taken from the return air grill or as a
summation of all supply registers. Many times only one anemometer reading was
taken at the center of the airflow stream. This leads to inaccurate estimates of
airflow.
Program staff mentioned there was a possibility of adding the differential pressure
measurement and subsequent airflow calculation to the automated data acquisition
system. This addition, coupled with an additional emphasis in training for the proper
measurement locations, would improve calculation accuracy.
It was generally observed that the software and testing equipment performed well and
were easy to operate. There were reports of some temperature probes failing and some
isolated issues of software updates/compatibility, but nothing out of the ordinary.
Program staff does an excellent job of helping the trade allies with any issues that
occur.
The effort put forth for system cleaning ranged from simple brushing of cooling coil (if in
fact it needed cleaning) to some unit disassembly and brush/chemical cleaning. The
range of cleaning for outdoor condensing units ranged from a simple garden hose spray
to full cabinet dis-assembly with chemical and pressure nozzle cleaning.
Excellent customer service and customer interactions were observed and no issues
were identified regarding trade ally interactions with customers.
Overall, the tune-up services are performed well and program staff ably supports trade
allies’ completion of the work.
Based on the observations made, the Evaluators offer the following recommendations:

Bolster training with further cleaning guidelines to improve consistency and/or
ask trade allies to record how system components were cleaned.

Provide additional training on measurement practices to improve the accuracy of
calculations.
3-72

Provide refresher training to trade allies prior to the start of the cooling season
3.6.7
Conclusions
The following sections
recommendations.
summarize
key
process
evaluation
findings
and
3.6.7.1 Program Design and Participation Process


Cleco provides a comprehensive set of financial incentives and services to help
residential customers save energy.

The program provides customers with informational support to identify
energy saving improvements through onsite assessments performed
through the Home Energy Assessments component as well as lower cost
tools delivered through the program’s online audit software and
complementary informational resources. Incentives are provided for home
improvements such as insulation, duct and air sealing, and HVAC system
replacements and tune-ups. Midstream incentives are provided for light
emitting diode (LED) lamps and specialty compact fluorescent lamps
(CFLs). Rebates are also provided for window air conditioning units, pool
pumps, heat pump water heaters, and refrigerators designated as
ENERGY STAR® Most Efficient.

Incentives are provided to builders and home owners for incorporating
energy efficient HVAC systems, lighting, water heaters and building
envelope design features into new construction projects.

Cleco is not currently offering a program for income qualified customers. A
program was considered but was determined to be unlikely to pass cost
effectiveness testing.
The home energy assessment process is generally effective and incorporates
best practice design characteristics. Program participants were generally
satisfied with the participation process, but a few issues were noted.

The program includes best practice elements including use of electronic
tools to complete assessments that minimize program paperwork and
incorporation of direct install measures during assessments.

77% of participants that received assessments were satisfied with the
participation process overall. 90% of participants that had measures
implemented without assessments were satisfied with the participation
process.

The majority of participants agreed that the home energy assessment
recommendations were relevant and easy to understand. However, 13%
3-73
disagreed that the recommendations were relevant and 9% disagreed that
they were easy to understand. Additionally, 52% stated that the consultant
did not discuss rebates available to them.


Most participants provided favorable assessments of the trade allies and
energy consultants they worked with. 94% agreed that their energy
consultant was courteous and professional and 78% were satisfied with
the quality of work performed by their trade ally.

11% of participants that completed home energy assessments had
interactions with program staff. 82% of these customers were satisfied
how long it took staff to address questions and 91% were satisfied with the
thoroughness of staff’s response. Three participants that implemented
discounted measures without an assessment contacted staff with
questions or concerns and all were satisfied with thoroughness and
timeliness of response.

Interviewed trade allies reported that the program staff is responsive to
inquiries. They also reported not having significant difficulty using the
program software.
The Lighting and Appliance component design and participation process is
generally effective.

The program has recruited 13 retailer locations in Cleco’s service territory
to deliver lighting rebates. The discounts for LEDs and specialty CFLs are
comparable to discounts provided through other regional programs.
Appliance rebates are also comparable to rebates offered through other
programs.

Program staff has yet to establish store contacts and training of retailer
staff has been generally informal (program staff discuss the program with
retail staff available during visits).

Refrigerator rebates are limited to ENERGY STAR® Most Efficient units.
This has likely limited program activity because few units are designated
as Most Efficient and they cost more than other ENERGY STAR®
qualified units.

Rebates are provided for ENERGY STAR® qualified pool pumps but
incentive levels are the same for multi-speed and variable speed pumps,
despite differences in energy savings potential. Although there has been
limited activity for pool pumps, enhanced training provided to trade allies
on the proper programming of the units will enhance the savings potential
and improve customer satisfaction with the units.
3-74



All but one participant was very satisfied with the program participation
process. No participants indicated dissatisfaction with the process.
Additionally, all participants that contacted staff with questions or concerns
were very satisfied with the thoroughness of the response and two-thirds
were very satisfied with the time it took for staff to provide a response.
The AC Tune-Up component is well designed to enhance the efficiency of
residential HVAC systems.

Training provided is comprehensive and trade allies are provided with a
manual of how to complete the tune-ups.

Electronic tools and gauges are used to transmit data on the efficiency of
the unit, which is effective for providing a “live snapshot” of the unit’s
energy-use performance. A refrigerant stability indicator recently
introduced was praised by trade allies.

Indoor fan measurement is not currently implemented with the automated
data acquisition system. There are two types of measurement procedures
approved for the program, although each is susceptible to errors. Program
staff is considering adding differential pressure measurement and
subsequent airflow calculation to the automated data acquisition system to
improve calculation accuracy.

Observed trade allies performed more thorough tune-ups for single-family
home jobs than multifamily home jobs. During visits to multifamily homes,
trade allies were more focused on quickly servicing multiple units.

CLEAResult staff provided high quality support to trade allies during the
visits. Overall, trade allies are effectively implementing the tune-ups.

Participants that had interactions with program staff were all very satisfied
with those interactions. Nearly all participants (90% or more) agreed that
the trade ally that completed the tune-up was courteous and professional
and that the work was scheduled and completed in a reasonable amount
of time. 93% of participants were satisfied with the quality of work
performed by the trade ally.
The online audit tool design is generally consistent with best practice design
characteristics.

The survey is user friendly, flexible to account for different user
motivations, comprehensive in coverage of energy use factors, provides
consumption information by end-use, provides multiple types of
recommendations, and provides results on energy and non-energy
benefits.
3-75


Critically, the program does not provide links to or information on Cleco
incentive programs. This represents a missed opportunity for using the
tool to drive program activity.

Home energy usage requires using typical values or customer data entry.
The system does not integrate with customer billing records.

Information is not provided on pay back for energy efficiency investments
and energy and cost saving potentials are presented by end-use rather
than recommendation, which make customer’s decisions about specific
actions to take more difficult to make.
New home incentives have seen little activity. Cleco staff work with new
construction trade allies through their Power Miser program and are coordinating
the promotion of the energy efficiency rebates with Power Miser program
activities. Staff should continue to leverage these relationships to encourage
trade allies to implement the new construction efficiency measures.
3.6.7.2 Program Marketing and Outreach

The generally rural and non-contiguous nature of Cleco’s service territory creates
challenges for effectively marketing the program and to trade ally recruitment.
Marketing to customers is hindered by the cost of providing advertisements in
multiple media markets. The utility channel (i.e., bill messaging and inserts) is
likely to be the most cost effective means of direct customer outreach. Staff
noted that service territory has also made the recruitment of trade allies a
challenge.

Contractors and energy consultants were the initial source of program awareness
for 31% of home assessment participants. Friends, family members, and
colleagues were also cited by 31% of respondents as the source of program
awareness. Similarly, 59% of customers receiving appliance rebates or trade ally
discounted measures learned of the program from an energy consultant or trade
ally. 21% of surveyed AC Tune-Up participants learned of the program from a
trade ally. Friends, family members, or colleagues were the most frequently cited
(38%) source of awareness for the AC Tune-Up program.

Despite a limited budget, a variety of marketing channels have been utilized to
promote the residential programs. Cleco has promoted the program through bill
messaging and inserts, as well as radio, print, and online advertisement.
CLEAResult staff has performed outreach with trade ally groups, builder
associations, and trade groups. Additionally, CLEAResult and Cleco staff
participated in the Louisiana Municipal Association convention and promoted the
program with elected municipal officials.
3-76

Lighting discounts are promoted through point-of purchase materials. However,
no in-store promotional days were held. Rebates for window AC units,
refrigerators, pool pumps, and heat pumps are promoted through retailer
displays.
3.6.7.3 Quality Control and Verification

Verification requirements for trade ally projects are generally sufficient. However,
staff reported a different verification standard from what is stated in the program
manual. The program manual states that 10% of the first 25 projects receive
verification, followed by a minimum of 5% verification visits following that. Staff
reported that they quality check the first five projects or five of the first ten
projects completed, and then 10% of projects after that. Staff should clarify what
the verification requirement is.

Verification for rebated appliances consists of reviewing submitted applications
and documentation provided.

Verification visits are performed with participating lighting retailer to ensure that
the terms of the MOU are complied with. Consistent with common practice, these
visits occur on a monthly basis and are unannounced. Additionally, lighting sales
data are reviewed for anomalous purchase activity such as large purchases
exceeding the program limit.

Staff report discussing any trade ally issues with other CLEAResult staff from
other regional programs.
3.6.7.4 Participant and Contractor Satisfaction

75% of customers reported overall satisfaction with the home energy
assessments component and 17% reported dissatisfaction. The two most
common reasons given for dissatisfaction were not seeing energy savings and a
lack of follow-up or follow-through by energy consultants. 82% of participants in
the home energy assessment component reported satisfaction with Cleco as its
electrical service provider and 63% indicated that participation in the program

Customers who received discounts on measures implemented by trade allies
without an energy assessment or who received a rebate for an appliance were
generally satisfied with multiple aspects of their program experience. 76% of
those that installed rebated appliances and 46% of those that implemented trade
ally discounted measures reported that participation increased their satisfaction
with Cleco.
3-77

93% of AC Tune-Up participants were satisfied with the program overall. 90%
were satisfied with Cleco as their electrical service provider and 86% indicated
that participation in the program increased their satisfaction with Cleco.

Contractors performing home energy assessments reported that they were
satisfied with the program.
3.6.8 Recommendations
The Evaluators’ recommendations for the Residential Solutions Program are
summarized in the following categories:
1) Recommendations made mid-year that have were completed before PY1
reporting; and
2) New recommendations made in this report.
3.6.8.1
Mid-Year Recommendations – Adopted by Program Staff

Provide more systematic training to lighting retailer staff. The Evaluators
found that retail staff were generally not trained on Cleco rebates, and found that
in one case staff at a participating retailer took down program signage because
they thought it was in error. CLEAResult began more regular training visits with
retailers subsequent to this.

Consider additional training or providing instructional materials to pool
pump trade allies on proper installation and programming of pool pumps.
CLEAResult held one training for installation of variable speed pool pumps, and a
second training seminar is scheduled for Spring 2016.

Consider different incentive levels for multi-speed and variable-speed pool
pumps. These types of pumps differ in energy saving potential. CLEAResult has
modified the program for PY2 to provide $200 rebates for two-speed pool pumps
and $250 rebates for variable speed pool pumps.

Consider modification to airflow calculations for tune ups. Consider adding
differential pressure measurement to calculate airflow using the tablet system
and related training to improve the accuracy of airflow measurements made
during air conditioner tune-ups. CLEAResult has reported that for 2016,
participating trade allies will be required to collect the static pressure drop across
the indoor fan motor to calculate CFM. This should be set in the iManifold
(refrigerant gauges) application as the default. In cases where this may cause
damage or access holes are not available, trade allies may take the
measurement with a vane anemometer.

Include links to relevant program materials in the online audit tool
recommendations. The online audit tool did not link to Cleco programs. The
3-78
online audit reports have been modified to link customers to appropriate rebate
programs relevant to their recommendations.

Ensure consistency between the verification requirements stated in the
program manual and staff member’s understands of the verification
requirements. A discrepancy was noted during interviews and review of
program materials as to what share of initial projects completed by trade allies
receive verification visits. CLEAResult has changed QA practices to align with
the program manual.
3.6.8.2
Report Recommendations

Provide additional education and training to program energy consultants to
ensure that they are effectively explaining the recommendations made to
customers and informing them of the rebate opportunities. Survey
responses suggest that some participants may not be getting this information
during the energy assessments.

Consider broadening refrigerator rebates to ENERGY STAR® qualified
appliances that do not meet the Most Efficient standard. Tiered rebates for
units of different efficiency levels may be appropriate.

Consider providing typical payback periods for efficiency investments and
providing energy saving estimates for specific recommendations in the
online audit tool. This type of information will better inform customer decisions.

Continue outreach efforts to trade allies and leveraging existing
relationships to promote the new construction incentives. This outreach is
likely the best way to drive future new construction incentive projects.

Offer instore lighting promotion days to improve awareness of the
discounts and educate customers on the benefits of energy efficient
lighting.

Consider enhancing the program website to better utilize it as a key
resource for promoting the program. Potential enhancements include
providing description of energy and non-energy benefits for each program
component, brief overviews of the program process in the form of steps the
customer takes to complete a project or receive an incentive, downloadable one
page program descriptions and participation steps, similar to what is provided for
home assessments, information on new construction incentives for trade allies,
and elements for customers to share program information through social media.

Develop strategies for improving data quality. Data quality issues were
identified for a portion of the project tracking records. Staff should seek strategies
to minimize data quality issues. Strategies may include training of trade allies on
3-79
data requirements, incorporating data validation functions into program software,
and periodic reviews of data quality.
3-80
4. Appliance Recycling
4.1
Program Description
Cleco’s Appliance Recycling Program (ARP) provides customers with an incentive and
free pick-up service to encourage customers to recycle older refrigerators and freezers
that are in working condition.
The goal of the program is to reduce the number of old, inefficient refrigerators and
freezers that customers have moved to their garages or other locations such as
basements and patios. Many areas in which spare units are placed are not space
conditioned, and most refrigerators used in that environment operate under a heavy
thermal load during the summer. This is exacerbated by the fact the refrigerators are
usually quite old and inefficient. Previous studies by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE) and other utilities have determined that
removing these refrigerators, and properly recycling them, performs an environmental
and energy saving service.
The program requires that refrigerators to be recycled be in working condition. The
customer receives pick-up and removal service in addition to a $50 rebate per recycled
unit. The ARP recycled 363 units in PY1.
JACO Environmental Services (“JACO), who was the program subtrade ally responsible
for implementation, unexpectedly went bankrupt in November 2015. This did not affect
PY1 as participation closed in-full on October 1st 2015. The program has been closed
for PY2 as a result.
4.2
M&V Methodology
The M&V approach for the ARP is aimed at measuring the following:

Numbers of refrigerators and freezers collected and recycled;

Average annual unit-energy-consumption (UEC, measured in kWh per
collected appliance);

Average kW reduction per collected appliance; and

Part-use values.
Table 4-1 summarizes the inputs needed for savings calculations and the source of
each input.
Appliance Recycling
4-1
Table 4-1 Data Sources for Impact Parameters – Appliance Recycling Program
Parameter
Source
Number of Units Recycled
Program Tracking Data
Regression model developed in prior studies,
using unit size, age, and configuration
Participant Surveys – This value is used to
determine peak kW reduction, based upon
the share of units used in conditioned vs.
unconditioned space.
Based upon CA DEER 2008 estimates, RUL of:
5 years for refrigerators;
4 years for freezers.
Unit Energy Consumption
Location of Installation
Remaining Useful Life
(RUL)
4.2.1 Unit Energy Consumption
The Evaluators verified Unit Energy Consumption (UEC) using a degradation model that
was developed for the Department of Energy (DOE) Uniform Methods Project (UMP)
Refrigerator Recycling Protocol.13 The UMP is a DOE initiative aimed at developing a
consistent framework and set of protocols for determining the energy savings from
specific energy efficiency measures and programs. The project represents a refinement
of the body of knowledge supporting energy efficiency EM&V activities and each
protocol was written by technical experts within the field and peer-reviewed by industry
experts.
In accordance with the UMP Refrigerator Recycling Protocol, the statistical model for
determining UEC considers the following independent variables:

Unit age;

Unit capacity (cubic feet);

Dummy indicator for configurations (single-door, side-by-side, etc.);

Primary/Secondary usage designation;

Location in conditioned/unconditioned space; and

Weather (cooling degree days, heating degree days).
13 http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/05/f0/53827-7.pdf
Appliance Recycling
4-2
Table 4-2 Refrigerator Recycling Regression Model Coefficients
Coefficient
Variable
(Daily kWh)
.582
.027
1.055
.067
1.071
-1.977
.6054
.020
-.045
Intercept
Age
Pre-1990 Manufacture Date Dummy
Size (Cubic Feet)
Side-by-Side Configuration Dummy
Single-Door Configuration Dummy
Dummy – Primary Usage
Interaction: Located in Unconditioned Space X CDD
Interaction: Located in Unconditioned Space X HDD
Location in conditioned versus unconditioned space was determined via average values
from the participant survey. In this, it was found that 43.4% of units were used in
conditioned space and 56.6% were used in unconditioned space.
4.2.2 Part-Use Value
The regression model detailed in Section 4.2.1 provides full-year kWh estimates. Many
of the units recycled through this program are not used for the full year. The Evaluators
estimated these units Part-Use Factors (PUFs) through two metrics:
1) If the customer would keep the unit in use, PUF is equal to the percent time of
the year in which the unit was typically running
2) If the customer would transfer their unit, a PUF of 1 was assigned, under the
assumption that a customer that receives a used refrigerator is likely to use it as
their primary unit.
Combining these two values, the Evaluators determined a PUF value of 0.888 for all
units recycled through the program. This results in annual hours of use of 7,779 for the
program.
With these data, annual savings for a specific unit are:
ℎ
=
∗
4.2.3 Location of Installation
−
The Evaluators reviewed unit location data provided by JACO in order to obtain the
location in which the refrigerator or freezer was typically used, in order to determine
what share of appliances was used in conditioned versus unconditioned space. The
ambient temperature during peak periods affects the efficiency and duty cycle of a
refrigerator compressor, and as such this share is used in determining peak kW
reduction from appliance recycling. Demand Reduction (kW) is calculated by weighting
the annual kWh use based upon the delta T (ambient temperature minus refrigerator
Appliance Recycling
4-3
temperature). This weight is then increased by the magnitude of the marginal decline in
unit efficiency associated with peak-period temperatures, with an average hourly COP
calculated based upon the methodology outlined in a NREL 2008 report14. Resultantly,
the Evaluators calculated kW factors of .000127 and .000247 for conditioned and
unconditioned space, respectively. Our survey results indicated that 43.4% of the
recycled units were used in conditioned space, with 56.6% used in unconditioned
space. Weighting the kW factors by these proportions, the weighted average kW factor
is 0.000195.
4.3
Appliance Recycling Impact Evaluation
The Evaluators estimated savings from the ARP by surveying a sample of program
participants and by using available data on the removed refrigerators to calculate unitspecific savings, using a regression methodology developed through the Uniform
Methods Project. The Evaluators achieved the required 90/10 precision for sampling by
completing 37 customer surveys. The surveys were used for verifying recycling and
addressing net-to-issues. The Evaluators then examined the tracking data and
calculated unit-specific savings. Table 4-3 presents realization for the PY1 ARP.
Table 4-3 PY1 ARP Savings Summary
Peak Demand
Reduction (kW)
Annual Energy
Savings (kWh)
Ex Ante
Ex Post
Ex Ante
Refrigerators
32.3
50.1
288,267
Freezers
22.9
18.8
Total
45.2
68.9
Ex Post
Lifetime Energy
Savings (kWh)
kWh
Realization
Rate
Ex Ante
Ex Post
256,976
1,441,335
1,284,878
89.1%
108,784
96,300
435,136
385,200
88.5%
397,051
353,276
1,876,471
1,670,078
89.0%
The difference in savings is due almost entirely to application of a Part-Use Value. The
Evaluators found a Part-Use Value of 88.8% based on survey responses with program
participants.
kW is higher than expected due a higher than expected share of units operating in
unconditioned space, resulting in longer duty cycles during summer peak weather.
4.3.1 Appliance Recycling Savings Estimates
Using the regression methodology outlined in Section 4.2.1, the Evaluators calculated
UEC based upon unit size, age, defrost type, and configuration. The distribution of
savings of recycled units is presented in Figure 4-1.
14
NREL, “Technical Support Document: Development of the Advanced Energy Design Guide for Grocery Stores”,
September, 2008
Appliance Recycling
4-4
Figure 4-1 UEC Distribution in Cleco PY1 ARP
The Evaluators identified six distinct categories of recycled units. These units include:

Refrigerators:
o Top-freezer
o Bottom-freezer
o Side-by-side
o Single door

Freezers
o Upright
o Chest
Table 4-4 summarizes the savings and key characteristics (age and size) for each of the
categories of recycled units.
Table 4-4 Appliance Recycling Measure-Level Savings
Category
Refrigerator
Freezer
Appliance Recycling
Configuration
Single Door
Bottom Freezer
Side-by-Side
Top Freezer
Chest
Upright
N
1
4
67
187
38
66
Mean UEC
Mean Age
Mean Size
(kWh)
499
1,065
1,439
1,007
1,088
1,017
(Years)
26.0
16.5
18.5
20.4
30.1
26.8
(Ft. )
15.0
22.0
22.4
17.9
14.1
14.1
3
4-5
4.4
Process Evaluation
This chapter presents the results of the process evaluation of the Appliance Recycling
The process evaluation of the ARP included the following data collection activities:

involved in the administration of the ARP. These interviews were to collect
information from program staff as to any changes or developments, as well as
response to program recommendations.

CLEAResult, who serve in an oversight role with JACO as their subtrade ally.
These interviews included detailing the roles and responsibilities of
CLEAResult and JACO in delivering the ARP.

JACO Program Staff Interviews. Staff at JACO handle scheduling logistics as
well as appliance pickup and disposal.

Participant Surveying. The Evaluators surveyed a sample of program
participants. These surveys addressed issues including participant
satisfaction with the program offerings, demographics, and other contextual
issues regarding the participation process. Further, the data from these
surveys served to quantify the part-use value used in impact calculations.
The ARP provides a $50 rebate to customers that recycle a working refrigerator or
freezer. The program is intended to run only during the months of July through August.
However, due to lower than anticipated activity during the initial year of operations, the
program was extended through the end of October. During the period from September
3rd to October 31st, the program offered a $75 promotional rebate.
Customers can recycle an appliance either by calling a toll-free number or through use
of the program’s online portal. Appliances are removed from the participants’ property at
no cost to them.
To qualify for the program, the refrigerator or freezer must meet the following criteria:
Appliance Recycling
4-6
Be 10 to 30 cubic feet in size;
 Be clean, empty, defrosted, and in working condition; and
 Be plugged and disconnected from waterlines.
Participants must be home at the time of appliance pick-up.

4.4.3 Methodology
4.4.3.1
Materials Reviewed
The Evaluators reviewed program materials including the program website and program
tracking data. These materials were reviewed to understand program operations and
implementation approach.
4.4.3.2
Tracking Data Review
The Evaluators reviewed program tracking to ensure accurate reporting of customer
information and facilitation of EM&V calculations.
4.4.3.3
Interviews were completed with one CLEAResult staff member and one utility staff
member. The interviews provided information on program design and operations and
covered the following topics:





4.4.3.4
Participant Survey
Surveys were administered to a sample of participants to gain insight into the
participant’s experience with the program. Respondents answered questions on the
following topics:


Their decision to participate and recycle a refrigerator or freezer;

Use of the appliance prior to recycling;


Satisfaction with various elements of the program and the program overall.
In total, 37 program participants were surveyed.
Appliance Recycling
4-7
4.4.4.1
Table 4-5 displays the type of unit recycled. Three-quarters of the units were
refrigerators.
Table 4-5 Type of Units Recycled
Appliance Type
Number of Units
Percent of Units
Refrigerator
259
71.3%
Freezer
104
28.7%
Table 4-6 displays the share of units that were customers’ primary unit and secondary
unit before they were recycled. As shown, 74% of the units recycled were secondary
units.
Table 4-6 Use of Unit Prior to Recycling
Primary or Secondary
Unit
Secondary
Primary
Number of Units
Percent of Units
269
74%
94
26%
Figure 4-2 displays the distribution of the year the recycled units were manufactured. As
shown, approximately 50% of the units recycled were manufactured prior to the early
1990s.
Appliance Recycling
4-8
Figure 4-2 Distribution of Year Manufacture for Recycled Units
Figure 4-3displays the weekly and cumulative accrual of units recycled during the
program year. As shown, the number of units climbed steadily from when the program
launched through the end of the summer. Activity was slower for the remainder of the
program year, despite the higher bonus incentive provided during the September
through October period.
39 rebates were paid during the 59-day bonus period, compared to 324 rebates paid
over the prior 93 days of program operation (June 1st – September 2nd).
Figure 4-3 Weekly and Cumulative Accrual of Units during Program Year
Appliance Recycling
4-9
4.4.4.2
Review of Program Design Characteristics and Practices
The Evaluators compared program design for appliance recycling programs
implemented by similarly sized utilities across the country, which includes Louisville Gas
and Electric Company (LG&E) and Kentucky Utilities (KU) Company and Public Service
Company of New Mexico (PNM). Key findings are summarized in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7 Appliance Recycling Program Inter-Utility Comparison
Program implementer
Incentive
Recycles primary units
Recycles other equipment
Size range
Participation limit
Advertised cost savings
Advertised relative savings
Advertised space savings/clutter
Advertised environmental
message
Advertised free pick-up
Advertised check delivery
Market segments
Cleco
LG&E/KU
PNM
JACO
$50
Yes
No
10-30 cubic feet
Two/year
$150
“Up to 3x”
No
ARCA
$50
Yes
No
7.75+ cubic feet
Two/year
No
No
No
JACO
$50
Yes
No
10-27 cubic feet
Two/year
$175
“Up to 3x”
No
No
Yes
No
No
4-6 weeks
Residential
Yes
6-8 weeks
Residential
No
4-6 weeks
Res & Comm.
There are many similarities between the program designs of appliance recycling
programs across the country. Specifically, two out of three of these programs are
implemented by JACO and all the utility programs offer the same incentive amounts of
$50. The implementers, JACO and ARCA, are also responsible for verification and
quality control at the time of appliance pick-up. None of these programs have retailer
partnerships.
Both PNM and LG&E/KU utilize their company websites, bill inserts, and brochures to
market their appliance recycling program. In comparison, Cleco has utilized online
advertising, the program website, and a bill insert. Additionally, a press conference was
held to announce the program and a television news spot was filmed.
4.4.5 Program Design, Operations and Activities
The following sections describe operations and activities and were developed from
reviews of program documentation and interviews with program staff.
4.4.5.1
Program Objectives
The primary program objective is to assist residential customers in achieving electric
energy savings and peak demand reductions. The energy saving goal for the program
Appliance Recycling
4-10
year was 912,007 kWh and the peak demand reduction target was 116.00 kW. The
program targeted 799 units to achieve the energy savings goal. The energy saving goal
was based on JACO’s estimated harvest rate (the share of the residential accounts that
will recycle a unit during the year) of 0.50%.
Utility staff also emphasized the importance of customer satisfaction and ensuring that
customers have a positive experience with the program. The environmental benefits of
recycling refrigerators were also noted by program staff. The recycling procedure for the
Cleco program repurposes metal, plastic, and glass material. Additionally, the insulating
foam is used in energy production and prevented from causing harm to the atmosphere.
4.4.5.2
Customer participation in the program is initiated by enrolling online or by telephoning
the JACO call center. The telephone number is located on the Cleco website. A link on
the program website directs customers to a JACO web portal that can be used to
schedule an appliance pickup. The website also displays participation qualifications.
The JACO website is identified with the Cleco logo in order to maintain continuity with
the program sponsor.
Error! Reference source not found. displays the internet portal. As shown, the portal
informs the customer that they can enter their zip code in order to receive available
dates for pick up and to begin the process of scheduling the pickup online.
Appliance Recycling
4-11
Figure 4-4 Program Internet Portal
Customers enrolling online are guided through a series of steps to collect information to
verify that the customer and unit is qualified. If the customer contacts the call center,
their eligibility to participate is reviewed through a series of screening questions. These
questions ask the customer to verify that the unit meets the program qualifications. Data
from Cleco are used to verify that customer received electrical service from Cleco.
Customers are given a choice of dates to schedule a pickup, generally within a twoweek window. However, it should be note that when the Evaluators accessed the
website, only one date was provided.15 Additionally, there was no mechanism to request
a different date.
International Distribution Transportation Services (IDT) performs the appliance pickup.
IDT interfaces with the JACO database to acquire data for scheduling pickups and
entering pickup information. An automated call is placed with customers 24-48 hours
15 Website accessed on October 12th, 2014.
Appliance Recycling
4-12
before the appliance is picked up to notify them of their four-hour window for the
scheduled pick-up. The appointment times are scheduled using zip code data and
software designs schedules and routes to maximize the number of sites that can be
reached during a drivers shift. On the day of the pickup, drivers attempt to call
customers 30 minutes prior to the pickup time. However, due to the rural nature of
Cleco’s service territory, drivers do not have consistent cellular phone service. If the
customer cannot be reached because of the lack of cellular phone service and is not
home at the time of pick-up, the pick-up crew will wait 10 to 15 minutes for the customer
to return.
In general, customers must be home at the time of pick-up. Exceptions can be made but
are contingent on utility approval. During the pickup, the pickup crew enters the
customer’s residence and verifies that the refrigerator or freezer is plugged in and in
working condition. The pickup crew collects information about the appliance and records
information such as unit age, make, and type. The appliance is then rendered
inoperable by cutting the cord, breaking the cold control unit, and cutting the door seal
away. The appliances are then taken to a facility in Texas for recycling.
After the appliance is picked up, JACO processes the rebate check that is mailed to the
customer. JACO then invoices CLEAResult on a monthly basis for the cost of the
rebates paid to customers.
4.4.5.3
JACO is responsible for the primary program implementation tasks, namely:

Planning program marketing activity;

Providing customer means of scheduling an appliance pick-up by telephone and
online;

Quality control and verification that participation is compliant with program
guidelines;

Oversite of IDT; and

Payment of incentives to participating customers.
CLEAResult is responsible for payment of invoices submitted by JACO that cover
program marketing, incentives, and operational costs, as well as general oversite of
JACO. CLEAResult also interfaces with Cleco staff to manage the program and its
operations.
Cleco’s responsibilities include providing customer data for purposes of verifying
program eligibility and access to marketing channels such as bill messaging.
Appliance Recycling
4-13
4.4.5.4
Program Communications
JACO meets on a weekly basis with CLEAResult to review program marketing and
performance. JACO provides CLEAResult access to its dashboard that summarizes
program activity to date. The data presented in the dashboard is updated every 24
hours.
CLEAResult holds weekly or biweekly meetings with its staff that support all of the
residential programs. During these meetings, staff members discuss daily plans and any
current issues faced.
Cleco staff and the CLEAResult program manager and district manager meet on a
monthly basis. The purpose of the meeting is to review program status in relation to
energy saving goals and the program budget, discuss any issues that the program is
facing, any issues with program trade allies or customers. Additionally, there are regular
unscheduled communications between the two parties.
Cleco and CLEAResult report that communications and coordination between the utility
and the implementer have been effective. JACO staff reported that the working relation
with CLEAResult is effective.
4.4.5.5
Program marketing is funded with a $20 per unit recycled charge. Given the relatively
low number of units targeted for this seasonal program, the marketing budget for the
program was limited.
Table 4-8 displays the marketing tactics used in the Cleco program in relation to
common marketing practices for appliance recycling programs. Although the Cleco
program has not utilized a number of these, this is likely a reflection of the relatively
small program marketing budget. Additionally, JACO staff reports that the seasonal
nature of the program prevents the establishment of retailer partners because retailers
only work with full-year programs.
Appliance Recycling
4-14
Table 4-8 Common Marketing Practices
Marketing Tactic
Newspaper Ads /articles
Radio/TV Ads
Television news story
Online Advertising
Website
Customer Information Sheets
Retailer Information Sheets
Bill Inserts/Bill Messaging/ Direct
Mail
Brochures
Newsletters
Presentations/Meetings
Events
Retail Partnerships
Promotional Contests
Tests/Demonstrations
Social Media Outreach
Utilized In Cleco Program?
Yes
Yes (Pandora)
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No Retail Partnerships
Yes
No
No
Yes (Press conference)
No
No Retail Partnerships
No
No
No
One marketing challenge noted by JACO staff was that the geographically distributed,
rural Cleco service territory makes reaching its customers more expensive because the
customer base is distributed across a large number of media markets. Staff indicated
the largest concentration of customers is in the Shreveport region, but that this is a
relatively expensive market to advertise in.
JACO staff indicated that the bill message and flyers distributed by the utility are a
particularly effective means of promoting the program because this channel reaches all
residential customers, is more likely to be viewed because it is part of the customer’s
bill, and is lower cost than a separate direct mailing campaign.
The program also received some media attention, including television news story
broadcast in the in the Covington area. The news story discussed the environmental
benefits and the incentives available.
4.4.5.6
In reviewing the program offerings and theory, the valuators identified the following
market barriers:

Cleco’s service territory is sprawled and heavily rural. Cleco’s service
territory is largely rural, noncontiguous, and broadly distributed across the state
of Louisiana. These characteristics create challenges for increasing awareness
of the programs, as previously discussed. This represents the principal barrier to
participation in the program.

No driving need to act for primary refrigerators. Recycling of primary
refrigerators is dependent entirely upon Cleco households purchasing new units.
Appliance Recycling
4-15
Given that, there is not a mechanism through with the program could create more
transactions through outreach and marketing; the program has to rely upon
transactions that would occur anyway, and then intervene to prevent the replaced
unit from moving to the secondary market.

Competing with the usefulness of the second unit. For many users of
secondary refrigerators and freezers, the need for extra food storage is seen as
being worth the cost. Prior research in these types of programs has found that
typical program participants are adult-only residences, with a large share of
adults without children living in their home that no longer need a second unit16.

Competition with the secondary market. When a household wants to dispose
of a functioning secondary refrigerator, they may be inclined to sell in the
secondary market or to donate to a friend, family member, or charity. The
potential return from selling a secondary unit can be significantly higher than the
program incentive ($50); as such the program’s perceived benefit may lie more in
the convenience of the pick-up and disposal.

Wide range of possible messaging to encourage participation. Messaging
for a program such as the ARP could focus on available incentives, the
convenience of the pick-up service, savings on bills from removal of old units, or
on the environmentally-safe disposal of refrigerant and other components. The
receptiveness to each message may vary by market segment.
Utility staff indicated that ownership of a second refrigerator or freezer unit is common
among their customers, suggesting that there is significant market potential.
4.4.5.7
Utility data is used to verify that the customer is a current Cleco customer in good
standing. Prospective participant information is matched against customers account
records.
To enforce the limit of recycling two appliances per calendar year, customer utility
account number, name, and address are matched against prior participation. If a match
on any field indicates the customer has already recycled two appliances during the year,
a warning is triggered. For customers scheduling appliances by telephone, the call
center staff member will then explain to the customer that he or she has already met the
program unit cap. Online enrollments are flagged after the customer has signed up for
the appliance pickup using the online portal. These customers are contacted by JACO
staff at a later point and informed that they have already met the cap.
16
Innovologie LLC, 2010. “Process and Market Evaluation of Southern California Edison’s Appliance Recycling
Program, 2006-2008”. Prepared for Southern California Edison.
Appliance Recycling
4-16
At the time of pick-up, pick-up crews are required to verify that the unit is plugged in and
operational. The unit is photographed and marked and entered into the system. To
ensure that unit does not get repurposed, the crew breaks the cold controller, cuts the
power cord, and cuts the door seal off.
JACO reports that various performance metrics are used to monitor the program these
include:

On-time pick-ups;

Time from sign-up to pick-up;

Call processing time;

Call hold time;

Call volume; and

Dropped call percentage.
Staff noted that at one point during the program year, some Cleco customers
complained about the hold time for scheduling a pick-up.
4.4.5.8
Program Tracking Data
The Evaluators’ review of program tracking found that it contained the needed unit
characteristic information to calculate savings. This included indicators for unit size,
age, configuration, and primary versus secondary use. Issues identified with program
tracking data included:

Inconsistent city naming. The Evaluators needed to recode city names for
17.8% of the line items listed in program tracking. This included correcting
misspellings and removal of extraneous spaces at the end of city names. This
was a needed step in order to allow for population of the UMP degradation model
to all recycled units, in that city name is a lookup field to populate local Cooling
Degree Days (CDDs) and Heating Degree Days (HDDs).

Errors in the “Use” and “Loc Prior:” fields. These fields are meant to indicate
primary versus secondary use and the location in which the unit was used,
respectively. The Evaluators received an export which crossed these two fields.

Inconsistent data between the “Loc Prior:” and “Air Condition” fields. The
“Air Condition” field is to indicate whether a unit was located in conditioned
space. However, this field cannot be reconciled with “Loc Prior:” entries. 19% of
total units had their location listed either as “Porch” or “Outdoor”. Of these, 89.7%
were listed as being in conditioned space.
Appliance Recycling
4-17
4.4.6 Participant Survey Results
4.4.6.1
Demographic Characterization
Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 summarize the income levels and highest level of education
completed for survey respondents.
Figure 4-5 Appliance Recycling Respondent Income Levels
Figure 4-6 Appliance Recycling Respondent Education Levels
In addition, 86% of respondents owned their residence and reported an average of 2.45
occupants per household.
Appliance Recycling
4-18
The Evaluators cross-tabulated income levels and the number of home occupants to
assess the probability of a given participant who qualified as low income. The criterion
used was 200% of federal poverty line (the criterion applied by the federal
Weatherization Assistance Program). The probability scoring is summarized in Table
4-9.
Table 4-9 Low Income Probability Scoring by Household Size and Income Level
Income Bracket Response from Survey
Less than
$25k-$50k
$51k-$75k
$76k-100k
$25k
94.2%
27.4%
100%
1
200% of
Fed.
17
Poverty
$23,540
2
$31,860
3
$40,180
100%
60.7%
4
$48,500
100%
94.0%
5
$56,820
100%
100%
27.8%
6
$65,140
100%
100%
60.6%
7
$73,460
100%
100%
93.8%
≥8
$81,780
100%
100%
100%
Family
Size
27.1%
Using this probability assignment, the Evaluators found that 19.5% of survey
respondents were within 200% of the federal poverty line.
4.4.6.2
Source of Awareness
Participant sources of program awareness are summarized in Figure 4-7. The most
common way participants first learned about the program was through a print
advertisement (35%), followed by a radio or television advertisement (22%), and a bill
insert or utility mailer (16%).18
17 https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/.
th
Accessed October 10 , 2015.
18
Responses categorized as print advertisement during the interview may include print news stories. The program
received coverage in two regional newspapers.
Appliance Recycling
4-19
Figure 4-7 ARP Sources of Program Awareness
4.4.6.3
Appliance Use and Characteristics
Appliance use was roughly similar by appliance type, with at least 80% in fulltime use
for both refrigerator and freezer appliances.
Table 4-10 Time in Use by Appliance Type
Time appliance was in use
All the time
Type of Appliance Recycled
Refrigerator
Freezer
(n = 27)
(n = 10)
85%
80%
For special occasions only
4%
10%
During certain months of the year
7%
0%
Never plugged in or running
4%
10%
One respondent reported that their freezer was not in working condition despite the
program requirement that units be operational. It is not uncommon to find that a few
participants in recycling programs report that their units were not operational at the time
of pickup.
Appliance Recycling
4-20
Table 4-11 Appliance Condition by Appliance Type
Refrigerator
Freezer
(n = 27)
(n = 10)
59%
70%
Appliance Condition
It worked well and was in good condition
It worked but needed minor repairs (like a door seal or handle)
33%
10%
It worked but had some mechanical problems or needed major repair
7%
10%
It didn't work at all
0%
10%
Refrigerators were mostly located in the kitchen (44%) or garage (33%), while freezers
were mostly outdoors (30%), in the garage (20%), or some other location (40%).
Table 4-12 Appliance Location by Appliance Type
Appliance
Location
Kitchen
4.4.6.4
Refrigerator
Freezer
(n = 27)
(n = 10)
44%
10%
Garage
33%
20%
Outdoors
7%
30%
Laundry room
4%
0%
Spare room
4%
0%
Other
7%
40%
Decision to Participate
The most common reasons given by participants for recycling their appliance included a
new appliance was purchased (27%), the appliance was no longer needed or wanted
(22%), a new or better unit was desired (16%), the appliance wasn’t working well (14%),
or the appliance was not used often or at all (8%).
Table 4-13 Reasons for Recycling Appliance
Why did you recycle your appliance?
(n = 37)
I got a new appliance and did not need the old one
27%
I didn't need/want it anymore
22%
Wanted a better or newer unit
16%
It wasn't working well
14%
I didn't use it very often/at all
8%
It used too much energy
5%
Other
8%
Don't know
0%
Refused
0%
Appliance Recycling
4-21
8% of respondents made an attempt to sell or donate their appliance prior to
participating in the program, while 89% made no attempt. Of those who made an
attempt to sell or donate the appliance, 67% said they couldn’t find an interested buyer
at the price they wanted, while 33% said they don’t know why they didn’t follow through
with selling the unit.
The most common motivations for participating in the program included getting the
rebate (46%), wanting to get rid of the appliance or not needing it anymore (43%), the
ease or convenience (35%), or it was good for the environment (14%).
Table 4-14 Factors Motivating Program Participation
What factors motivated you to recycle your
appliance with the program?
Percent of
Respondents
(n = 37)
The rebate
46%
Didn't need it anymore/wanted to get rid of it
43%
Easy/convenient
35%
Good for the environment
14%
Savings on utility bill
8%
Appliance no longer worked properly
3%
Other
14%
Don't know
3%
Figure 4-8 displays the importance of the rebate and free pickup service to program
participants. Overall, the free pickup service was thought of as more important than the
rebate. The free pickup service was viewed as very important by 86% of respondents,
while 32% thought the rebate was very important.
Figure 4-8 Reported Importance of Program Offerings
Appliance Recycling
4-22
Overall, these responses suggest that while both the rebate and the convenience of the
pick-up service were motivating factors for participants, the convenience of the service
was of greater interest than the program rebate.
Table 4-15 summarizes participant responses when asked what they would have done
with the appliance if it had not been picked up by the recycling service. The most
common responses included kept it and continued to use it (19%), sold it to a private
individual (14%), or gotten rid of it some other way (14%). Overall, 48% of respondents
specified an alternative action which would have kept the unit in-use (either in their own
home or in a new home). 36% indicated an alternative decision which would have taken
the unit out of use anyway. 16% stated that they “don’t know” what they would have
done in the absence of the program.
Table 4-15 Action Taken without the Program’s Recycling Service
If you had not had your appliance picked up by the recycling
service, what do you think you would have most likely done with
it?
4.4.6.5
Percent of
Respondents
(n = 37)
Kept it and continued to use it
19%
Sell it to a private individual (family, friend, neighbor, etc.)
14%
Gotten rid of it some other way
14%
Taken it to a dump or recycling center
11%
Sell to an appliance dealer
5%
Kept it and stored it unplugged
5%
Given it away to a private individual (family, friend, neighbor, etc.)
5%
Donated it to charity
5%
Set it out for the city for curbside disposal
5%
Don't know
16%
Participation Process
None of the survey respondents reported problems with scheduling the pick-up
appointment, whether scheduling took place online or via the telephone.
Table 4-16 Appointment Scheduling Issues
Problems with
Scheduling an
Appointment
Method used to Schedule Pickup
Signed up Online
(n = 12)
Signed up by Phone
(n = 23)
Yes
0%
0%
No
100%
96%
Don't know
0%
4%
Refused
0%
0%
89% of respondents said that someone called to confirm the date and time of their
scheduled pick up before the pick-up date, while 3% said no one called and 8% didn’t
know. On the day of the pick-up, 89% of surveyed said someone called them on the day
Appliance Recycling
4-23
of the pick up to let them know someone would be arriving soon, while 11% did not
know if someone called.
Table 4-17 Incidence of Confirmation and Reminder Calls
Received Scheduling Confirmation
Call Before Pick-Up Date
(n = 37)
Received Reminder Call on PickUp Date
(n = 37)
Yes
89%
89%
No
3%
0%
Don't know
8%
11%
Refused
0%
0%
Response
All respondents thought the appliance collector was courteous and professional, while
95% reported the collector checked the appliance was functioning.
Table 4-18 Experience with Appliance Collector
Appliance Collector was Courteous
and Professional
(n=21)
Appliance Collector Checked that
Appliance was Functioning
(n=21)
Yes
100%
95%
No
0%
0%
Don't know
0%
5%
Refused
0%
0%
Response
One-third of respondents that could recall how long it took to receive the rebate check
indicated that the wait time was too long. However, the self-reported time to receive the
rebate checks were similar for respondents who that the time to receive the rebate was
too long and those who thought it was not too long, as shown in Figure 4-9.
Appliance Recycling
4-24
Figure 4-9 Self-Reported Time to Receive Rebate
4.4.6.6
Participants were most satisfied with the rebate amount, the scheduling process, and
the wait time between scheduling and appliance pick up. Participants were least
satisfied with the wait time to receive the rebate.
Appliance Recycling
4-25
Figure 4-10 Participant Satisfaction
Participants most commonly reported somewhat increased satisfaction with the utility
(43%) or no change in satisfaction with the utility (38%). None reported any decrease in
satisfaction with the utility.
Table 4-19 Impact of Participation on Satisfaction with Utility
Effect of participation in the Utility's Program?
(n = 37)
Greatly increased your satisfaction with the Utility
Somewhat increased your satisfaction with the Utility
Did not affect your satisfaction with the Utility
Somewhat decreased your satisfaction with the Utility
Greatly decreased your satisfaction with the Utility
Don't know
11%
43%
38%
0%
0%
5%
Refused
3%
4.4.7 Conclusions
4.4.7.1

The design of the Cleco Appliance Recycling program and the program
participation process is consistent with other appliance programs.
o Customers may recycle refrigerators or freezers. Up to two appliances
may be recycled each year by a customer.
Appliance Recycling
4-26
o The program provides free appliance pickup and a $50 incentive to
encourage customers to discard older and second refrigerators and
freezers. A promotional incentive was offered during the months of
September and October.
o The program is only available to residential customers.
o Customers may sign-up online or through the JACO web portal.

The Cleco program is offered on a seasonal basis, which is a less common
design characteristic. The program is offered on a seasonable basis because it
was added to augment the existing residential customer offerings and has a
limited budget.

Program procedures were also modified because of inconsistent cellular phone
service in Cleco’s service territory. As a result of the inconsistent cellular phone
service, in some instances, pick-up drivers are unable to contact customers 30
minutes prior to pick-up. If the driver is not able to reach the customer prior to the
pick-up, he or she will wait 10 or 15 minutes if the customer is not home at the
time of pick-up. Despite the difficulty reaching participants, 89% of survey
respondents reported receiving a reminder call on the day of the pick-up.

Staff reported that the program had received customer complaints about long
hold times during the scheduling of appliance pickups. However, none of the
survey respondents reported difficulty scheduling the appliance pick-up. It is
possible that customers who had difficulty scheduling a pickup appointed decided
to not participate in the program.

The Evaluators accessed the online portal for scheduling a pick-up using multiple
zip codes. In all instances, only one date was offered for a pick-up and there was
no mechanism to request a different date.

All indicated that the collector was courteous and professional, and 95%
indicated that the collector verified that the appliance worked (5% did not know if
it was checked).

Approximately 70% of survey respondents reported that it took more than 6
weeks to receive the incentive checks. This is a relatively long period of time.
The following marketing and outreach recommendations are offered for consideration:

Ensure that customers have multiple options for scheduling a pickup
appointment.

Monitor time required to process incentive payment. The six week wait period
reported by a majority of respondents is relatively long time to receive payment.
Appliance Recycling
4-27
4.4.7.2

Program activity was less than anticipated. Staff identified challenges in
marketing the program to customers in the geographically broad and rural Cleco
service territory as a barrier to program participation.

The program was marketed through a bill insert; however, a second planned
insert was cancelled because of customer complaints about hold times during
sign-up. The program has also received media attention including a broadcast
television news story in the Covington area.

Information on the incentive was not consistent between the Cleco program
website and the JACO portal during the promotional $75 period. The Cleco
website correctly displayed the promotional incentive ($75) but the JACO web
portal stated the incentive was $50.

The Cleco website does not provide information on qualifying appliances.
4.4.7.3

Program quality and verification practices are consistent with common practices
for appliance recycling programs. These practices include;
o Procedures for flagging customers attempting to recycle more than two
appliances in a calendar year;
o Verification of the working appliance condition at the time of pick-up; and
o Procedures to render the unit inoperable to prevent its reuse.

JACO staff report monitoring a number of internal metrics to manage program
performance. These metrics include:
o Time from sign-up to pick-up;
o Call processing time;
o Call hold time;
o Call volume; and
o Dropped call percentage.

One survey respondent (< 3% of respondents) reported that the unit recycled
was not in working condition. It is not uncommon to see some survey
respondents report that their appliance was inoperable when it was recycled.
Additional verification procedures, such as not rendering the unit inoperable at
the time of pick-up and verifying operation at the recycling facility, may mitigate
the risk of inoperable units being recycled. However, this procedure may not be
worth the cost of its implementation.
Appliance Recycling
4-28
4.4.7.4

Overall, participants were satisfied with their program experience. Nearly 90%
were satisfied with the program overall. The aspect of the program that the
largest share of participants indicated dissatisfaction with was the wait time to
receive the rebate. 18% of customers were dissatisfied with this aspect of the
program experience.

Fifty-four percent of participants reported that their experience with the program
Though the program has been cancelled for PY2 due to JACO declaring bankruptcy,
the Evaluators have nonetheless documented findings into the following
recommendations for Cleco’s consideration should they elect to relaunch the program at
a later date with a new implementation contractor.
The Evaluators’ recommendations for the ARP are as follows:

Ensure consistency between the Cleco website and the implementer portal.
The JACO portal was not displaying the $75 promotional rebate. During the
promotional period, the JACO portal still displayed the standard $50 rebate.

Include a minimum of three possible pick-up dates for customers enrolling
on-line. The JACO portal would only display one possible pick-up date and did
not give the user an option to re-enter for a different date. This could cause
difficulties with on-line enrollment, and the program should provide multiple
options for pick-up in a manner analogous to telephone enrollment.

Cross-promote recycling incentives with high efficiency refrigerator
replacement incentives in the Residential Solutions Program. 27% of
respondents indicated that they participated in the ARP as a result of purchasing
a new refrigerator. This tactic may promote activity in both programs by
effectively increasing the rebate for replacing a refrigerator to $100.

Continue to utilize bill inserts and flyers to promote the program during the
period of the year when it is offered. This channel is likely to be the most
efficient means of reaching the broadly distributed customer base.

List participation requirements on the Cleco website. The program website
can serve as a central means for informing customers of Cleco’s program
offering.

Reconcile tracking data issues associated with equipment use and
location. The Evaluators identified several areas where program tracking data
Appliance Recycling
4-29
had discrepancies. This included erroneous city name entries and listing outdoor
units as being located in conditioned space.

Incorporate a Part-Use Value and increased kW savings to program
savings estimates. Incorporating the 88.8% Part-Use Value results in revised
program savings estimates of:
o 988 kWh, .1927 kW for refrigerators; and
o 929 kWh, .1106 kW for freezers.

Reconsider the use of bonus incentives. The bonus incentive period lasted 59
days, during which 39 rebates were processed. In contrast, 324 rebates had
been paid over the prior 93 days of program operation (June 1st – September
2nd). Further, survey respondents indicated much high importance on the
convenience of the pick-up service rather than the rebate itself. In addition, 62%
of survey respondents stated that they were “very satisfied” with the rebate
amount and 38% stated that they were “somewhat satisfied”, and all survey
respondents were from the period prior to the bonus incentive. Based on these
factors, the Evaluators found that the bonus rebate was not an effective
mechanism to increase program participation.

Work to shorten rebate payment time. Approximately 70% of survey
respondents reported that it took more than six weeks to receive the incentive
checks. This is longer than average for appliance recycling programs, and
program staff should endeavor to reach a four week turnaround for rebate
payment.
Appliance Recycling
4-30
5. Small Business Program
5.1
Program Description
The Cleco Small Business Program (SBP) offers enhanced incentives to small business
owners to help overcome the first-cost barrier unique to the small business market
which interferes with small business adoption of energy efficiency measures.
The Program is designed to provide small business owners with energy efficiency
information and develop awareness of energy/non-energy benefits of energy efficiency.
It is intended to increase the awareness of the latest energy efficient technologies
available to Cleco small business customers. Through the SBP, a network of trade allies
will be developed that have an interest in working with smaller customers.
In PY1, the SBP had savings goals of 1,736,105 kWh and 409 kW. Total verified
savings for the SBP are:

1,672,761 kWh – 96.4% of goal; and

208.0 kW – 67.7% of goal.
5.2
M&V Methodology
Evaluation of the SBP requires the following:

Stratified Random Sampling, selecting large saving sites with certainty (as
detailed in Section 2.4.2);

Review of deemed savings parameters for prescriptive projects;

On-site verification;

Interviewing of program participants and trade allies.
The main features of the approach used for the impact evaluation are as follows:

Data for the study have been collected through review of program materials, on-site
inspections, and end-use metering. Based on data provided by CLEAResult,
sample designs were developed for on-site data collection for the impact evaluation.
Sample sizes were determined that provide savings estimates for the program with
±10% precision at the 90% confidence level.

On-site visits were used to collect data for savings impacts calculations. The on-site
visits were used to verify installations and to determine any changes to the
operating parameters since the measures were first installed. Facility staff were
interviewed to determine the operating hours of the installed system and to locate
any additional benefits or shortcomings with the installed system.
Small Business
5-1
5.3
Impact Findings
Energy savings was estimated using proven techniques, including engineering
calculations using industry standards to determine energy savings. Table 5-1
summarizes the total participation in the PY1 Small Business Program.
Table 5-1 PY1 Small Business Program Participation Summary
# Projects
Expected
kWh
106
Expected
kW
1,752,145
282.79
Data provided by CLEAResult showed that during PY1, there were 106 projects which
were initially expected to provide savings of 1,814,748 kWh. The resulting overall
sample is presented in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2 Small Business Sample Summary
# Sites in
Population
Site Visit
Sample Size
# Surveys
106
19
15
5.3.1 SBP Savings Estimates
Sampling for evaluation of Cleco’s SBP was developed using the Stratified Random
Sampling procedure detailed in Section 2.4.2. This procedure provides 90% confidence
and ±10% precision with a significantly reduced sample than random sampling would
require, by selecting the highest saving facilities with certainty, thereby minimizing the
variance that non-sampled sites can contribute to the overall results.
5.3.1.1
Small Business Program Sample Design
The participant population for the SBP was divided into four strata. Table 5-3
summarizes the strata boundaries and sample frames for the SBP.
Table 5-3 Small Business Program Sample Design
Stratum 1
Strata boundaries
(kWh)
Number of sites
Total kWh savings
Average kWh
Standard deviation
of kWh savings
Coefficient of
variation
Final sample
Small Business
Stratum 2
Stratum3
Stratum 4
Stratum 5
Totals
25
67,605
2,704
5,50012,500
31
271,836
8,769
12,500 –
25,000
30
526,234
17,541
25,000 50,000
16
553,100
34,569
4
333,370
83,343
106
1,752,145
16,530
1,578
2,052
3,915
8,288
17,290
17,538
.58
.23
.22
.24
.21
1.06
5
3
5
3
2
19
<5,500
>50,000
5-2
5.3.1.2
Small Business Site-Level Realization
Sites chosen within each stratum are visited in order to verify installation of rebated
measures and to collect data needed for calculation of ex post verified savings. The
realization rates for sites within each stratum are then applied to the non-sampled sites
within their respective stratum. Table 5-4 presents realization at the stratum level, with
Table 5-5 presenting results at the site level.
Table 5-4 Summary of kWh Savings for Small Business Program by Sample Stratum
Stratum
Expected kWh
Savings
5
4
3
2
1
Realized kWh
Savings
189,986
125,156
79,790
20,413
11,654
183,570
113,397
76,335
21,355
10,634
Realization
Rate
96.6%
90.6%
95.7%
104.6%
91.2%
Table 5-5 shows the expected and realized energy savings for the program by project.
Table 5-5 Expected and Realized Savings by Project
Project ID(s)
PRJ-410639
PRJ-322690
PRJ-406597
PRJ-388103
PRJ-426966
PRJ-419264
PRJ-427783
PRJ-393475
PRJ-433256
PRJ-419843
PRJ-417038
PRJ-378164
PRJ-386655
PRJ-376119
PRJ-379398
PRJ-371466
PRJ-371442
PRJ-379374
5.3.1.3
City
Slidell
Covington
Patterson
New Iberia
New Iberia
Covington
Alexandria
Slidell
Basile
Baldwin
Mandeville
Pineville
Covington
Lacombe
Pineville
Covington
Slidell
Pineville
Facility
Type
Grocery
Retail
Office
Retail
Retail
Restaurant
Retail
Restaurant
Retail
Retail
Retail
Grocery
Restaurant
Grocery
Restaurant
Restaurant
Grocery
Restaurant
Expected
kWh
Savings
104,918
85,068
48,591
42,503
34,062
21,010
16,915
14,083
14,002
13,780
8,017
6,407
5,989
5,472
3,396
1,361
1,003
422
Realized
kWh
Savings
99,863
83,707
48,593
36,144
28,660
18,810
15,080
14,638
15,573
12,234
7,656
8,159
5,540
5,504
2,421
1,414
710
585
Realization
Rate
95.18%
98.40%
100.00%
85.04%
84.14%
89.53%
89.15%
103.94%
111.22%
88.78%
95.50%
127.35%
92.50%
100.58%
71.29%
103.89%
70.79%
138.63%
Small Business Program-Level Realization
Using the realization rates presented in Table 5-4, the Evaluator extrapolated results
from sampled sites to non-sampled sites in developing program-level savings estimates.
Table 5-6 presents results by stratum.
Small Business
5-3
Table 5-6 Small Business Program-Level Realization by Stratum
Stratum
# Sites
5
4
3
2
1
Total
4
16
30
31
25
106
5.3.1.4
Expected
kWh
Savings
333,370
553,100
526,234
271,836
67,605
1,752,145
Realized
kWh
Savings
322,112
501,134
503,447
284,380
61,688
1,672,761
kWh
Realization
Rate
96.6%
90.6%
95.7%
104.6%
91.2%
95.5%
Expected
kW
Savings
30.45
78.88
107.83
57.88
7.76
282.80
Realized
kW
Savings
26.17
71.95
115.78
56.93
6.87
277.70
kW
Realization
Rate
86.0%
91.2%
107.4%
98.4%
88.5%
98.2%
Small Business – Causes of Savings Deviations
Overall program-level kWh realization was high (95.5%). However, some projects
demonstrated savings less than 100%. The Evaluators have summarized these
projects Table 5-7 for illustrative purposes.
Table 5-7 Small Business – Causes of Low Realization
Expected
kWh
Realized
kWh
Realization
Rate
PRJ410639
104,918
99,863
95.2%
PRJ322690
85,068
83,707
98.4%
PRJ388103
42,503
36,144
85.0%
Project ID
Causes of Low Realization
This project is a lighting retrofit at a grocery facility. The
Evaluators corrected baseline wattages for screw-in lighting to
reflect EISA standards
This project is a lighting retrofit at a retail facility. (12) 4’
2Lamp T5HO fixtures were installed. The baseline
configuration was listed as (12) 8’ 2L T12 fixtures. The
Evaluators verified that the baseline configuration was 6 of
these fixtures, not 12, resulting in reduced baseline wattage.
Additionally, (1) 42W CFL failed verification.
This project is a lighting retrofit at a retail facility. The
Evaluators confirmed that the facility uses electric resistance
heating; ex ante estimates listed heating type as
“undetermined”. This decreased savings.
Further, savings were erroneously credited for on-off lighting
controls on exterior lighting.
This project is a lighting retrofit at an office facility. The
PRJ426966
34,062
28,660
84.1%
The parking lot for this facility was listed as having replaced (6)
1000W MH with 300W LEDs and (2) 400W MH with 150W
LEDs. On-site, the Evaluators found that the 400W MH fixtures
were still in place.
Further, savings were erroneously credited for on-off lighting
controls on exterior lighting.
Small Business
5-4
PRJ419264
21,010
18,810
89.5%
PRJ427783
16,915
15,080
89.2%
PRJ419843
13,780
12,234
88.8%
PRJ417038
8,017
7,656
95.5%
PRJ386665
5,989
5,540
92.5%
PRJ379398
3,396
2,421
71.3%
PRJ371442
1,003
710
70.8%
This project is a lighting retrofit at a restaurant facility. The
Savings were increased for strip curtains due to the Evaluators
measuring a larger area of curtains installed than listed in
project data.
This project was a lighting retrofit at a retail facility. The
The baseline configuration listed in project documentation
understated baseline wattage. The baseline consumption was
increased as a result, which in-part mitigated the lost savings
from the heating system type correction.
This project is a lighting retrofit at a restaurant facility. Project
documentation listed (2) 7W LEDs replacing (6) 40W
incandescent lamps. The Evaluators verified that (3) 7W LEDs
replaced (5) 40W incandescent lamps. Further, the Evaluators
corrected baseline wattage from 40W to 29W to account for
EISA standards.
This project entailed installation of strip curtains for the walkin cooler and freezer in a restaurant facility. Deemed savings
were calculated per door, rather than per square foot. The
Evaluators found that the door sizes in this facility were
smaller than assumed in the average door size for deemed
savings calculations.
This project was a lighting and strip curtain retrofit at a grocery
facility. The Evaluators found that the (2) 10W LEDs listed as
installed in the walk-in cooler were not present during on-site
verification.
Key issues identified in site-level analyses include:

Use of the “Undetermined” space heating type. Many trade allies defaulted
to using the “Undetermined” space heating value, which has an Energy
Interactive Factor of .98. The Evaluators found that electric radiant heating was
used in a large share of small business projects, and energy savings was
reduced when the Energy Interactive Factor was corrected to .87. In response to
this finding, program staff removed the “Undetermined” option from the OPEN
Tool, and trade allies are now required to specify the heating system.
Small Business
5-5

Facility type assignment for nonconforming business types. Other
significant corrections occurred when the program staff was required to make a
judgement call in assigning a facility type from the list of Arkansas TRM facilities.
The Evaluators made numerous corrections on projects of this type.

Improper baseline for screw-in lighting. When installing screw-in LEDs and
CFLs, ex ante calculations used listed wattage (40W, 60W, 75W, and 100W) as
the baseline. The baseline values need to account for the Energy Independence
and Security Act (EISA) baseline values (29W, 43W, 53W, 72W), as the
remaining useful life of incandescent lighting is too short to use as the baseline
for the life cycle savings of a lighting retrofit.
5.4
Process Findings
This chapter presents the results of the process evaluation of the Small Business
The process of evaluation of the SBP included the following data collection activities:
Table 5-8 Small Business Program Process Evaluation – Summary of Data Collection
Activity
Sample Size
Cleco Staff
2
CLEAResult Staff
2
Participant Survey
15
4
The Small Business Program provides energy education to trade allies and customers,
and financial incentives to customers, to encourage small businesses to implement
energy efficiency projects that reduce their facilities electricity consumption. The
program utilizes a network of participating trade allies to assist customers in identifying
energy saving opportunities and to promote the incentives available.
Financial incentives are based on expected savings for the measure implemented.
Incentives are $0.16 per kWh saved and may cover up to 100% of the project cost.
Incentives are paid directly to the trade ally implementing the project to reduce or
eliminate the initial cost of the equipment to the customer. Incentives are capped at
$25,000.
Energy savings are calculated based on procedures outlined in the Arkansas Technical
Resource Manual.
Small Business
5-6
The primary measures offered through the program are the efficient lighting and
refrigeration equipment listed below:








Linear fluorescent lamp and ballast replacement;
High-intensity discharge (HID) fixture replacement;
Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs);
Interior and exterior light emitting diodes (LEDs);
Solid and glass door reach in units;
Electronically commutated motors (ECM) for evaporator fans;
Door heater controls; and
Vending misers.
Small business customers may also elect to install additional measures offered through
the Large Commercial and Industrial Solutions Program and receive incentives of $0.16
per kWh saved for that equipment.
In order to mitigate barriers to small business participation such as lack of program
awareness and energy saving opportunities, the program relies upon a network of
participating trade allies to perform direct customer outreach. The program provides
trade allies with training and software used to perform on-site assessments and
estimate energy savings associated with measures.
Any non-residential Cleco customer with maximum peak demand of less than 100 kW is
eligible for the program.
5.4.3.1
Participation Data Quality Review
The evaluators reviewed the final program participant tracking data submitted by
CLEAResult. The following minor issues were noted:

Contact phone number was invalid (e.g., not 10 digits) for 2% of the projects.

A customer name was not provided for 2% of the projects
5.4.3.2
Figure 5-1 displays the share of expected kWh savings by business type. As shown,
most program activity occurred in grocery and retail facilities, two common small
business building types.
Small Business
5-7
Figure 5-1 Share of Expected kWh Savings by Building Type
Figure 5-2 displays kWh energy savings by trade ally firm. As shown, the three most
active firms accounted for a clear majority of program savings.
Figure 5-2 Share of Expected kWh Savings by Contractor
5.4.3.3
Program Comparison
Table 5-9 provides a summary of other regional programs. The eligible measures
offered by the Small Business Program are consistent with other program offerings from
around the county. The eligible measures offered by the Small Business Program are
consistent with other program offerings from around the county. The majority of
programs focus on lighting and refrigeration, HVAC tune-ups, and controls. Many small
Small Business
5-8
business programs offer free direct install measures such as faucet aerators, pre-rinse
sprayers, low-flow showerheads, and CFLs. Cleco’s direct install measures include
faucet aerators, pre-rinse spray valves, and vending machine controls. The programs
included in this comparison are all in comprehensive-phase implementation. However
this difference manifests largely in program scale rather than in program design.
Cleco targets incentives of $0.16 per kWh saved. This incentive amount is slightly less
than amounts offered by comparable utilities. Additionally, some utilities base their
incentive off of demand reductions, such as Oncor Open, instead of energy savings.
The Cleco programs define the small business sector as customers who have less than
100 kW in peak demand, which is comparable to the demand criteria used by other
programs.
Table 5-9 Small Business Direct Install – Regional Benchmarking
Utility
Cleco Small
Commercial
Direct Install
Program
Public Service
Company of
New Mexico
Quicksaver
Program
Oncor Open
Small Business
Available Measures
Refrigeration: Solid & glass door reachins, ECM evaporator fan motors, door
heater controls.
Lighting: Linear fluorescent lamp and
ballast replacements, HID fixture
replacements, CFLs, LED interior and
exterior lamp fixtures.
Food Service: vending machine
controls, pre-rinse spray valves.
Lighting and HVAC: day lighting
controls, occupancy controls.
Refrigeration: High efficiency
electronically commutated motors and
evaporator fan motor controllers,
plastic strip curtains for walk in
refrigerators and curtains, night covers
for refrigerated open display cases,
energy efficient anti-sweat heater
controls, vending machine controls.
Lighting: T12 to T8 lighting retrofits,
cold cathode fluorescent lamps, LED
exit sign upgrades, Switching from high
intensity discharge fixtures to high
output T5 fluorescent fixtures in high
bay and exterior
applications, Installing lighting
occupancy sensors.
Refrigeration: Anti-sweat heater
controls for refrigerator doors
Lighting:
T12 to T8 lighting retrofits,
LED lighting upgrades, occupancy
sensor installations, LED exit signs.
Direct
Install
Incentive
Amount
Eligibility
Criteria
Faucet
aerators, lowflow
showerheads,
and pre-rinse
sprayers.
$0.16/kWh
reduced for
qualified
measures.
N/A
Range is between
$0.019/kWh$0.175/kWh
< 150 kW
Lighting and
low-flow
faucet
aerators
Customers with =
100kW demand
up to $800/kW
Customers with =
10kW demand up
to $1,000/kW
< 100 kW
all
Average peak
demand
of
<100kW
5-9
Utility
Available Measures
Direct
Install
Entergy
Arkansas Small
Business
Energy
Solutions
Program
Lighting: Interior/exterior lighting
retrofits, interior lighting controls,
refrigerated case lighting.
Refrigeration: ECMs, anti-sweat heater
controls, ECM controls, gaskets and
strip curtains.
Misc.: window film, ceiling insulation
(converted residences only), duct
sealing (converted residences only).
Low-flow
faucet
aerators, prerinse spray
valves,
vending
misers,
showerheads,
and CFLs.
Incentive
Amount
Lighting:
$0.18/kWh
Refrigeration:
$0.30/kWh
HVAC: $0.18/kWh
Lighting Controls:
$0.18/kWh
Window film:
$0.35/kWh
Duct Sealing:
$0.35/kWh
Ceiling Insulation:
$0.35/kWh
Eligibility
Criteria
< 100 kW
5.4.4 Program Design, Operations, and Activities
The following sections describe program design, operations, and activities and were
developed from reviews of program documentation and interviews with program staff.
5.4.4.1
Program Objectives
The primary program objective is to assist small businesses in achieving electric energy
savings and peak demand reductions through direct outreach, facility walkthrough
energy assessments, and relatively large financial incentives on energy saving for
typical small business end-uses. The savings goal for the first year of program
operations was 1,736,105 kWh. The peak demand reduction goal was 409.00 kW. To
meet the energy saving and peak demand reduction goals, the program has ancillary
objectives to mitigate barriers to energy efficiency in small businesses. The program
intends to provide customers with increased awareness of energy and non-energy
benefits of energy efficiency measures, help small businesses overcome the initial cost
of efficiency measures, and develop a network of trade allies that can assist small
businesses with energy efficiency improvements.
Overall, both Cleco and CLEAResult staff indicated that the program is well designed to
meet its goals and objectives. One staff member noted that the program is working with
a lot of independent, family-owned businesses that lack in-house expertise in energy
efficiency and thus the program has to spend more effort on customer education than
other Cleco commercial programs.
5.4.4.2
Figure 5-3 provides an overview of the participation process. The key steps in the
participation process are:

Outreach to customer by the trade ally;
Small Business
5-10






Contractor completion of walkthrough assessment using the OPEN software tool;
Customer measure selection and submission of the project proposal;
CLEAResult’s review and approval of the proposal and associated preinspection;
Measure implementation;
Post-installation inspection; and
Payment of incentives to the trade allies.
Figure 5-3 Small Business Solutions Program Participation Process
5.4.4.3
The program primarily relies upon trade allies to market the program to small
businesses. Contractors offer potential customers a free, no-commitment walkthrough
of their facility to identify energy saving opportunities and discuss the discounts on
equipment and services available through the program. Staff reported that a tri-fold
brochure is made available to trade allies to help them promote the program. There
have also been local television spots promoting the Cleco programs in some markets.
Small Business
5-11
Consistent with the program design, CLEAResult staff reported little direct outreach to
customers. One staff member stated that he will discuss the program if he sees a small
business that could potentially benefit.
5.4.4.4
The barriers to participation facing small business customers include:



Lack of awareness of program offerings;
Lack of knowledge about energy efficient technologies and the cost savings
potential; and
Insufficient financial and staff resources to implement energy saving measures.
The program includes design elements to overcome these barriers, namely direct
outreach by trade allies to promote the program offerings and higher incentives than
those made available to larger customers to reduce measure costs. Additionally, by
providing the incentives to the trade ally, who in turn reduces the cost of the equipment
services, the program allows small business customers to receive the incentives without
covering the full measure installation cost until the incentive can be processed.
5.4.4.5
Several activities are integrated into the program processes to verify that projects are
implemented in accordance with program requirements. The key activities are:






Qualification of customer eligibility through use of the OPEN tool;
Review of customer proposal;
Pre-inspection of select sites;
Review of final customer proposal and project documentation;
Post-inspection of select sites; and
Review of customer feedback.
Problems identified through the quality control procedures are grouped into critical and
non-critical issues. Critical issues that arise may result in the immediate suspension or
removal of the trade ally from the program. Non-critical issues that do not adversely
affect energy savings, peak-demand reductions, or incentive amounts result in the
documentation of the issue and corrective action such as further training.
The first five projects completed by a trade ally receive pre- and post-inspection;
afterwards, 20% of projects are inspected.
The program consultant is notified through the OPEN software that a site requires a preor post-inspection. Staff reviews project documentation, photos, and savings estimates.
During pre- and post-inspection, staff counts and photographs every fixture or other
equipment included in the project.
Small Business
5-12
Staff reported that few issues have been identified with completed projects. The issues
noted were minor and included misreporting of lamp wattage or where the lamp count
was slightly incorrect.
5.4.4.6
Contractor Recruitment and Management
CLEAResult’s outreach efforts have been largely directed and trade ally recruitment.
Staff reported recruiting trade allies through direct outreach and referrals from program
staff operating other programs in the region.
Although staff reported that the recruitment of trade allies went well, generally, staff is
looking to recruit additional trade allies into the program.
Contractors who are new to the program receive training to familiarize them with the
program procedures and requirements. Staff report that the training takes approximately
1-1.5 hours, during which the program and use of the OPEN software used to complete
the energy assessments is explained. Staff also reported that they offer one-on-one
training to trade allies. Additionally, trade allies are invited to pre- and post-inspection
visits, which can provide a learning opportunity.
Participants of the Small Business Program were surveyed to provide insight into the
participants’ experience with the program. A total of 15 program participants responded
to the survey.
67% of respondents were the owner or proprietor and 20% held a managerial position.
Of the facilities surveyed, 87% were the company’s sole location and 13% were one of
several company locations. 27% owned and occupied the facility of interest, while 73%
rented. The business types surveyed ranged from to restaurants (33%), to grocery or
convenience stores (27%), retail outlets (20%), or other small businesses (20%). A
majority of respondents (93%) reported being billed directly for their electricity use.
Figure 5-4 summarizes the business types surveyed and compares this share to the
population of Cleco Small Business Program participants.
Small Business
5-13
Figure 5-4 Comparison of Survey Sample and Population Firmographics
5.4.5.1
Preferred Outreach and Sources of Awareness
The majority of participants learned about the program incentives from a program
representative (60%), a trade ally (20%), or through friends and colleagues (20%). The
share of participants that stated they learned of the program from a program
representative is relatively large given the program’s design. It is possible that that
some respondents were referring to trade allies providing services through the program
rather than CLEAResult staff.
Figure 5-5 Cleco Small Business – Participant Sources of Program Awareness
.
Small Business
5-14
Participants provided information on the best ways to inform businesses like theirs of
energy efficiency programs offered. A majority of respondents (53%) think that visits
from trade allies or program staff are the best way to contact them about energy saving
opportunities, followed by email communication (33%), bill inserts (27%), or via the
telephone (20%).
5.4.5.2
87% of respondents thought participating in the program was an easy decision, while
13% had some concerns. All of those concerned thought that the program seemed “too
good to be true.” Their concerns were resolved when they learned more about the
program from program staff. These findings suggest that concerns about the credibility
of the program offerings may present a barrier to some businesses participating.
Actions taken by program staff to promote the program and increase awareness should
mitigate concerns of the program’s legitimacy. Encouraging trade allies to utilize
program marketing collateral may also help them improve perceptions of the legitimacy
of the program during discussions with potential participants.
Reasons for participating in the program are shown in Table 5-10. The most common
reasons provided were: saving on energy bills (73%), participation was very easy
(60%), conserving energy and protecting the environment (40%), and replacing broken
equipment (40%).
Table 5-10 Reasons for Participating in the Program
Which of the following factors helped you decide to participate in the
program?
Percent of
Respondents
(n = 15)
73%
Participation was very easy
60%
Conserving energy/Protecting the environment
40%
Replacing broken equipment
40%
Acquiring the latest equipment
13%
Table 5-11 displays the likelihood that participants would have installed the energy
efficient equipment had their trade ally not completed the energy assessment of their
facility. Over one-half (53%) indicated that they probably or definitely would not have
installed the equipment without the assessment.
Small Business
5-15
Table 5-11 Likelihood of Installation without Assessment
If the onsite assessment had not been performed by your trade ally,
how likely is it that you would have installed energy efficient end-use
type?
Percent of
Respondents
(n = 15)
Definitely would have installed
0%
Probably would have installed
20%
Probably would not have installed
67%
Definitely would not have installed
13%
Don't know
0%
Refused
0%
Participants were also asked if they would have performed the installation of the energy
efficient equipment without the financial incentives provided in the program. 53% said
they probably would not have, while 27% said they definitely would not have, and 13%
said they definitely would have. These responses indicate that the financial incentives
provided in the program were important in the participant’s decision to install equipment.
Table 5-12 Likelihood of Installation without Financial Incentives
If the financial incentive from the program had not been available, how
likely is it that you would have installed energy efficient equipment?
Percent of
Respondents
(n = 28)
13%
7%
53%
27%
Don't know
0%
Refused
0%
The findings on the likelihood of installing the equipment without the recommendation
and without the financial incentive suggest that the program is providing the needed
educational and financial assistance to help facilitate energy efficiency in small
businesses.
5.4.5.3
Assessment of Audit
Overall, participants were quite satisfied with the audit process. 87% were very satisfied
with the audit of the facility, the project proposal, and the professionalism and
knowledge of the trade ally.
Small Business
5-16
Figure 5-6 Participants Rating of the Auditing Process
5.4.5.4
Equipment Selection
93% of participants surveyed installed all of the energy saving equipment recommended
by the trade ally. One respondent was not sure whether or not they had installed all of
the recommended equipment.
In addition, most of those surveyed thought the energy equipment options fit their needs
completely (79%) or nearly completely (14%). However, one customer indicated that a
control system on a cooler did not allow the doors to close properly).
Small Business
5-17
Figure 5-7 Fit of Equipment Options Provided
5.4.5.5
As shown in Figure 5-8, most participants were satisfied with their experience with the
program. Participants were most satisfied with the amount of time between the audit
and the installation of the equipment and the utility as electrical service provider.
Participants were least satisfied with the quality of the installation and how thoroughly
staff addressed questions or concerns.
One participant indicated dissatisfaction with multiple aspects of the program. When
asked to elaborate as to the reason for his or her dissatisfaction, the participant
indicated that there problems with a control system installed on refrigeration equipment.
Instead of fixing the control system installation, the equipment was removed.
Small Business
5-18
Figure 5-8 Small Business Participant Satisfaction
The three respondents who reported dissatisfaction with the program elaborated on the
reason why they were dissatisfied. The reasons given, each mentioned by one
respondent were as follows:



No change in energy savings;
Difficulty communicating with staff; and
There was a delay between when the assessment was performed and when the
measures were installed).
Table 5-13 displays survey respondents reported impact of participation on their
satisfaction with Cleco. 84% of participants stated that participating in the program
Table 5-13 Effect of Participation on Satisfaction with Utility
Effect of participation in the Utility's Program
Don't know
Refused
Percent of
Respondents
(n = 15)
47%
47%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
5.4.6 Participating Contractor Interviews
Five attempts were made to contact participating trade allies. Two trade allies declined
the interview. The reasons given for declining the interview request were that they
Small Business
5-19
signed up for the program, but did not receive any additional information about it and
were not located in utility’s service area even though they were listed on the approved
trade ally list during the program year.
In total, interviews were completed with four of the 20 participating trade allies.
Two of the respondents’ businesses did not specialize in any specific type of energy
efficient equipment, one specialized generally in lighting, and one specialized in LED
lighting. None of the businesses specialized in providing services to a specific type of
business.
5.4.6.1
Half of the interviewed trade allies reported becoming aware of the Small Business
program through researching rebates available in their area, and the remainder reported
that they were contacted by CLEAResult directly about the program.
When asked what factors influenced their decision to participate in the program, all
trade allies stated one or both of the following influences: familiarity with the type of
program offered, or because of the financial benefits of the program to the customer.
None of the trade allies reported having initial concerns about participating in the
program. One trade ally stated that they had a history of positive experiences working
with CLEAResult programs.
5.4.6.2
Contractor Feedback - Program Marketing
Interviewed trade allies provided information on their efforts to market the program to
small business customers. All of the trade allies stated that projects are typically
initiated by them rather than a customer contacting them about participating in the
program. All of the trade allies also stated that they are promoting the program with
Three trade allies stated that they received guidelines on how to use the utility or
program name on their marketing materials. One trade ally stated that they received
marketing materials directly from CLEAResult. This trade ally reported using the
materials frequently, and suggested updating the materials with more LED examples.
When asked what the program could do to help them be more effective in marketing the
program, half of the respondents stated that it was difficult to market the program to
potential customers because there was so little funding available. The remainder did not
provide any suggestions for program marketing efforts.
5.4.6.3
Contractor Feedback - Customer Awareness and Barriers to Participation
Three trade allies indicated that they did not have any customers raise any concerns
about participating in the program. One trade ally stated that some customers were
concerned that the program was too good to be true.
Small Business
5-20
Although trade allies stated that customers were generally aware of measures offered
through the program, they were more familiar with some measures than with others.
One trade ally stated that customers were familiar with T8 lighting, but were not as
familiar with LEDs. Another trade ally stated that their customers were generally aware
of LEDs, but they sometimes had to explain refrigeration and more complicated
measures. Two trade allies stated that although customers are generally aware of
measures offered through the program, they are less aware of the specifics of the
program such as the return on investment they can expect or the expected lifetime of
the measures.
All trade allies stated that the measure types offered through the program were
sufficient, and that the incentives met the needs of small businesses.
The main reason trade allies stated that customers did not participate in the program
was that even with the incentive, the project was too expensive.
5.4.6.4
Contractors provided responses to a series of questions about the participation process.
The key documentation that trade allies collected during the walkthrough was a copy of
the business’s energy bill and photographs of the existing equipment.
The walkthrough assessments are completed using a software tool CLEAResult
developed called OPEN. When asked to assess the OPEN software, two trade allies
stated that they had no major issues with the software, and one trade ally stated that the
software tends to freeze when submitting a project. The difference in experiences with
OPEN may be a function of the specific device trade allies are using with the software.
One trade ally stated that they do not personally use the software, so could not
comment on it.
Contractors reported that they submit customer proposals by email or in person. One
trade ally stated that proposals were submitted through the OPEN tool. The time it takes
for proposals to be approved reported by trade allies ranged from a few days to one
week. One trade ally did not give a specific timeframe, but stated that it does not take
long and is pretty immediate.
None of the respondents reported having a project rejected.
Overall, trade allies appear to understand the documentation required by the program,
few had issues with using the OPEN software tool, and project proposals are generally
approved in a reasonable period of time.
5.4.6.5
All trade allies stated that the training they received program met their needs for
understanding the program. When asked if the training could be improved, one trade
Small Business
5-21
ally suggested implementing an online webinar or training to allow new employees to be
trained more efficiently.
Contractors were generally satisfied with the support they received from staff. Of the
three trade allies that had contacted staff with questions about the program, all found
them helpful and responsive.
5.4.6.6
Contractors were asked a series of questions about their level of satisfaction with the
program overall or specific aspects of it.
Three of the trade allies stated that they were very satisfied with the program and one
trade ally was neither particularly satisfied nor dissatisfied. The trade ally that rated the
program as neutral stated that although they thought the program was a good idea, the
lack of funding made it difficult for them to participate. They had been unable to sign
people up for the program because there was no funding available by the time
customers were ready to commit to the program.
Contractors were generally satisfied with the application process, the wait time to
receive the rebate, the range of measures, the incentive levels, and the service from
utility staff. All trade allies gave a score of seven or higher for each of these factors.
5.4.7 Conclusions
5.4.7.1



The Small Business Program design is consistent with the design of similar
programs offered in other jurisdictions. It incorporates key design characteristics
to reduce three common barriers to small business.
 The program provides relatively high incentives for small businesses that
typically have less capital for energy efficiency investments.
 The program uses high-contact, direct outreach from trade allies to reduce
typical barriers to program awareness.
 Incentive payments are paid to trade allies to reduce the initial cost to
participants.
Small businesses are defined as businesses that with less than 100 kW average
peak demand. This threshold is typical for qualifying customers for small
business programs.
The program utilizes a paperless process for completing the energy assessments
and submitting customer proposals that reduces paperwork. These submissions
can be made through the program software tool or by email. Submissions are
sent to CLEAResult’s central team in Austin. Neither program staff nor trade
allies identified any significant issues with the participation process or software.
Small Business
5-22




Contractors are also provided the option of using spreadsheet based calculators
to perform the onsite assessments and customer proposal.
Contractors receive training from CLEAResult on the program processes and use
of the program software. Interviewed trade allies provided favorable assessments
of the program training. One trade ally suggested offering online training.
Contractor descriptions of the participation process were consistent with the
program design. Interviewees appeared to understand the program process and
documentation requirements and few issues were noted with the program
software tool. Contractors also indicated that proposals approved in a reasonable
period of time.
Interviewed trade allies stated that the measures offered through the programs
met the needs of the small businesses they work with. The primary barrier to
participation identified by trade allies was the cost of measure implementation,
even with the program incentives.
All program participants were satisfied with the energy assessment and the
proposal provided by the trade ally. All but one participant was satisfied with
quality of the measure installation provided by trade allies.
5.4.7.2





Program staff recruited trade allies through internet searches, telephone
contacts, and a postcard campaign. Staff indicated that the program would
benefit if additional trade allies were recruited, particularly those that serve rural
areas of the service territory. As of October 2015, the program listed 20
participating trade allies.
The program is designed to have trade allies perform the majority of direct
customer outreach. Interviewed trade allies indicated that they were performing
direct outreach to customers and that most projects were initiated this way.
The program provides a tri-fold to help trade allies promote the program; one
interviewed trade ally recalled receiving promotional material from program staff.
This trade ally reported using the material but suggested updating with more LED
lighting examples.
While attempting to contact trade allies for interviews, the Evaluators identified
listed trade allies who did not provide services through the program.
Participants most frequently reported learning of the program from a program
representative (53%) or a trade ally (20%). It should be noted that customers
may consider trade allies promoting the program to be program representatives.
5.4.7.3

The program has sufficient verification procedures in place. The first five projects
completed by a new trade ally receive pre- and post-verification, followed by 20%
of subsequent projects.
Small Business
5-23



Projects are identified for pre- and post-inspection by central CLEAResult staff
located in Austin. Cleco program CLEAResult staff perform pre- and postinspections.
Inspection procedures include review of documentation, verification of building
type (which determines operating hours), photographs of baseline conditions and
efficient equipment, and verification that lamps installed are DesignLights
Consortium (DLC) or ENERGY STAR ® qualified.
Contractors determine that a site meets program qualifications using the program
software tool.
5.4.7.4




Customer and Contractor Satisfaction
Contractors were generally satisfied with the program including the participation
process, the wait time for payment of the incentives, measures offered, and
support from program staff. The only issue identified was the small program
budget which one trade ally indicated hindered their full engagement.
Most participants were satisfied with their experience with the program. One
respondent indicated dissatisfaction with multiple aspects of the program
experience. This respondent identified a door heater control that did not fit their
equipment properly, and was ultimately removed, was the reason for
dissatisfaction.
94% of participants stated that their participation increased their satisfaction with
Cleco.
Program staff also complete surveys of program participants and indicated that
they have received generally favorable feedback.
reporting; and
5.4.8.1

Correct the OPEN Tool calculator to account for EISA baseline wattages.
When installing screw-in LEDs and CFLs, ex ante calculations used listed
wattage (40W, 60W, 75W, and 100W) as the baseline. The baseline values need
to account for the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) baseline values
(29W, 43W, 53W, 72W), as the remaining useful life of incandescent lighting is
too short to use as the baseline for the life cycle savings of a lighting retrofit. This
was corrected by CLEAResult staff on November 4th.
Small Business
5-24


Require trade allies to enter the HVAC system configuration for all projects.
Many projects were listed as “uncertain”, when the heating and cooling system
configuration is a key driver of savings. On November 2nd 2015, CLEAResult
removed the “undetermined’ option from the OPEN Tool.
Review the listed trade allies and telephone numbers to ensure that they
are current. While scheduling interviews, two trade allies declined because they
were not active in the program in Cleco’s service territory. CLEAResult has
indicated that this is now done monthly.
5.4.8.2


Report Recommendations
Consider providing registered trade allies with a periodic email newsletter
on program updates. Regular contact with trade allies may facilitate their
ongoing engagement as well as help to keep them informed of current program
practices. CLEAResult has responded stating that a newsletter will launch in
2016.
Consider providing more diverse materials for use in recruiting participants
such as one page handouts tailored to specific small business types (e.g.,
grocery stores). These materials could identify measures that are specifically
relevant for those business types a may help encourage diversification in the
measures installed. CLEAResult has indicated that they are developing case
studies for use in 2016.
Small Business
5-25
6. Commercial & Industrial Solutions Program
6.1
Program Description
The Large Commercial & Industrial Solutions Program (LCIP) is a commercial DSM
program that provides rebates for a range of prescriptive and custom measures,
including:

Lighting;

HVAC;

Motors;

Refrigeration; and

Process improvements.
In PY1, the LCIP had savings goals of 2,491,391 kWh and 646.0 kW. Total verified
savings for the LCIP are:

3,492,474 kWh – 140.1% of goal; and

204.54 kW – 31.7% of goal.
6.2
M&V Methodology
The M&V methodology for the LCIP is the same as-described for the Small Business
Program in Section 5.2.
6.3
Impact Findings
Energy savings was estimated using proven techniques, including engineering
calculations using industry standards to determine energy savings. Table 6-1
summarizes the total participation in the PY1 LCIP.
Table 6-1 PY1 LCIP Participation Summary
# Applicants
# Projects
Expected
kWh
Expected
kW
19
34
3,496,774
196.3
Data provided by Cleco showed that during PY1, there were 24 projects by 19
applicants, which were initially expected to provide energy savings of 3,496,774 kWh.
The resulting overall sample is presented in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2 LCIP Sample Summary
# Sites in
Population
34
Large C&I Solutions
Site Visit
Sample
Size
9
# Interviews
7
6-1
Table 6-3 summarizes expected savings estimates by measure category for the LCIP.
Table 6-3 LCIP Savings by Measure Category
Measure
Category
Lighting
HVAC
Refrigeration
Insulation
Total
Lighting
kWh
Savings
3,358,696
40,106
66,912
31,060
3,496,774
3,358,696
kW Savings
177.9
1.3
12.7
4.4
196.3
177.9
6.3.1 LCIP Savings Estimates
Sampling for evaluation of Cleco’s LCIP was developed using the Stratified Random
Sampling procedure detailed in Section 2.4.2. This procedure provides 90% confidence
and ±10% precision with a significantly reduced sample than random sampling would
require, by selecting the highest saving facilities with certainty, thereby minimizing the
variance that non-sampled sites can contribute to the overall results.
6.3.1.1
Large C&I Sample Design
The participant population for the LCIP was divided into four strata. Table 6-4
summarizes the strata boundaries and sample frames for the LCIP.
Table 6-4 LCIP Sample Design
Stratum 1
Strata boundaries
(kWh)
Number of sites
Total kWh savings
Average kWh
Standard deviation
of kWh savings
Coefficient of
variation
Final sample
6.3.1.2
6
181,347
30,225
Stratum 2
50,000 –
100,000
14
1,091,328
77,952
Stratum3
100,000 –
200,000
12
1,597,629
133,136
13,857
14,967
.46
2
<50,000
Stratum 4
Totals
>200,000
2
626,470
313,235
34
3,496,774
102,846
25,376
102,670
69,925
.19
.19
.33
.68
2
3
2
10
Large C&I Site-Level Realization
Sites chosen within each stratum are visited in order to verify installation of rebated
measures and to collect data needed for calculation of ex post verified savings. The
realization rates for sites within each stratum are then applied to the non-sampled sites
within their respective stratum. Table 6-5 presents realization at the stratum level, with
Table 6-6 presenting results at the site level.
Large C&I Solutions
6-2
Table 6-5 Summary of kWh Savings for Large C&I by Sample Stratum
Stratum
Expected kWh
Savings
4
3
2
1
Realized kWh
Savings
626,470
454,913
157,474
57,988
636,156
463,866
150,640
58,616
Realization
Rate
101.5%
103.7%
95.7%
101.1%
Table 6-6 Expected and Realized Savings by Project
Project
ID(s)
City
PRJ-323429
PRJ-421647
PRJ-327840
PRJ-473126
PRJ-425727
PRJ-464794
PRJ-410522
PRJ-327822
PRJ-327867
6.3.1.3
Slidell
New Iberia
Covington
Mansura
New Iberia
Ville Platte
New Iberia
Covington
Covington
Facility Type
Manufacturing
Retail
Retail
Retail
Retail
Manufacturing
Restaurant
Office
Religious
Expected
kWh
Savings
385,834
240,636
172,204
147,077
135,632
95,976
61,498
40,106
17,892
Realized
kWh
Savings
388,500
247,656
172,204
147,076
144,586
95,975
54,665
40,106
18,510
Realization
Rate
100.7%
102.9%
100.0%
100.0%
106.6%
100.0%
88.9%
100.0%
103.5%
Large C&I Program-Level Realization
Using the realization rates presented in Table 6-5, the Evaluators extrapolated results
from sampled sites to non-sampled sites in developing program-level savings estimates.
Table 6-7 presents results by stratum.
Table 6-7 Large C&I Program-Level Realization by Stratum
Stratum
# Sites
4
3
2
1
Total
2
12
14
6
30
6.3.1.4
Expected
kWh
Savings
626,470
1,597,629
1,091,328
181,347
3,496,774
Realized
kWh
Savings
636,156
1,629,071
1,043,967
183,280
3,492,474
kWh
Realization
Rate
101.5%
102.0%
95.7%
101.1%
99.9%
Expected
kW
Savings
39.39
3.21
129.16
24.54
196.30
Realized
kW
Savings
47.01
3.21
129.16
25.16
204.54
kW
Realization
Rate
119.3%
100.0%
100.0%
102.5%
104.2%
Large C&I – Causes of Low Realization
Table 6-8 summarizes the causes of savings shortfalls for LCIP projects with low
realization.
Large C&I Solutions
6-3
Table 6-8 Large C&I – Causes of Low Realization
Project ID(s)
PRJ-410522
6.4
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
61,498
54,665
Realization
Rate
88.9%
Causes of Low Realization
This project is a lighting retrofit at a restaurant
facility. Two 223W LEDs could not be verified onsite.
Process Findings
This chapter presents the results of the process evaluation of the LCIP. The process
evaluation focuses on aspects of program policies and organization, as well as the
program delivery framework.
The process of evaluation of the C&I Program included the following data collection
activities:
Table 6-9 Large Commercial & Industrial Solutions Process Evaluation –
Summary of Data Collection
Activity
Sample Size
Cleco Staff
2
CLEAResult Staff
2
Participant Survey
7
4
The C&I Program provides financial incentives and technical services to encourage
nonresidential customers with greater than 100 kW peak demand to implement energy
saving measures. The C&I Program is designed to help this customer segment
overcome barriers to energy improvement, such as higher first-cost of efficiency
equipment and a lack of technical knowledge or resources.
In addition to encouraging the adoption of energy efficiency measures, the program also
intends to transform the energy efficiency market in Cleco’s service area through
training, education, and program implementation.
The program offers incentives for efficiency measures as well as technical assistance to
help customer identify and develop energy efficiency projects.
Large C&I Solutions
6-4
Industrial customers with combined aggregate demand of 5,000 kW or more with 200
kW of peak load in Cleco’s service area are eligible to opt out from Quick Start Energy
Efficiency programs19.
Financial incentives are based on expected savings for the measure implemented and
vary by end–use. The targeted incentive amounts for different end-uses are
summarized in Table 6-10.
Table 6-10 Incentive Amount by End-Use for the C&I Program
End-Use
Incentive Amount
Lighting
HVAC, Refrigeration, ENERGY STAR Appliances
and Cooking Equipment
Air compressors and other custom projects
$0.10 / kWh Saved
$0.15 / kWh saved
$0.08 / kWh saved
The incentive amounts may be based on one of three calculation methodologies
described below.



Deemed or Stipulated Savings: This approach is the most typical and utilized for
projects for which savings can be reasonably estimated using previously
collected data on operating hours and energy consumption of pre-existing
equipment. This approach does not require the participant to perform any
measurement and verification (M&V) activities.
Simplified Measurement and Verification: This approach is for projects which
require short-term metering and utilizes this data in simple engineering
calculations to estimate energy savings. Participants are required to submit an
M&V plan before beginning the project.
Full Measurement and Verification: Projects requiring full M&V estimate savings
utilizing procedures based on the International Performance Measurement and
Verification Protocol and may utilize metering, statistical analysis of billing data,
or energy modeling. Participants are required to submit an M&V plan before
beginning the project.
6.4.3.1
Data Quality Review
CLEAResult. The following issues were noted:

Application date was missing for 8% of projects.

Premise ID was missing for 20% of projects.
19 Louisiana Public Service Commission General Order (R-31106) Section VIII
Large C&I Solutions
6-5

Building types did not conform to Arkansas TRM building types.
The Evaluators recommend that the following field be added to the report:

Account number
6.4.3.2
Figure 6-1 displays the share of savings for each of the 34 projects completed during
the program year. Overall, program savings were spread across a large number of
projects with no single project accounting for a very large share of program savings.
Figure 6-1 Project Share of Expected kWh Savings
Figure 6-2 displays the share of expected kWh savings by building type. As shown,
retail and car dealership projects accounted for most program savings.
Large C&I Solutions
6-6
Figure 6-3 Percent of Program Savings by Parish
The following sections describe program design, operations, and activities, and were
Large C&I Solutions
6-7
6.4.3.3
Program Design, Operations, and Activities
6.4.3.4
Program Objectives
The primary program objective is to assist non-residential customers in achieving
electric energy savings and peak demand reductions through provision of technical
support and financial incentives. The savings goal for the first year of program
operations was 2,491,391 kWh. The peak demand reduction goal was 646.00 kW. To
meet the energy saving and peak demand reduction goals, the program has ancillary
objectives to mitigate barriers to energy efficiency such as lack of knowledge of energy
efficient technologies and lack of awareness of energy saving opportunities in facilities.
Additionally, through the incentives and services provided, the program intends to
transform the market for energy efficiency in the targeted sector.
The program met its energy saving goal during its first year of operations.
6.4.3.5
The first step in the participation process is to submit a signed Letter of Intent (LOI). The
LOI states that through the program, the participating customer may receive technical
assistance to identify energy saving opportunities and that the program will pay a
financial incentive for the reduction usage resulting from the implementation of an
eligible energy efficiency measure. The letter states that the customer must return the
letter and a project application to reserve incentive funds. It also states that the
participant agrees to allow the program to use the participant’s name to promote the
program with other customers. The LOI is a non-binding agreement.
Customers may request that CLEAResult staff complete a facility walk-through to
identify energy saving opportunities at the customer’s location. This assessment may be
targeted towards a specific project (e.g., a lighting retrofit) or may be a full facility
assessment. At the completion of the assessment, program staff write a scope-of-work
for the project to provide to the customer that includes energy saving and financial
metrics. Staff reported that these assessments have been useful for initiating projects.
Once a project is identified through an assessment performed by CLEAResult, by the
customer, or by a trade ally hired by the customer, the participant submits a program
application. Program staff reviews the application and complete a pre-installation
inspection. The customer then has 90 days to complete lighting projects or 120 for other
end-uses upon approval of the application. Once the project is completed, the customer
submits the notice of completion along with supporting documentation such as
specification sheets, facility drawings, and invoicing or purchase orders. CLEAResult
then reviews documentation and completes a post-installation inspection. Once
Large C&I Solutions
6-8
approved, incentive payment is made to the customer or another party designated by
the customer.
6.4.3.6







Perform onsite pre- and post-installation inspections and other quality control and
quality assurance activities;
Verifying customer eligibility;
Contractor education and outreach;
Customer education and identification of projects;
Review and approval of proposed projects;
Payment of incentives; and
CLEAResult staffs the program with two program consultants, an energy engineer, and
a program coordinator. These staff members also provide support to the Small Business
Program.
6.4.3.7
Multiple outreach strategies are used to promote the program. Staff indicated that they
are engaging in upstream outreach to trade allies and distributors to help them market
the program to their customers. Another key aspect of the marketing is working with
Cleco key account managers, each of whom has approximately two dozen accounts.
Program staff is working with the key account managers to directly promote the program
to their customers. The program website is also identified as a marketing channel for
the program.
CLEAResult staff reported that they have also engaged in a number of outreach
activities such as staff attendance at a municipal association meeting.
6.4.3.8
The higher first-cost of efficient equipment is a key barrier identified by staff. The
program incentives, as well as information provided by staff on the comparative lifecycle costs of efficient equipment, help to mitigate this barrier. LED lamps were cited as
an example of a technology that has a higher first-cost, but because of the
comparatively longer useful life of the equipment and the lower energy use, can
outperform standard-efficiency equipment in terms of life-cycle costs.
A “value engineering” approach to new construction can also create a barrier to energy
efficiency. Through value engineering, construction projects focus on lowest first-cost
rather than longer term operational costs in order to keep the project within budget. The
Large C&I Solutions
6-9
technical expertise provided by program staff can prevent this process from decreasing
the efficiency of the project by refocusing attention on longer term operation costs.
Some customers may also lack the knowledge to identify energy saving opportunities
and to perform a financial evaluation of projects. The technical assistance provided
through the program is intended to assist customers with these knowledge gaps.
6.4.3.9
Quality control procedures are similar to those described for the Small Business
Program in Section 5.4.4.5.
Participants in the Large C&I Program were surveyed to provide insight into the
participants experience with the program. A total of seven program participants
responded to the survey. 71% of respondents were managers or directors and 29%
were facility managers.
All respondents reported being billed directly for their electricity use.
Figure 6-4 summarizes the business types surveyed and compares this share to the
population of Cleco Large Commercial & Industrial Solutions participants. The sample
represented 44.2% of savings in the PY1 LCIP.
Figure 6-4 Comparison of Survey Sample and Population Firmographics
Of facilities surveyed, 86% were of a company with several other locations, and 14%
were of a company’s sole location. 57% or respondents indicated that the business
Large C&I Solutions
6-10
owned and occupied the facility of interest, while 14% rented, and 14% owned and
rented to someone else).
6.4.4.1
Preferred Outreach and Sources of Awareness
Program participants learned about the program incentives from a variety of sources,
including an internet search (57%), a trade ally (29%), a program representative (14%),
a bill insert (14%), or through social media (14%).
Table 6-11 How Participants Learned of the Program
How did you learn about the utility's program incentives for efficient
equipment or upgrades?
Through an internet search (e.g., Google)
Contractor
Program representative
Bill insert
Social media post (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Flickr)
Percent of
Respondents
(n = 7)
57%
29%
14%
14%
14%
29% of respondents think that email is the best way to reach companies like them.
Other outreach methods identified by respondents included visits from trade allies or
program staff, direct, mail, a program website, and an equipment vendor.
Table 6-12 Best Forms of Outreach
What are the best ways to reach companies like yours with information
about incentives for energy savings opportunities?
6.4.4.2
Percent of
Respondents (n = 7)
Email
29%
Visits from trade allies or program staff
14%
Direct mail
14%
Website
14%
Vendor
14%
Respondents reported that multiple factors influenced their decision to participate in the
program. It is noteworthy that almost all respondents thought participation in the
program was very easy (86%). Other important factors influencing their decision to
participate in the program included saving money on energy bills (100%), saving energy
(100%), protecting the environment (86%), and the financial incentive (71%)..
Large C&I Solutions
6-11
Table 6-13 Reasons for Participating in the Program
Which of the following factors helped you decide to participate in the
program?
Percent of
Respondents (n = 7)
100%
Saving energy
100%
Protecting the environment
86%
Participation was very easy
86%
Recommendation from a trade ally
71%
Financial incentive
71%
Recommendation from program staff
43%
Replacing broken equipment
29%
Recommendation from vendor
14%
Other
14%
Two respondents stated that a program representative recommended the equipment
that was installed through the program. Of those, one indicated that they probably would
have installed the equipment without the recommendation from the program
representative, while the other stated that they probably would not have.
Table 6-14 Likelihood of Installation without the Recommendation
If the program representative had not recommended the measure, how
likely is it that you would have installed it anyway?
Percent of
Respondents (n = 2)
0%
50%
50%
0%
All respondents indicated that they either probably would have (86%) or definitely would
have (14%) installed similar equipment without a program rebate.
Table 6-15 Likelihood of Installation without Financial Incentive
If the financial incentive or discount from the program had not been
available, how likely is it that you would have installed the measure?
Percent of
Respondents
(n = 7)
14%
86%
0%
0%
All respondents said participating in the program was an easy decision and that they
had no initial concerns.
Large C&I Solutions
6-12
6.4.4.3
Project Implementation
The most common persons who worked on completing the program application included
the survey respondent (86%), another member of the company (71%), or a trade ally
(50%).
Table 6-16 People who Worked on Completing Program Application
Which of the following people worked on completing your application for
program incentives (including gathering required documentation)?
Percent of
Respondents (n = 7)
Yourself
86%
Another member of your company
71%
A trade ally
43%
An equipment vendor
43%
A designer or architect
29%
Someone else
14%
60% of respondents thought the program provided clear information on how to complete
the application and no respondents thought that the information was unclear.
The majority of respondents (83%) had a clear sense of whom to go to for assistance
with the application process. Lastly, 71% of surveyed thought the financial incentive
they received was about the amount expected, while 14% thought it was much less, and
14% did not know.
73% of respondents had a clear sense of whom to go to for assistance with the program
application process, while 9% did not, and 18% did not know.
6.4.4.4
Figure 6-5 displays participant satisfaction ratings. Most participants were satisfied with
each element of the program and none reported dissatisfaction with the program overall
or any element of it.
Large C&I Solutions
6-13
Figure 6-5 Large C&I Participant Satisfaction
71% of surveyed said participating in the program increased their satisfaction with
Cleco, while 29% reported no change in satisfaction.
Table 6-17 Effect of Program Participation on Satisfaction with Cleco
Effect of participation in the Utility's Program
Percent of
Respondents (n = 7)
29%
42%
29%
0%
0%
6.4.5 Participating Contractor Interview Results
Five attempts were made to contact trade allies that completed projects through the
Cleco program. In total, four trade allies responded to the survey. Three of four trade
allies interviewed worked for businesses that provided general contracting services, and
one worked for a business that specialized in LED lighting and solar power. All trade
allies stated that their business did not specialize in providing services to any specific
business type.
Large C&I Solutions
6-14
6.4.5.1
The most common way that trade allies reported learning about the C&I Program was
through being contacted by CLEAResult (50%). One trade ally stated that they found
out about the program through a business partner, and one trade ally was unsure how
their business found out about the program.
Contractors listed a variety of factors that influenced their decision to participate in the
program. These reasons included:



Previous experience working with Cleco;
The opportunity the program provided to help customers afford projects; and
Cleco’s encouragement to participate.
6.4.5.2
Contractor Feedback - Customer Awareness and Program Marketing
When asked whether their company or the customer typically first brings up the program
when initiating projects, three trade allies stated that their company generally
approaches customers about the program, with 20% or less of potential customers
approaching them about the program. One trade ally did not know. Similarly, all four
trade allies reported that most of the customers they had spoken with about the
program were not aware of the program.
Two trade allies reported actively promoting the program beyond one-on-one
interactions with potential customers. One trade ally reported marketing it using direct
mail, staffing information booths at events, and providing a link to the program website
on their firm’s website. One trade ally stated that they were unsure what marketing
efforts their company participated in.
Although only two respondents reported marketing the program, 75% of respondents
reported that they had received guidelines on how to use Cleco’s name on any
marketing materials, and three-quarters of these respondents stated that the guidelines
were clear, with one respondent stating that they were unsure as to whether or not they
had received such guidelines.
One trade ally reported that they had received marketing materials to promote the
program. This trade ally reported using the materials “almost every day”, and was happy
with the materials. One trade ally stated they had not yet received materials, but they
were expected to receive them soon.
When asked if there was anything the program could do to help them promote the
program more effectively, three trade allies stated that they could not think of anything
that could be improved. One trade ally suggested extending the program for a longer
time period during the year.
Large C&I Solutions
6-15
When asked if they were aware of marketing efforts by Cleco directed at customers,
three trade allies were not aware of any marketing efforts and one stated that they send
out some information with their bills and newsletters.
6.4.5.3
Contractor Feedback - Customer Awareness and Barriers to Participation
Half of the interviewed trade allies stated that the main concern potential customers
raised about program were that they had not heard of the program before, and were
skeptical of the offer. However, both trade allies stated that once they explained the
program to the potential customers, they had no further problems. The other two trade
allies stated that they had not had any issues brought up.
The main reason trade allies reported that customers do not follow through with a
project is because the incentive does not cover enough of the costs for them to
participate.
All of the surveyed trade allies stated that they thought the measures offered through
the program met their large business customer’s needs. Three trade allies stated that
there were no program requirements that prevented certain types of businesses from
participating.
When asked about the financial incentives, one trade ally stated that the financial
incentives were sufficient, another trade ally stated that the funding caps were too low,
and two trade allies stated that the financial incentives were too small for large
businesses.
6.4.5.4
Contractors provided responses to a series of questions about the participation process.
The key documentation that trade allies collected was a copy of the business’s energy
bill, sales slips, and photographs of the existing equipment.
Half of trade allies stated that they fill out the application forms for customers, and the
other half stated that the customer filled out the application form.
When asked if they had any recommendations on how to improve the application
process, three trade allies did not have any suggestions, and one did not know.
6.4.5.5
Half of the trade allies reported they had attended program provided trainings. Both
trade allies stated that the trainings were comprehensive. One trade ally recommended
expanding the days that trainings are offered, stating that he had trouble making time on
the weekend to attend.
Two trade allies reported receiving written documents that explained the program
procedures and requirements. Both trade allies stated that the materials met their needs
for understanding the program, and had no suggestions for improving them.
Large C&I Solutions
6-16
6.4.5.6
Contractor Feedback - Program Influence on Business
Three trade allies stated that they had made changes to the products or services they
offer as a result of Cleco’s program. One trade ally reported that they have expanded
their operations because of the program, and two trade allies stated that they made
smaller changes.
Two trade allies reported increasing staffing as a result of the program.
6.4.5.7
Contractors were asked a series of questions rating various aspects of the program
using a 0-10 scale, where 0 meant “very dissatisfied”, and 10 meant “very satisfied”. As
shown in Figure 6-6, trade allies generally rated the overall program highly, rating it at
an eight or above on most factors.
Figure 6-6 Large C&I Contractor Program Satisfaction
The incentive level was scored lower than other program elements, with one trade ally
rating it at a five. When asked why they rated this element low, the trade ally responded
that they would “like to see more savings with (the) bigger customer(s)” and that “low
caps do not give any incentive to upgrade (equipment)”. This trade ally suggested
basing the caps on reduction of watts for larger companies, allowing for large
companies to apply for incentives to install more energy efficiency equipment.
The wait time to receive the rebate was rated somewhat lower as other elements, with
three of four trade allies rating it at a “seven.” One trade ally explained that the wait time
was “usually good”, and “most of the time a ‘nine’.” However, the trade ally indicated
that the wait time was longer on a few projects.
Large C&I Solutions
6-17
All trade allies were satisfied with the range of measures offered though the program
and the service from utility staff. Although service from utility staff was generally rated
highly, two trade allies had limited contact with program staff and could not answer.
The application process was rated highly, with only one trade ally rating it below an
“eight.” This trade ally stated that although the communication is “open”, and generally
works, lately they have had delays with starting projects due to issues with CLEAResult
staff being unavailable.
6.4.6
6.4.6.1






Incentives are based on energy savings. The program appropriately offers higher
incentives for non-lighting measures of $0.15 per kWh that typically have longer
payback periods. Lighting incentives are $0.10 kWh.
Two of the four interviewed trade allies reported that they complete application
materials for customers and supply required documentation. None of the trade
allies identified any suggestions for improving the program application process.
None of the survey respondents reported that the application process was
unclear and the majority (83%) indicated that it was clear who they should
contact for additional assistance.
No customers reported dissatisfaction with the steps required to participate in the
program or the range of equipment that qualifies for the program. All participants
were satisfied with the project support received from program staff and staff’s
response to their questions and concerns.
Most participants (71%) reported that the incentive amount was what they
expected and all who knew how long it took to receive the incentive indicated that
they had received it in 6 weeks or less.
6.4.6.2

Conclusions
Overall the program uses a broad outreach strategy that is consistent with
outreach approaches used in other programs targeting business customers. The
strategies identified by program staff include:
o Upstream outreach to distributors and installers;
o Working with Cleco key account representatives;
o Materials provided on the program website; and
o Community outreach and speaking events such as presentations to
business associations.
Facility assessments provided by program staff are another key outreach
approach. These assessments vary in scope depending on the customer’s needs
or interests. They may be focused on a specific retrofit or identify multiple
opportunities at the customer’s facility. Staff reports that these assessments have
Large C&I Solutions
6-18




initiated multiple program incentive projects. Additionally staff indicated that they
not had any customers decline an assessment and that following up with
customers after the completion of the assessment is standard procedure.
Staff identified trade ally engagement as another important component of the
program’s outreach strategy. Program staff identified the geographically
distributed service territory as a barrier to recruiting trade allies. Some trade allies
prefer to work in a single region of the state with greater density of potential
customers.
Interviewed trade allies reported promoting the program incentives through direct
customer outreach. Additionally, two of the four interviewed trade allies reported
using other mass-marketing methods including mailers, staffing information
booths at events, and linking the program website to their business’ website.
57% of participants reported that they learned of the program from a trade ally or
vendor.
Three of the four trade allies reported receiving guidance on the use of Cleco’s
name or the program name in their marketing materials and that this guidance
was clear.
6.4.6.3

These include pre- and post-installation site visits for all projects, engineering
review of all projects, and a review of all projects by at least two staff members.
6.4.6.4




Contractor and Participant Satisfaction
Interviewed trade allies were satisfied with the program overall. Although none
reported dissatisfaction with any element of the program, satisfaction ratings
were lowest for the time required to receive the rebate.
A few issues were noted in regards to responsiveness of program staff, such as
longer than anticipated wait times to receive the rebate and program staff being
unavailable. However, overall, interviewed trade allies indicated receiving
sufficient support from program staff. All participants who contacted program staff
with questions or received project support from program staff were satisfied with
those interactions.
Participants were satisfied with their experience with the program overall. No
participants reported dissatisfaction with any aspect of the program.
72% of participants indicated that their experience with the program increased
their satisfaction with Cleco.
Large C&I Solutions
6-19
reporting; and
6.4.7.1




The clarify measure incentives listed in program manual. It is not clear how
HVAC/non-lighting measures differ from custom measures and consequently
what the appropriate incentive amounts are. The program manual was
subsequently modified.
Remove references to Texas TRM in the program manual. The program
manual provides a link to the Texas TRM for project eligibility, documentation
requirements, and project protocols although elsewhere in the document it states
that energy savings will be calculated based on the Arkansas TRM. The program
manual was subsequently modified.
Correct the OPEN Tool calculator to account for EISA baseline wattages.
When installing screw-in LEDs and CFLs, ex ante calculations used listed
wattage (40W, 60W, 75W, and 100W) as the baseline. The baseline values need
to account for the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) baseline values
(29W, 43W, 53W, 72W), as the remaining useful life of incandescent lighting is
too short to use as the baseline for the life cycle savings of a lighting retrofit. This
was corrected by CLEAResult staff on November 4th.
Require trade allies to enter the HVAC system configuration for all projects.
Many projects were listed as “uncertain”, when the heating and cooling system
configuration is a key driver of savings. On November 2nd 2015, CLEAResult
removed the “undetermined’ option from the OPEN Tool.
Large C&I Solutions
6-20
7. SCORE/CitySmart
7.1
Program Description
The SCORE/CitySmart Program (CitySmart) provides financial incentives, technical
services, and communications support to encourage governments, K-12 schools, and
universities to implement energy saving measures. The CitySmart Program is designed
to help this customer segment overcome barriers to energy improvement, such as
conflicting organizational goals, outdated specifications, limited technical knowledge,
and counterproductive energy budgeting.
intends to transform the energy efficiency market in Cleco’s service territory through
The program offers incentives for efficiency measures as well as enhanced technical
assistance which includes:

Technical and design assistance to help identify energy savings opportunities.
This support includes energy performance benchmarking, master planning
services, and assistance with identifying specific projects.

Support for securing cash incentives and financing to underwrite project costs.

Project management support to ensure project completion.
In PY1, the LCIP had savings goals of 1,466,008 kWh and 321.0 kW. Total verified
savings for the LCIP are:
7.2

716,535 kWh – 48.9% of goal; and

151.92 kW – 47.3% of goal.
M&V Methodology
Participation in the CitySmart program was very limited, and over 90% of program
savings were completed within the last month of the program year. This provided a very
limited timeframe to complete impact evaluation of CitySmart projects. Due to this, the
Evaluators applied realization rates from the Large Commercial & Industrial Program to
the CitySmart program, as projects and savings calculation methodologies are aligned
for both programs.
7.3
Impact Findings
Table 7-1 summarizes the total participation in the PY1 CitySmart Program.
Score/CitySmart
7-1
Table 7-1 PY1 CitySmart Participation Summary
# Applicants
# Projects
3
8
Expected
Expected
kWh
kW
716,535
145.80
Data provided by Cleco showed that during PY1, there were eight projects by three
applicants, which were initially expected to provide energy savings of 716,535 kWh.
100% of program savings in PY1 were from lighting retrofits.
7.3.1 CitySmart Savings Estimates
As indicated in the Large C&I Solutions impact evaluation chapter, realization for was:

kWh: 99.9%

kW: 104.2%
These realization rates were applied to CitySmart projects. Table 7-2 presents the
resulting savings.
Table 7-2 CitySmart Program-Level Realization
# Sites
8
7.4
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
716,535
715,818
kWh
Realization
Rate
99.9%
Expected
kW
Savings
145.80
Realized
kW
Savings
151.92
kW
Realization
Rate
104.2%
Process Findings
This chapter presents the results of the process evaluation of the SCORE/CitySmart
The process of evaluation of the CitySmart Program included the following data
collection activities:

involved in the administration of the CitySmart Program. These interviews were
to collect information from program staff as to any changes or developments, as
well as response to program recommendations.
Appendix A: Cost-Benefit Testing
A-7-2

CLEAResult, who implements the program. These interviews were to collect
information on implementation activities and clarify questions about program
design or processes.
The CitySmart Program provides financial incentives, technical services, and
communications support to encourage governments, K-12 schools, and universities to
implement energy saving measures. The CitySmart Program is designed to help this
customer segment overcome barriers to energy improvement, such as conflicting
organizational goals, outdated specifications, limited technical knowledge, and
counterproductive energy budgeting.
intends to transform the energy efficiency market in Cleco’s service territory through
The program offers incentives for efficiency measures as well as enhanced technical
assistance which includes:

Technical and design assistance to help identify energy savings opportunities.
This support includes energy performance benchmarking, master planning
services, and assistance with identifying specific projects.

Support for securing cash incentives and financing to underwrite project costs.
Project management support to ensure project completion.
Financial incentives are based on expected savings for the measure implemented and
vary by end–use. The targeted incentive amounts for different end-uses are
summarized in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3 Incentive Amount by End-Use for the CitySmart Program
End-Use
Incentive Amount
Lighting
HVAC / Non-lighting
Custom
$0.10 / kWh Saved
$0.15 / kWh saved
$0.08 / kWh saved
The incentive amounts may be based on one of three calculation methodologies
described below.

Deemed or Stipulated Savings: This approach is the most typical and utilized for
projects for which savings can be reasonably estimated using previously
collected data on operating hours and energy consumption of pre-existing
A-7-3


equipment. This approach does not require the participant to perform any
measurement and verification (M&V) activities.
Simplified Measurement and Verification: This approach is for projects which
require short-term metering and utilizes this data in simple engineering
calculations to estimate energy savings. Participants are required to submit an
M&V plan before beginning the project.
Full Measurement and Verification: Projects requiring full M&V estimate savings
utilizing procedures based on the International Performance Measurement and
Verification Protocol and may utilize metering, statistical analysis of billing data,
or energy modeling. Participants are required to submit an M&V plan before
beginning the project.
7.4.3 Methodology
7.4.3.1
Materials Reviewed
The Evaluators reviewed materials provide by program staff. These materials included
the program manual, an example press release developed for a program participant,
program marketing materials and website, and the memorandum of understanding that
participants sign that indicates acceptance of the terms of participation.
7.4.3.2
Interviews were completed with the CLEAResult Senior Program Consultant and
Cleco’s Manager of Resource Planning. The interviews provided information on
program operations and covered the following topics:





7.4.3.3
Participant Survey
Program tracking data indicated that only one incentive project was completed when
participant surveys were administered (October 2015). The participant did not
respondent to the survey request.
7.4.3.4
Interviews with Participating Contractors
Interviews were completed with four program trade allies that completed projects
through the program. The interviews covered the following topics:



Motivations for participating;
Program marketing;
The participation process;
A-7-4


Program impacts on trade ally’s business; and
Participant satisfaction.
7.4.4.1
Data Quality Review
CLEAResult. The following issues were noted:

Application date was missing for 8% of projects.

Premise ID was missing for 20% of projects.

Building types did not conform to Arkansas TRM building types.
The Evaluators recommend that the following field be added to the report:

7.4.4.2
Account number
All of the projects completed by CitySmart Program participants involved the installation
of lighting measures.
Figure 7-1 displays the share of savings for each of the 8 projects completed during the
program year. As shown, the two largest projects accounted for nearly 50% of the
expected kWh savings.
Figure 7-1 Project Share of Expected kWh Savings
A-7-5
The program generated 716,535 kWh in expected energy savings, all of which came
from lighting projects.
Figure 7-2 displays the share of expected kWh savings by building type.
7.4.4.3
Program Design, Operations, and Activities
7.4.4.4
Program Objectives
The primary program objective is to assist governments, K-12 schools, and universities
in achieving electric energy savings and peak demand reductions through provision of
technical support, communications support, and financial incentives. The savings goal
for the first year of program operations was 1,466,008 kWh. The peak demand
reduction goal was 321 kW. To meet the energy saving and peak demand reduction
goals, the program has ancillary objectives to mitigate barriers to energy efficiency such
as lack of knowledge of energy efficient technologies and lack of awareness of energy
saving opportunities in facilities. Additionally, through the incentives and services
provided, the program intends to transform the market for energy efficiency in the
targeted sector.
During its first year of operation, the program did not meet its energy saving goal. Staff
noted that the public sector entities served by the program tend to have relatively slow
planning and procurement processes that created challenges for moving energy saving
projects to completion during the first year. Staff also noted an instance where a
A-7-6
customer had four or five projects planned, but these stalled when a key staff member
left the organization. Program staff is attempting to re-engage this client through the
master planning process to move the project through to completion.
Staff indicated that there was significant interest in the technical services provided
among eligible customers. During the course of the year, staff completed benchmarking
studies and master planning workshops.
However, staff also noted that some customers were not interested due to budget
limitations or previous negative experiences with energy efficiency projects. Additionally,
completing projects in schools can also be a challenge because they are most receptive
to completing efficiency projects during the summer months.
7.4.4.5
Interested Cleco customers contact program staff for assistance in identifying qualifying
energy efficiency projects. CLEAResult staff may provide one of several types of
technical assistance, as described below.




Project Identification: CLEAResult staff provides focused assistance to
customers to identify energy saving projects at their facility.
Energy Performance Benchmarking: Benchmarking services help participants
assess the energy performance of buildings they are responsible for. Staff noted
that this service is helpful to get customers to pay attention to needs for energy
efficiency and to prioritize projects. The program utilizes the U.S. EPA’s
ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager Tool for benchmarking.
Energy Master Planning: The master planning process is intended to help
shape the policies and procedures of participating organizations to more
effectively facilitate energy efficiency projects. The process is typically
implemented as a follow-up to an energy benchmarking study and serves to
translate those results into actionable steps for implementing energy saving
projects. The plan is developed during a workshop with multiple stakeholders
from the organization, during which projects are prioritized, implementation steps
are outlined, and a funding strategy is developed.
Communications and Program Support: Staff provides assistance to
participants in developing press releases and other communications to promote
the energy efficiency achievements made by their governments, schools, and
universities. The Evaluators reviewed one press release that promoted St.
Tammany Parish Government’s signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with
the program. The press lease identified the steps the parish will take to improve
the energy efficiency of its operations and noted that participation will reduce
operation costs and save taxpayer dollars.
A-7-7
Customers interested in receiving these technical services sign a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the program. The MOU outlines the program commitments
for providing energy analysis and other services to assist the customer. The customer
agreements are also stated in the MOU and commit the customer to making a best
effort to adhering to milestones set for the program process, providing a contact person,
providing information needed for the program to provide technical assistance, providing
project details needed to process incentives, and promoting the program to other public
entities. Additionally, the MOU states that the participant allows the program to use its
name to promote the program.
Once an energy efficiency project is identified, the participant submits an application for
preapproval and to reserve incentive funds. CLEAResult staff reviews the submitted
materials and performs a pre-installation inspection of the facility. Upon approval, the
customer implements the project. After completing the implementation, the customer
submits a notice of completion to program staff. CLEAResult staff then complete a postinstallation inspection and review of program documentation. Once approved, incentive
payment is made to the customer or to another party designated by the customer.
7.4.4.6






Conducting outreach to potential program customers;
Approving customer eligibility;
Providing technical assistance and recommending energy efficiency measures;
Performing onsite pre- and post-installation inspection;
Quality control and calculating energy savings for all projects; and
Reviewing submitted application forms and documentation.
CLEAResult staffs the program with a senior program consultant. The program is
supported by a program coordinator who supports all of the Cleco efficiency programs
and overseen by a program manager.
7.4.4.7
Multiple outreach strategies are used to promote the program. Staff indicated that they
are engaging in upstream outreach to trade allies and distributors to help them market
the program to their customers. Another key aspect of the marketing is working with
Cleco key account managers, each of whom has approximately two dozen accounts.
Program staff is working with the key account managers to directly promote the program
to their customers. The program website is also identified as a marketing channel for
the program.
A-7-8
Program staff reported that they have also engaged in a number of outreach activities
such as speaking at city council meetings and school board meetings. Additionally, staff
attended municipal association meetings.
The communications support provided to participants is another strategy for promoting
the program. As part of the MOU, participants agree to allow the program to use the
participant name to promote the program. A press release developed for St. Tammany
Parish identified the incentives and services available to public sector customers and to
commercial and industrial businesses.
7.4.4.8
The public sector entities targeted by the SCORE/CitySmart Program face additional
barriers to energy efficiency not present in the private sector. The literature on public
sector decision-making and procurement of energy efficient equipment identifies a
number of barriers to purchasing and installing energy efficient equipment. These
barriers include a lack of consideration of energy costs when making purchasing
decisions, least-cost purchasing rules that prevent the purchase of higher cost energy
efficient equipment, the perception that high efficiency equipment is a luxury item, risk
aversion generated by low-cost purchasing requirements and transparency of decision
making, and a lack of technical expertise.20
CLEAResult staff also identified the procurement process as a challenge to the
completion of energy-efficiency projects in the public sector. Staff noted the language in
bid requests need to focus on achieving the best value for the project rather than leastcost requirements. CLEAResult staff has worked with customers to develop bid request
language and provided expertise to develop bid specifications. Another bidding strategy
that program staff promotes is to construct bids so that the project is larger in scale but
requires bidders to honor the bid price for up to one year. This strategy attracts a larger
number of bidders, which increases the likelihood of getting lower cost bids, and also
20 Barnes, P. and Wisniewski, E. J. (2000). Making it happen: Incorporating energy efficiency into
government purchasing. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Summer Study Proceedings.
Harris, J., Brown, M., Deakin, J., Jurovics, S. Khan, A., et al. (2004). Energy-efficient purchasing by state
and local government: Triggering a landslide down the slippery slope to market transformation. American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Summer Study Proceedings.
Kunkle, R., Lutzenhizer, L. and Dethman, L. (2000). Influencing the purchase of energy-efficient products
in public organizations: It’s not as easy it looks. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
Summer Study Proceedings.
Rose, A., Stimmel, J., Oyhenart, J., and Ahrens, A. (2008). Breaking down silos: Bridging the
communications and knowledge gap between departments to implement energy efficiency in the public
sector. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Summer Study Proceedings.
A-7-9
allows the costs to be spread over a longer period of time without requiring multiple bid
processes.
A “value engineering” approach to new construction can also create a barrier to energy
efficiency. Through value engineering, construction projects focus on lowest first cost
rather than longer term operational costs in order to keep the project within budget. The
technical expertise provided by program staff can prevent this process from decreasing
the efficiency of the project by refocusing attention on operation costs.
Similarly, the higher first-cost of efficient replacement equipment may also prevent the
installation of efficient equipment. The program incentives, as well as information on the
comparative life cycle costs of efficient equipment, help to mitigate this barrier. LED
lamps were cited as an example of a technology that has a higher first-cost, but
because of the comparatively longer useful life of the equipment and the lower energy
use, can outperform standard efficiency equipment in life-cycle costs.
Another barrier present in public sector organizations is a lack of technical expertise to
identify the best energy saving opportunities. The benchmarking services address this
barrier by helping participants identify buildings that present the greatest opportunities
for energy cost reductions. The benchmarking process is followed with master planning
services that enable public sector entities to develop actionable projects and develop
funding strategies.
7.4.4.9
Quality control procedures for the CitySmart program are the same as described for the
Large C&I Solutions Program in Section 6.4.3.9.
7.4.4.10 Contractor Recruitment and Management
Staff noted that trade ally recruitment has been challenging because the service territory
covers a large area and is non-contiguous. Contractors are more interested in focusing
on areas of the state where there is greater density of prospects. However, staff noted
that the number of trade allies is increasing.
Staff works one-on-one with trade allies to ensure that they are providing the
appropriate materials and that that their energy estimates are accurate. Staff noted that
they inform trade allies that all projects are subject to third party review.
7.4.5 Conclusions
7.4.5.1

The program provides incentives and services to municipalities, schools, and
universities to reduce energy use in these facilities. The services are designed to
meet the specific needs of public sector entities and include technical assistance
A-7-10




7.4.5.2

7.4.5.3

for projects, communications support, energy performance benchmarking, and
energy master planning. The services are well designed to mitigate barriers to
energy efficiency in the public sector.
The program did not achieve its energy saving goals. Not reaching the goal was
likely a result of the slower planning and procurement processes in the public
sector as well as other common challenges to completing projects in the public
sector. Additionally, the program intervention strategy may be more effective at
generating energy saving projects in subsequent years than in the first year. The
program provides a variety of technical assistance and planning services to
assist customer with identifying and developing plans to implement efficiency
projects. These services are likely necessary in many cases, but time is required
to complete the process to the point where a customer is ready to implement a
project.
Staff identified support of the public sector entitles through the procurement
process as key to assisting public sector entities with the adoption of energy
efficient equipment and services
Energy benchmarking services and master planning assist public sector
organizations in prioritizing projects and developing actionable plans. These
services were delivered to participants during the program year.
Staff assisted St. Tammany Parish in developing a press release that explained
the services the Parish was receiving to help it reduce its energy use.
Overall the program uses a broad outreach strategy that includes best practice
approaches to customer engagement. The strategies identified by program staff
include:
 Upstream outreach to distributors and installers;
 Working with Cleco key account representatives to promote the program
directly to customers;
 Materials provided on the program website; and
 Community outreach and speaking events such as attendance at
municipal association meetings, city council meetings, and school board
meetings.
These include pre-installation and post-installation site visits for all projects,
engineering review of all projects, and a review of all projects by at least two staff
members.
A-7-11
The Evaluators’ recommendations for the SCORE/CitySmart are as
follows:



Continue direct outreach to public sector customers. Through evaluation
work in other jurisdictions, public sector entities tend to be more skeptical of
services promoted by trade allies and vendors. Direct outreach by program staff
will likely be more effective at developing projects than a model reliant on trade
ally promotion. Additionally, as awareness of the program becomes greater,
public sector customers may be more receptive to outreach from trade allies.
Continue outreach to municipal associations. Previous evaluation research
has found this to be an effective means of reaching public sector customers.21
Consider promoting the program through the Louisiana chapter of the
American Public Works Association. Facility staff members that are often
involved in initiating municipal efficiency projects may be targeted through this
organization.
21
Kyle, D. Galligan, K., Titus, E., Lee, L., Sabo, C., and Giffen, T. (2007) Get the government!
Understanding and serving government customers through energy efficiency programs. International
Energy Program Evaluation Conference.
A-7-12
8. Appendix A: Cost-Benefit Testing
This appendix provides an overview of each programs’ participation, verified reduction
in peak load, verified kWh savings, annual admin costs, total program costs, as well as
a summary of the cost effectiveness analysis.
8.1
Cost Effectiveness Summary
This appendix covers all verified electricity and peak demand savings, and associated
program costs incurred in the implementation of Cleco’s Py1 energy efficiency and
demand response portfolio from November 1, 2014 through October 1, 2015.
The cost-effectiveness of Cleco’s PY1 programs was calculated based on reported total
spending, verified energy savings, and verified demand reduction for each of the energy
efficiency and demand response programs. All spending estimates were provided by
Cleco. The methods used to calculate cost-effectiveness are informed by the California
Standard Practice Manual.22
The demand reduction (kW) and energy savings (kWh) presented throughout this
appendix represent savings at the generator by adjusting for line losses. Verified
savings estimates at the meter were adjusted to account for line losses using a line loss
adjustment factor of 1.045.
In order to calculate the cost-effectiveness of each program, measure lives were
assigned on a measure-by-measure basis. When available, measure life values came
from the Arkansas Technical Reference Manual 3.0 (TRM)23. Additionally, assumptions
regarding incremental/full measure costs were necessary. Often, these costs were
taken directly from the program filing documents.
Avoided energy, capacity, and transmission/distribution costs used to calculate costeffectiveness were provided by Cleco and are found in Section B.4 of this appendix.
Residential and commercial rates used to estimate certain cost-effectiveness tests were
also provided by Cleco.
Table 8-1Error! Reference source not found. lists each program included in this
analysis, along with the final verified savings estimates, total expenditures, Utility Cost
Test (UCT)24 results, and Total Resource Cost Test (TRC) results.
22California
Standard Practice Manuel: Economic Analysis of Demand Side Management Programs,
October 2001. Available at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/004ABF9D-027C-4BE1-9AE1CE56ADF8DADC/0/CPUC_STANDARD_PRACTICE_MANUAL.pdf
23http://www.apscservices.info/EEInfo/TRM.pdf
24
The UCT is also referred to as the Program Administrator Cost Test (PACT).
A-1
In addition to UCT and TRC results, results from the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM),
Participant Cost Test (PCT) and Societal Cost Test (SCT) are included in the body of
this appendix.
Based on verified program impacts and spending during PY1, Cleco’s overall portfolio is
cost-effective based on both the UCT and TRC.
Table 8-1 Cost-Effectiveness by Program, PY1
Verified Peak
Program
Verified Annual
Demand
Energy
Reduction
Savings (kWh)
(kW)
Total Program
Expenditures
TRC
UCT
(b/c
(b/c
ratio)
ratio)
1,693.6
9,051,337
$1,762,826
1.82
2.89
Appliance Recycling
68.9
353,276
$111,614
.89
.89
Small Business
277.7
1,672,761
$458,157
1.64
1.72
Large C&I
204.5
3,492,474
$681,801
1.81
2.40
CitySmart
151.9
715,818
$173,355
1.53
2.04
2,396.6
15,285,666
$3,187,753
1.76
2.50
Energy Efficiency Program Results
Cleco’s energy efficiency portfolio in PY1 consisted of five programs with a verified peak
demand reduction of 2,396.6 kW and verified annual energy savings of 15,285,666
kWh. Total spending in PY1 equaled $3,187,175. Table 8-2 provides a summary of
program participation and verified impacts for each of the energy efficiency programs.
Table 8-3 provides a summary of program costs in PY1.
Table 8-2 Energy Efficiency Programs – Verified Impacts
Verified
Number of
Program
Peak
Verified Annual
Participants in
Demand
Energy
PY1
Reduction
Savings (kWh)
(kW)
Appliance Recycling
Small Business
Large C&I
CitySmart
65,827
363
106
34
8
66,338
5,667
1,230
6,887
2,458
N/A
2,396.6
9,051,337
353,276
1,672,761
3,492,474
715,818
15,285,666
A-2
Table 8-3 Energy Efficiency Programs – Reported Costs
Program
Annual Non-
Annual
Annual Cash
Annual Non-Cash
EM&V Admin
EM&V Admin
Inducement Costs
Inducement Costs
Costs ($)
25
Appliance Recycling
Small Business
Large C&I
CitySmart
$78,255
Costs ($)
($)
$53,610
26
($)
$942,431
27
$688,529
$4,955
$3,394
$19,700
$83,565
$20,339
$13,933
$274,058
$149,827
$30,267
$20,735
$333,851
$296,948
$7,696
$2,572
$86,493
$73,894
$141,512
$96,945
$1,656,533
$1,292,763
In the tables that follow, total costs and benefits, and cost-effectiveness test results are
provided for each energy efficiency program in the PY1 portfolio.
8.1.1 Residential Solutions
Table 8-4 Residential Solutions Benefit/Cost Tests
Metric
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Benefits
Total Costs
Utility Cost
Test
Total
Ratepayer
Resource
Impact
Cost Test
Measure
Societal
Participant
Cost test
Cost Test
2.89
1.82
.49
2.35
4.15
$5,093,862
$5,093,862
$5,093,862
$6,590,055
$8,226,193
$1,762,826
$2,803,191
$10,343,111
$2,803,191
$1,982,796
8.1.2 Appliance Recycling Program
Table 8-5 Appliance Recycling Benefit/Cost Tests
Metric
Utility Cost
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Benefits
Total Costs
Test
Total
Ratepayer
Resource
Impact
Cost Test
Measure
Societal
Participant
Cost test
Cost Test
.89
.89
.32
.99
10.35
$99,037
$99,037
$99,037
$111,036
$206,548
$111,614
$111,879
$313,778
$111,879
$19,965
25
Non-EM&V Admin Costs include Cleco staff labor costs and overhead costs.
Cash inducement costs refer to customer rebate costs.
27 Non-cash inducement costs include third party implementation costs and advertising costs.
26
A-3
8.1.3 Small Business Solutions Program
Table 8-6 Small Business Solutions Benefit/Cost Tests
Metric
Utility Cost
Test
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Benefits
Total Costs
Total
Ratepayer
Resource
Impact
Cost Test
Measure
Societal
Participant
Cost test
Cost Test
1.72
1.64
.42
1.98
5.10
$787,063
$787,063
$787,063
$954,826
$1,538,171
$458,197
$481,063
$1,872,438
$481,063
$296,964
8.1.4 Large Commercial & Industrial Solutions Program
Table 8-7 Large Commercial & Industrial Solutions Benefit/Cost Test
Metric
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Benefits
Total Costs
Utility Cost
Test
Total
Ratepayer
Resource
Impact
Cost Test
Measure
Societal
Participant
Cost test
Cost Test
2.40
1.81
.41
2.18
5.86
$1,633,816
$1,633,816
$1,633,816
$1,967,514
$3,481,777
$681,100
$904,367
$4,014,978
$904,367
$556,418
8.1.5 CitySmart Program
Table 8-8 CitySmart Benefit/Cost Test
Metric
Utility Cost
Benefit/Cost Ratio
Total Benefits
Total Costs
Test
Total
Ratepayer
Resource
Impact
Cost Test
Measure
Societal
Participant
Cost test
Cost Test
2.04
1.53
.45
1.86
4.28
$353,068
$353,068
$353,068
$429,395
$675,300
$173,355
$231,017
$778,546
$231,017
$144,155
A-4
9. Appendix B: Site Reports
9.1
Small Business
Appendix B: Site Reports
B-1
Project Number
Program
PRJ-426966
Small Business Solutions
Project Background
The participant is an office building that received incentives from Cleco Power for
implementing energy efficient lighting. On-site, the evaluators verified the participant
had installed:







(63) 18W LED fixtures, replacing (21) 4’ 3L T12 fixtures;
(8) 18W LED fixtures, replacing (4) 4’ 3L T12 fixtures; and
(6) 300W LED fixtures, replacing 1000W metal halide fixtures.
On-site the evaluators did not verify:

(2) 150W LED fixtures.
M&V Methodology
The evaluators found some lighting fixture counts deviated from those listed in the
project application. Verified fixture counts were used in ex post savings calculations.
Savings for the lighting measures were calculated using Louisiana stipulated deemed
values by space type for hours of use, along with a stipulated peak Coincident Factor
(CF), Interactive effects factor for energy (IEFE) and Interactive effects factor for
demand (IEFD) determined using local weather data and Cleco Power peak parameters.
The deemed values used in calculating savings are presented in the table below.
Deemed Savings Parameters
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Office
Outdoor
Electric
Resistance
None
IEFD
CF
3,737
0.870
1.200
0.77
3,996
1.000
1.000
0.00
Savings Calculations
Using deemed values from the table above, the evaluators calculated lighting savings
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
B-2
Parameters for kWh Savings Calculation of Lighting Retrofit Measures
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
Total Baseline fixtures x W/Fixturebase / 1000 W/kW
Total Installed fixtures x W/Fixturepost / 1000 W/kW
Annual Operating Hours of Baseline Fixtures
Annual Operating Hours of Installed Fixtures
Heating/Cooling Energy Interactive Effects Factor
Following this, the evaluators calculated peak kW savings. This is based upon
Louisiana defined peak hours during summer weekdays. Peak kW savings are
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
Parameters for Peak Demand (kW) Savings Calculation of Lighting Retrofit Measures
kWbase
kWpost
Peak Demand Coincident Factor, % Time During the Peak Period
in Which Lighting is Operating
Heating/Cooling Demand Interactive Effects Factor
CF
IEFD
Lighting Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
Measure
4' 3L T12ES to 18W
LED - Non-Int. Ballast
4' 2L T12ES to 18W
4' 2L T12ES to 18W
4' 2L T12ES to 18W
4' 3L T12ES to 18W
4' 3L T12ES to 18W
1000W MH to 300W
400W MH to 150W
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
21
63
144
18
3,737
6,922
6,145
0.870
88.8%
7
14
72
18
3,737
923
819
0.870
88.7%
7
14
72
18
3,737
923
819
0.870
88.7%
1
2
72
18
3,737
132
117
0.870
88.6%
2
4
144
18
3,737
791
702
0.870
88.7%
4
8
144
18
3,737
1,582
1,405
0.870
88.8%
6
6
1,078
300
3,996
20,367
18,653
1.000
91.6%
0
0
453
150
3,996
2,422
0
1.000
0.0%
34,062
28,660
Total
84.1%
B-3
Lighting Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Measure
4' 3L T12ES to 18W
4' 2L T12ES to 18W
4' 2L T12ES to 18W
4' 2L T12ES to 18W
4' 3L T12ES to 18W
4' 3L T12ES to 18W
1000W MH to 300W
400W MH to 150W
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
CF
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
21
63
144
18
0.77
1.75
1.75
1.200
100.0%
7
14
72
18
0.77
0.23
0.23
1.200
100.0%
7
14
72
18
0.77
0.23
0.23
1.200
100.0%
1
2
72
18
0.77
0.03
0.03
1.200
100.0%
2
4
144
18
0.77
0.20
0.20
1.200
100.0%
4
8
144
18
0.77
0.40
0.40
1.200
100.0%
6
6
1,078
300
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
0
0
453
150
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
2.84
2.84
Total
100.0%
Results
The kWh realization rate for PRJ-426966 is 84.1% and the kW realization rate is 100%.
The low kWh savings is due to two reasons
1. (2) 150W LED fixtures was not verified during the site visit
2. The heating type for this facility was verified to be Electric Resistance instead of
Undetermined.
B-4
Verified Savings & Realization Rates
Verified
Measure
4' 3L T12ES to 18W LED Non-Int. Ballast
1000W MH to 300W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
400W MH to 150W LED Non-Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
6,145
1.75
88.8%
100.0%
819
0.23
88.7%
100.0%
819
0.23
88.7%
100.0%
117
0.03
88.6%
100.0%
702
0.20
88.7%
100.0%
1,405
0.40
88.8%
100.0%
18,653
0.00
91.6%
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
N/A
28,660
2.84
84.1%
100.0%
B-5
Project Number
Program
PRJ-427783
Project Background
The participant is a retail facility that received incentives from Cleco Power for
had installed:

(248) 16W LED fixtures, replacing 4’ 1-lamp T8
M&V Methodology
The evaluators confirmed installation of all fixtures listed in the project application.
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Non 24-hour
Supermarket/Retail
Office
Electric
resistance
Electric
resistance
IEFD
CF
4,706
0.870
1.200
0.95
3,737
0.870
1.200
0.77
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
B-6
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
4' 1L T8 to 16W LED Int. Ballast
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
236
236
31
16
4,706
16,326
14,494
0.870
88.8%
2
2
31
16
3,737
97
98
0.870
101.0%
2
2
31
16
3,737
97
98
0.870
101.0%
8
8
31
16
3,737
395
390
0.870
98.7%
Total
16,915
15,080
89.2%
Measure
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
CF
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
236
236
31
16
0.95
4.04
4.04
1.200
100.0%
2
2
31
16
0.77
0.02
0.03
1.200
150.0%
2
2
31
16
0.77
0.02
0.03
1.200
150.0%
8
8
31
16
0.77
0.08
0.11
1.200
137.5%
Total
4.21
101.2%
B-7
Results
The kWh realization rate for PRJ-427783 is 89.2% and the kW realization rate is
101.2%.
kWh savings are lower than listed in ex ante calculations because on site, the
evaluators verified that the entire facility uses electric resistance heating, which has an
IEFE of 0.87. Ex ante calculations listed the heating system used in the retail area of the
facility as “Undetermined”, which has an IEFE of 0.98. This change reduced project
savings by 1832 kWh (10.8%).
.
Verified
Measure
4' 1L T8 to 16W LED - Int.
Ballast
Ballast
Ballast
Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
14,494
4.04
88.8%
100.0%
98
0.03
101.0%
150.0%
98
0.03
101.0%
150.0%
390
0.11
98.7%
137.5%
15,080
4.21
89.2%
101.2%
B-8
Project Number
Program
PRJ-322690
Small Business Direct Install
Project Background
The participant is a small retail facility that received incentives from Cleco Power for
had installed:

(6) 4’ 2L T5HO fixtures with occupancy sensors, replacing (8) 1000W metal
halide fixtures;

(8) 4’ 2L T5HO fixtures, replacing 1000W metal halide fixtures;

(12) 4’ 2L T5HO fixtures, (6) replacing 8’ 2-lamp T12 fixtures;

(21) (8) 4’ 2L T5HO fixtures, replacing 4’ 3-lamp T12 fixtures; and

(7) 43W CFL fixtures, replacing 1000W metal halide fixtures.
M&V Methodology
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
IEFD
Type
Hours
Service (Excluding
Food)
Outdoor
Electric
Resistance
None
None
CF
3,406
0.870
1.200
0.90
3,406
3,996
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.90
0.00
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
B-9
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
1000W MH to 4' 2L
T5HO
1000W MH to 4' 2L
T5HO
8' 2L T12ES HO to 4'
2L T5HO
4' 3L T12ES to 4' 2L
T5HO
1000W MH to 1L 42W
CFL Multi 4-Pin
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
8
6
1,078
117
3,406
24,099
27,606
1.000
114.6%
8
8
1,078
117
3,406
23,613
27,017
1.000
114.4%
6
12
173
117
3,996
2,685
-1,463
1.000
-54.5%
21
21
144
117
3,406
1,680
1,680
0.870
100.0%
7
7
1,078
46
3,996
32,991
28,867
1.000
87.5%
Total
85,068
83,707
98.4%
B-10
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
1000W MH to 4' 2L
T5HO
1000W MH to 4' 2L
T5HO
8' 2L T12ES HO to 4'
2L T5HO
4' 3L T12ES to 4' 2L
T5HO
1000W MH to 1L 42W
CFL Multi 4-Pin
Base
Post
Base
Expected
kW
Savings
Wattage
CF
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
8
6
1,078
117
0.90
8.78
7.32
1.000
83.3%
8
8
1,078
117
0.90
8.61
6.92
1.000
80.4%
6
12
173
117
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
21
21
144
117
0.90
0.61
0.61
1.200
99.6%
7
7
1,078
46
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
Total
18.00
14.85
82.5%
Results
The kWh realization rate for PRJ-322690 is 98.4% and the kW realization rate is 82.5%.
On site, the evaluators verified that (12) 4’ 2-lamp T5HO replaced (12) 8’ 2L T12 fixtures
instead of (6) 8’ 2L T12 fixtures. The evaluators also verified (7) 42W CFL fixtures,
instead of (8) 42 CFL fixtures. These differences contributed to the lower kWh
realization rate.
Verified
Measure
1000W MH to 4' 2L T5HO
1000W MH to 4' 2L T5HO
8' 2L T12ES HO to 4' 2L
T5HO
4' 3L T12ES to 4' 2L T5HO
1000W MH to 1L 42W
CFL Multi 4-Pin
Total
7.32
6.92
kWh
Realization
Rate
114.6%
114.4%
kW
Realization
Rate
83.3%
80.4%
-1,463
0.00
-54.5%
N/A
1,680
0.61
100.0%
99.6%
28,867
0.00
87.5%
N/A
83,707
14.85
98.4%
82.5%
kWh Savings
kW Savings
27,606
27,017
B-11
Project Number
Program
PRJ-406597
Project Background
implementing energy efficient lighting in their parking lot. On-site, the evaluators
verified the participant had installed:

(38) 145W LED fixtures, replacing 400W HPS fixtures
M&V Methodology
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
None
Outdoor
3,996
1.000
IEFD
CF
1.000
0.00
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
B-12
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
400W HPS to 145W
38
38
Wattage
Base
Post
465
145
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
3,996
48,591
48,591
1.000
100.0%
Total
48,591
48,591
100.0%
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
400W HPS to 145W
38
38
Wattage
Base
Post
465
145
CF
0.00
Total
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
0.00
0.00
N/A
Results
The kWh realization rate for PRJ-406597 is 100%.
Verified
Measure
400W HPS to 145W LED Non-Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
48,591
0.00
100.0%
N/A
48,591
0.00
100.0%
N/A
B-13
Project Number
Program
PRJ-433256
Project Background
The participant is a retail that received incentives from Cleco Power for implementing
energy efficient lighting. On-site, the evaluators verified the participant had installed:

(253) 16W LED Fixtures, replacing 4’ 1-lamp T8 fixtures.
M&V Methodology
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Food Sales: Non 24-hour
Supermarket/Retail
Gas
3,965
1.090
IEFD
CF
1.200
1.200
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
B-14
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
Parameters for kW Savings Calculation of Lighting Retrofit Measures
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
4' 1L T8 to 16W LED Non-Int. Ballast
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
253
253
Wattage
Base
Post
28
16
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
4,706
4,706
14,002
15,573
1.090
Total
14,002
15,573
111.2%
Measure
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
253
253
Base
Post
Base
Expected
kW
Savings
28
16
0.95
0.95
3.46
Total
3.46
3.46
Wattage
CF
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
3.46
1.200
100.0%
Results
100%.
On site, the evaluators verified that the facility uses gas heating, which has an IEFE of
1.090. Ex ante heating calculations listed heating system as “Undetermined,” which has
an IEFE of 0.98. This change in heating type increase kWh savings by 1,571 kWh
(11.2%).
B-15
Verified
Measure
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
15,573
3.46
111.2%
100.0%
15,573
3.46
111.2%
100.0%
B-16
Project Number
Program
PRJ-394374
Project Background
The participant is a restaurant that received incentives from Cleco Power for
implementing energy efficient refrigeration. On-site, the evaluators verified what the
participant had installed:

1935 ft2 of strip curtain
M&V Methodology
Strip Curtains
The evaluators verified the installation of the strip curtains and operating temperature of
the walk-in cooler. Savings for the lighting measures were calculated using Louisiana
stipulated deemed values by refrigeration type and building type.
Building
Type
Refrigeratio kWh Savings kW Savings
n Type
per ft2
per ft2
Cooler
Restaurant
18
0.002
Strip Curtains
Using deemed values from the table above, the evaluators calculated strip curtain
savings as follows:
∆
ℎ
ℎ
=
×
=
∆
×
Parameters for Savings Calculation of Strip Curtains Measures
∆
∆
ℎ
A
Average annual kWh savings per square foot of infiltration barrier
Average peak kW savings per square foot of infiltration barrier
Doorway area
B-17
Refrigeration Retrofit kW Savings Calculations
Type
Total square
footage
kW per ft2
Expected kW
Savings
kW
Savings
Realization
Rate
Restaurant
- Cooler
19.5
30
0.05%
0.07%
133.0%
0.05%
0.07%
133.0%
Total
Refrigeration Retrofit kWh Savings Calculations
Type
Total square
footage
kWh per ft2
Expected
kWh Savings
kWh
Savings
Realization
Rate
Restaurant
- Cooler
19.5
30
422
585
139.0%
422
585
139.0%
Total
Results
133.0%
The higher kW savings is due the restaurant not having strip curtains before the recent
installation.
Verified
Measure
Strip Curtains
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
585
0.07
585
0.07
kWh
Realization
Rate
139.0%
139.0%
kW
Realization
Rate
133.0%
133.0%
B-18
Project Number
Program
419843
Project Background
The participant is a retail store that received incentives from Cleco Power for
had installed:

(249) 16W LED fixtures, replacing (249) 4’ 1 lamp T8 fixtures.
M&V Methodology
demand (IEFD) determined using local weather data and Cleco Power peak
parameters. The deemed values used in calculating savings are presented in the table
below
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Food sales: Non-24
hour supermarket
Electric
4,706
.870
IEFD
CF
1.200
.95
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
B-19
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
249
249
Wattage
Base
Post
28
16
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
4,706
13,780
12,234
0.870
88.8%
Total
13,780
12,234
88.8%
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
249
249
Wattage
Base
Post
28
16
CF
.95
Total
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
3.41
3.41
1.200
100.0%
3.41
3.41
100.0%
Results
100.0%. The verified savings differed slightly because the heating type was noted as
undetermined in the customer proposal.
Verified
Measure
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
12,234
3.41
88.8%
100.0%
12,234
3.41
88.8%
100.0%
B-20
Project Number
Program
PRJ-419264
Project Background
The participant is a sit down restaurant that received incentives from Cleco Power for
had installed:


(78) 8W LED non-integrated ballast lamps, replacing (58) 65W 1 lamp halogen lamps;
(14) 7W LED non-integrated ballast lamps, replacing (14) 60W incandescent lamps.
M&V Methodology
demand (IEFD) determined using local weather data and Cleco Power peak
parameters. The deemed values used in calculating savings are presented in the table
below.
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Food Service: Sitdown restaurant
Electric
4,368
.980
IEFD
CF
1.200
.81
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
B-21
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
65W 1L Halogen to
8W LED - Non-Int.
Ballast
65W 1L Halogen to
8W LED - Non-Int.
Ballast
60W Inc. to 7W LED Non-Int. Ballast
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
58
58
65
8
4,368
14,152
12,563
0.870
88.8%
20
20
65
8
4,368
4,880
4,332
0.870
88.8%
14
14
43
7
4,368
1,978
1,915
0.870
96.8%
Total
21,010
18,810
89.5%
Measure
65W 1L Halogen to
8W LED - Non-Int.
Ballast
65W 1L Halogen to
8W LED - Non-Int.
Ballast
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
CF
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
58
58
65
8
0.81
3.21
3.21
1.200
100.0%
20
20
65
8
0.81
1.11
1.11
1.200
100.0%
14
14
43
7
0.81
0.45
0.49
1.200
108.9%
4.77
4.81
Total
100.8%
B-22
Results
100.8%. The heating type in the customer proposal was listed as undetermined, but
was then verified as electric, which changed the realization rates for kWh and kW.
.
Verified
Measure
65W 1L Halogen to 8W
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
12,563
3.21
88.8%
100.0%
4,332
1.11
88.8%
100.0%
1,915
0.49
96.8%
108.9%
18,810
4.81
89.5%
100.8%
B-23
Project Number
Program
PRJ-417038
Project Background
The participant is a retail building that received incentives from Cleco Power for
had installed:



(25) 12W LED lamps, replacing (25) 61W Halogen lamps;
(9) 7W LED lamps, replacing (9) 50W Halogen lamps;
(6) 7W LED lamps, replacing (6) 50W Halogen lamps.
M&V Methodology
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Retail: Strip
Shopping & Nonenclosed
Electric
3,965
1.200
IEFD
CF
1.200
0.90
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
B-24
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
65W 1L Halogen to
12W LED - Int. Ballast
50W 1L Halogen to
50W 1L Halogen to
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
25
25
65
12
3,965
5,149
4,571
0.870
88.8%
9
9
50
7
3,965
1,504
1,335
0.870
88.8%
6
6
50
7
3,965
1,364
890
0.870
65.2%
Total
8,017
6,796
84.8%
Measure
65W 1L Halogen to
50W 1L Halogen to
50W 1L Halogen to
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
CF
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
25
25
65
12
0.90
1.43
1.43
1.200
100.0%
9
9
50
7
0.90
0.42
0.42
1.200
100.0%
6
6
50
7
0.90
0.38
0.28
1.200
73.7%
2.23
2.13
Total
95.5%
Results
Fixture amounts deviated from the amounts listed customer proposal and heating type
was also not identified in the customer proposal.
B-25
Verified
Measure
LED - Int. Ballast
LED - Int. Ballast
LED - Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
4,571
1.43
88.8%
100.0%
1,335
0.42
88.8%
100.0%
890
0.28
65.2%
73.7%
6,796
2.13
84.8%
95.5%
B-26
Project Number
Program
PRJ-393475
Project Background
implementing energy efficient lighting and refrigeration. On-site, the evaluators verified
the participant had installed:

(30) 12W LED lamps with occupancy sensors, replacing 65W halogen lamps;

(12) 12W LED lamps, replacing 65W halogen lamps;

(4) 12W LED lamps, replacing 65W halogen lamps; and

48 ft2 of strip curtains in coolers

24 ft2 of strip curtains in freezers
M&V Methodology
Lighting
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Food Service: SitDown Restaurant
Outdoor
Outdoor
Electric
Resistance
None
None
IEFD
CF
4,368
0.870
1.200
0.81
3.996
4,368
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.00
0.81
Strip Curtains
Building
Type
Restaurant
n Type
per ft2
per ft2
Cooler
30
0.0034
B-27
Freezer
Restaurant
119
0.0136
Lighting
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
B-28
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
65W 1L Halogen to
65W 1L Halogen to
65W 1L Halogen to
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
30
30
65
12
4,368
6,453
6,452
0.870
100.0%
12
12
65
12
3,996
2,541
2,541
1.000
100.0%
6
6
65
12
4,368
1,271
1,389
1.000
109.3%
Total
10,265
10,382
101.1%
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
65W 1L Halogen to
65W 1L Halogen to
65W 1L Halogen to
Base
Post
Base
Expected
kW
Savings
Wattage
CF
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
30
30
65
12
0.81
1.65
1.65
1.200
100.3%
12
12
65
12
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
6
6
65
12
0.81
0.00
0.26
1.000
N/A
Total
1.65
1.91
116.0%
Strip Curtains
savings as follows:
∆
ℎ
ℎ
=
×
=
∆
×
∆
∆
ℎ
A
Doorway area
B-29
Type
Total square
footage
kWh per ft2
Expected
kWh Savings
kWh
Savings
Realization
Rate
48
18
844
1,440
170.6%
24
81
2,974
2,856
96.0%
3,818
4,296
112.5%
Restaurant
- Cooler
Restaurant
- Freezer
Total
Type
Total square
footage
kWh per ft2
Expected
kWh Savings
kWh
Savings
Realization
Rate
48
18
0.10
0.16
163.2%
24
81
0.35
0.33
93.3%
0.45
0.49
108.8%
Restaurant
- Cooler
Restaurant
- Freezer
Total
Results
114.3%.
The higher kW savings is due to (6) exterior lights are kept on during daytime operating
hours.
Verified
Measure
LED - Int. Ballast
LED - Int. Ballast
LED - Int. Ballast
Strip Curtains
Strip Curtains
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
6,452
1.65
100.0%
100.3%
2,541
0.00
100.0%
N/A
1,389
0.26
109.3%
N/A
1,440
2,856
0.16
0.33
14,678
2.40
170.6%
96.0%
104.2%
96.0%
93.3%
114.3%
B-30
Project Number
Program
PRJ-386655
Project Background
had installed:




(5) 7W LED lamps, replacing (6) 40W incandescent lamps;
(16) 9W LED lamp, replacing (2) 60W incandescent lamps;
(15) 7W LED lamps, replacing 40W incandescent lamps; and
(10) 9W LED lamps, replacing 40W incandescent lamps.
M&V Methodology
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Food Service: Sitedown Restaurant
Electric
Resistance
4,368
0.870
IEFD
CF
1.200
0.81
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
B-31
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
1L 40W Inc. Exit to
60W Inc. to 9W LED Int. Ballast
1L 40W Inc. Exit to
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
6
3
40
7
4,368
4,368
858
832
0.870
16
16
43
9
4,368
4,368
2,357
2,067
0.870
15
15
40
7
4,368
4,368
1,430
1,881
0.870
10
10
29
9
4,368
4,368
1,343
760
0.870
Total
5,989
5,540
92.5%
Measure
1L 40W Inc. Exit to
1L 40W Inc. Exit to
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Base
Post
Base
Expected
kW
Savings
Wattage
CF
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
6
3
40
7
0.81
0.81
0.22
0.21
1.200
16
16
43
9
0.81
0.81
0.53
0.53
1.200
15
15
40
7
0.81
0.81
0.32
0.48
1.200
10
10
29
9
0.81
0.81
0.30
0.19
1.200
1.37
1.41
Total
102.9%
B-32
Results
102.9%.
On-site, the evaluators verified (3) 7W LED lamps replaced (6) 40W incandescent
lamps. The ex ante calculations used (2) 7W LED lamps replacing (5) 40W
incandescent lamps.
The low kWh savings is due to the ex post calculations following EISA standard
wattages for incandescent lamps while the ex ante used pre-EISA wattages.
Verified
Measure
1L 40W Inc. Exit to 7W
LED - Int. Ballast
60W Inc. to 9W LED - Int.
Ballast
1L 40W Inc. Exit to 7W
LED - Int. Ballast
Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
832
0.21
97.0%
95.6%
2,067
0.53
87.7%
100.2%
1,881
0.48
131.5%
149.6%
760
0.19
56.6%
63.1%
5,540
1.41
92.5%
102.9%
B-33
Project Number
Program
PRJ-379398
Project Background
implementing energy efficient refrigeration.
On-site, the evaluators verified the
participant had installed:

(2) 6.5’ x 2.5’ strip curtains
M&V Methodology
Strip Curtains
Building
Type
n Type
per ft2
per ft2
Cooler
Freezer
Restaurant
Restaurant
30
119
0.0034
0.0136
Strip Curtains
savings as follows:
∆
ℎ
ℎ
=
×
=
∆
×
B-34
∆
ℎ
∆
A
Doorway area
Refrigeration Retrofit kh Savings Calculations
Type
Total square
footage
kW per ft2
Expected kW
Savings
kW
Savings
Realization
Rate
16.25
.0034
0.0805
0.06
69.0%
16.25
.0136
0.319
0.22
69.0%
0.4
0.28
69.0%
Restaurant
- Cooler
Restaurant
- Freezer
Total
Type
Total square
footage
kWh per ft2
Expected
kWh Savings
kWh
Savings
Realization
Rate
16.25
30
683.8
487.5
71.0%
16.25
119
2712.2
1933.75
71.0%
3396
2421.25
71.0%
Restaurant
- Cooler
Restaurant
- Freezer
Total
Results
The lower savings is due to their restaurant never having strip curtains before.
Verified
Measure
Strip Curtains
Strip Curtains
Total
kWh Savings
487.5
1933.75
2421.25
kW Savings
0.06
0.22
0.28
kWh
Realization
Rate
71.0%
71.0%
71.0%
kW
Realization
Rate
69.0%
69.0%
69.0%
B-35
Project Number
Program
PRJ-371466
Project Background
had installed:

(6) 48W LED fixtures, replacing 8’ 2L T12 fixtures.
M&V Methodology
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Food Service: Sitedown Restaurant
Electric
Resistance
4,368
0.870
IEFD
CF
1.200
0.81
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
B-36
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
6
6
Wattage
Base
Post
110
48
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
4,368
1,361
1,414
0.870
103.9%
1,361
1,414
Total
103.9%
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
6
6
Base
Post
Base
Expected
kW
Savings
110
48
0.81
0.81
0.31
0.31
0.36
Wattage
CF
Total
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
0.36
1.200
116.1%
Results
116.1%.
The high kW savings is due to the ex post calculations using a higher hours of
operations than the ex ante calculations.
Verified
Measure
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
1,414
0.36
103.9%
116.1%
1,414
0.36
103.9%
116.1%
B-37
Project Number
Program
PRJ-371442
Project Background

(30) 12W LED lamps with occupancy sensors, replacing 65W halogen lamps;


(4) 12W LED lamps, replacing 65W halogen lamps; and

48 ft2 of strip curtains in coolers

24 ft2 of strip curtains in freezers
M&V Methodology
Lighting
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Food Sales: 24-hour
Supermarket/Retail
Warehouse:
Refrigerated Med.
Temps. (33-41°F)
IEFD
CF
Electric
Resistance
6,900
0.870
1.200
0.95
Electric
Resistance
3,798
1.250
1.250
0.84
Strip Curtains
B-38
n Type
per ft2
per ft2
Building
Type
Convenience
Store
Cooler
11
0.0023
Lighting
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
B-39
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
2
2
43
10
6,900
592
396
0.870
66.9%
0
0
43
10
3,798
396
0
1.250
0.0%
988
396
Total
40.1%
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
Base
Post
Base
Expected
kW
Savings
Wattage
CF
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
2
2
43
10
0.95
0.08
0.08
1.200
100.0%
0
0
43
10
0.84
0.08
0.00
1.250
0.0%
0.16
0.08
Total
50.0%
Strip Curtains
savings as follows:
∆
ℎ
ℎ
=
×
=
∆
×
∆
∆
ℎ
A
Doorway area
B-40
Type
Total square
footage
kWh per ft2
Expected
kWh Savings
kWh
Savings
Realization
Rate
Convenience
Store - Cooler
24
11
422
264
63%
422
264
63%
Total
Type
Total square
footage
kW per ft2
Expected
kWh Savings
kW
Savings
Realization
Rate
Convenience
Store - Cooler
48
0.0023
0.05
0.06
110%
0.05
0.06
110%
Total
Results
The kWh realization rate for PRJ-371442 is 47% and the kW realization rate is 64%.
The low kWh and kW savings is due to two reasons:
1. The heating type for this facility was confirmed to be electric resistance.
2.(2) 10W LED lamps were not verified on site.
Verified
Measure
Strip Curtains
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
396
0.08
66.9%
100.0%
0
0.00
0.0%
0.0%
264
660
0.06
0.14
63%
110%
47%
64%
B-41
Project Number
Program
PRJ-410639
Project Background

(1) 44W LED lamps with occupancy sensors, replacing (1) 6’ 2-lamp T12 fixtures;

(5) 44W LED lamps, replacing (8) 4’ 2-lamp T12 ES fixtures;

(2) 14W LED lamps, replacing (2) 40W Incandescent lamps;

(32) 122W LED lamps, replacing (59) 320W Metal Halide lamps;

(2) 44W LED lamps ,replacing (2) 8’ 1L T12 fixtures;

(2) 44W LED lamps, replacing (2) 4’ 4-lamp T12 IS fixtures;

(1) 14W LED lamps, replacing (1) 60W Incandescent lamps.
M&V Methodology
Lighting
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Food Sales: 24-hour
Supermarket/Retail
Outdoor
IEFD
CF
Gas
6,900
1.090
1.200
0.95
Gas
3,996
1.00
1.200
0.00
Lighting
as follows:
B-42
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
4' 2L T12ES to 44W
4' 2L T12ES to 44W
320W MH to 122W
4' 4L T12IS to 44W
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
1
1
6
3
2
2
2
2
59
32
2
2
2
2
1
1
Total
Wattage
Base
Post
142
44
72
44
29
14
72
44
362
122
87
44
148
44
43
14
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
6,900
737
737
1.090
100.0%
3,996
1,199
1,199
1.000
100.0%
6,900
391
226
1.090
57.8%
6,900
421
421
1.090
100.0%
3,996
69,746
69,746
1.000
100.0%
6,900
639
639
1.090
100.0%
6,900
1,564
1,564
1.090
100.0%
6,900
346
218
1.090
63.0%
74,698
74,532
99.8%
B-43
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
4' 2L T12ES to 44W
4' 2L T12ES to 44W
320W MH to 122W
4' 4L T12IS to 44W
1
1
6
3
2
2
2
2
59
32
2
2
2
2
1
1
Wattage
Base
Post
142
44
72
44
29
14
72
44
362
122
87
44
148
44
43
14
Base
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
0.95
0.11
0.11
1.200
98.5%
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.200
-
0.95
0.06
0.03
1.200
50.6%
0.95
0.06
0.06
1.200
94.0%
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.200
-
0.95
0.10
0.10
1.200
103.2%
0.95
0.24
0.24
1.200
101.2%
0.95
0.05
0.03
1.200
57.2%
0.62
0.57
CF
Total
91.7%
Strip Curtains
savings as follows:
∆
ℎ
ℎ
=
×
=
∆
×
∆
∆
ℎ
A
Doorway area
B-44
Results
The slightly low kWh and kW savings is due to fixture wattages in ex-ante differing when
verified on site.
Verified
Measure
4' 4L T12IS to 44W LED Non-Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
737
0.11
100.0%
98.5%
1,199
0.00
100.0%
#DIV/0!
226
0.03
57.8%
50.6%
421
0.06
100.0%
94.0%
69,746
0.00
100.0%
#DIV/0!
639
0.10
100.0%
103.2%
1,564
0.24
100.0%
101.2%
218
0.03
63.0%
57.2%
74,750
0.57
99.8%
91.7%
B-45
Project Number
Program
PRJ-376119
Project Background
The participant is a grocery facility that received incentives from Cleco for implementing
numerous energy efficiency measures. On-site, the evaluators verified the participants
had installed:
• (12) 3’ reach-in freezer doors with anti-sweat heater controls.
M&V Methodology
The evaluators confirmed installation of the 75 doors on reach-in freezers with antisweat heater controls. Savings for the ASH controllers were calculated using Louisiana
stipulated deemed values by refrigeration type and weather zone.
Temperature
Type
Medium
Weather
Zone
Baton Rouge
kWh/Ft
kW/ ft
153
0.002
Saving Calculations
savings as follows:
Temperature
Type
Medium
Total Length
36
Total
kWh/Ft
153
Expected
kWh Savings
5,472
5,472
kWh
Savings
5,504
5,504
Realization
Rate
101%
101%
Temperature
Type
Medium
Total Length
kW/Ft
Expected kW
Savings
kW
Savings
Realization
Rate
36
0.002
0.09
0.07
82%
0.05
0.09
82%
Total
Results
The realization rate for PRJ-376119 is savings is 101% for kWh savings and 82% for
kW savings.
B-46
Expected
Verified
Measure
kWh
Savings
kW
Savings
kWh
Savings
kW
Savings
ASH Controls
Total
5,472
5,504
5,504
0.09
0.07
0.07
5,472
0.09
Realization Rates
kWh
kW
Realization
Realization
Rate
Rate
101%
101%
82%
82%
B-47
Project Number
Program
PRJ-378164
Project Background
The participant is a grocery facility that received incentives from Cleco for implementing
numerous energy efficiency measures. On-site, the evaluators verified the participants
had installed:
• (14) 3’ reach-in freezer doors with anti-sweat heater controls; and
• 26 ft2 of curtain strips.
M&V Methodology
ASH Controllers
The evaluators confirmed installation of the 75 doors on reach-in freezers with antisweat heater controls. Savings for the ASH controllers were calculated using Louisiana
stipulated deemed values by refrigeration type and weather zone.
Temperature
Type
Medium
Weather
Zone
Alexandria
kWh/Ft
kW/ ft
211
0.003
Strip Curtains
Refrigeration kWh Savings kW Savings
Building Type
Type
per ft2
per ft2
Restaurant
Cooler
30
0.0034
Saving Calculations
ASH Controllers
savings as follows:
B-48
Temperature
Type
Medium
Total Length
kWh/Ft
35
Total
211
Expected
kWh Savings
5,985
5,985
kWh
Savings
7,379
7,379
Realization
Rate
123%
123%
Temperature
Type
Medium
Total Length
kW/Ft
35
0.003
Expected kW
Savings
0.10
kW
Savings
0.10
Realization
Rate
97%
0.10
0.10
97%
Total
Strip Curtains
savings as follows:
∆
ℎ
ℎ
=
×
=
∆
×
∆
∆
ℎ
A
Doorway area
Type
Total square
footage
kWh per ft2
Expected
kWh Savings
kWh
Savings
Realization
Rate
Restaurant
- Cooler
26
30
422
780
185%
422
780
185%
Total
B-49
Type
Total square
footage
kWh per ft2
Expected
kWh Savings
kWh
Savings
Realization
Rate
Restaurant
- Cooler
26
0.003
0.05
0.09
177%
0.05
0.09
177%
Total
Results
The realization rate for PRJ-378164 is savings is 127% for kWh savings and 123% for
kW savings.
Expected
Verified
Measure
kWh
Savings
kW
Savings
kWh
Savings
kW
Savings
ASH Controls
Strip Curtains
Total
5,985
422
6,407
7,379
780
8,159
0.10
0.05
0.15
0.10
0.09
0.19
Realization Rates
kWh
kW
Realization
Realization
Rate
Rate
123%
185%
127%
97%
177%
123%
B-50
Project Number
Program
PRJ-388103
Project Background
had installed:

(120) 44W LED fixtures, replacing (148) 4’ 4-lamp T8 fixtures.
M&V Methodology
Heating Annual
Building Type
IEFE
Type
Hours
Retail: Excluding
Malls & Strip
Centers
Electric
Resistance
3,668
0.870
IEFD
CF
1.200
0.90
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
B-51
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Base
Post
143
115
112
5
5
112
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
44
3,668
40,732
34,962
0.870
85.8%
44
3,668
1,771
1,155
0.870
65.2%
42,503
36,117
Wattage
Total
85.0%
Measure
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
143
115
5
5
Total
Wattage
Base
Post
112
44
112
44
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
0.90
11.83
11.83
1.200
100.0%
0.90
0.39
0.37
1.200
94.9%
12.22
12.20
CF
99.8%
Results
The low kWh savings is due to the heating type is verified as electric resistance during
field inspection. The ex ante estimation used undetermined heating type.
B-52
Verified
Measure
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
34,962
11.83
85.8%
100.0%
1,155
0.37
65.2%
94.9%
36,117
12.20
85.0%
99.8%
B-53
9.2
Large Commercial & Industrial
B-54
Project Number
Program
PRJ-464794
Large Commercial and Industrial
Project Background
had installed:


(1240) 18W LED fixtures with occupancy sensors, replacing (620) 4’ 3-lamp T8 fixtures
with occupancy sensors; and
(122) 9W LED fixtures, replacing (56) 1-lamp U-tube T8 fixtures.
M&V Methodology
Building Type
Heating
Type
Annual
Hours
IEFE
IEFD
CF
Office
Office
Gas
Gas
2,616
3,737
1.090
1.090
1.200
1.200
0.54
0.77
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
B-55
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
1L T8 U-Tube to 9W
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
620
1240
85
18
2,616
86,623
86,623
1.090
100.0%
56
112
59
9
3,737
9,352
9,352
1.090
100.0%
95,976
95,975
Total
100.0%
Measure
1L T8 U-Tube to 9W
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
CF
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
620
1240
85
18
0.54
19.65
19.65
1.200
100.0%
56
112
59
9
0.77
2.12
2.12
1.200
100.0%
21.77
21.77
Total
100.0%
Results
B-56
Verified
Measure
1L T8 U-Tube to 9W LED Non-Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
86,623
19.65
100.0%
100.0%
9,352
2.12
100.0%
100.0%
95,975
21.77
100.0%
100.0%
B-57
Project Number
Program
PRJ-327840
Project Background
The participant is a large retail facility that received incentives from Cleco Power for
implementing energy efficient lighting in the parking lot. On-site, the evaluators verified

(55) 365W LED fixtures, replacing 1000W metal halide fixtures;

(9) 138W LED fixtures, replacing 400W metal halide fixtures; and

(6) 114W LED fixtures, replacing 250W metal halide fixtures.
M&V Methodology
Building Type
Heating
Type
Annual
Hours
IEFE
IEFD
CF
Outdoors
None
3.996
1.000
1.000
0.00
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
B-58
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
1000W MH to 365W
400W MH to 138W
250W MH to 114W
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
55
55
1,078
365
3,996
156,703
156,703
1.000
100.0%
9
9
453
138
3,996
11,329
11,329
1.000
100.0%
6
6
288
114
3,996
4,172
4,172
1.000
100.0%
Total
172,204
172,204
100.0%
Measure
1000W MH to 365W
400W MH to 138W
250W MH to 114W
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
55
55
9
9
6
6
Wattage
Base
Post
1,078
365
453
138
288
114
CF
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
Total
0.00
0.00
N/A
Results
B-59
Verified
Measure
- Non-Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
156,703
0.00
100.0%
N/A
11,329
0.00
100.0%
N/A
4,172
0.00
100.0%
N/A
172,204
0.00
100.0%
N/A
B-60
Project Number
Program
PRJ-327367
Project Background
The participant is an assembly facility that received incentives from Cleco Power for
had installed:

(11) 40W LED fixtures, replacing 1-lamp T12 U-tube fixtures;

(60) 36W LED fixtures, replacing 4’ 2-lamp T8 fixtures;



(1) 14W LED fixture, replacing 3’ 3-lamp T8 fixtures;

(2) 8W LED lamps, replacing 60W incandescent lamps;


(6) 95W LED fixtures, replacing 400W metal halide fixtures;

(22) 13W LED fixtures, replacing 42W CFL fixtures;





(2) 36W LED fixtures, replacing 4’ 2-lamp T8 fixtures; and

(5) 13W LED fixtures, replacing 42W CFL fixtures;
M&V Methodology
Building Type
Custom
Custom
Outdoor
Heating
Type
Electric
Resistance
Electric
Resistance
None
Annual
Hours
IEFE
IEFD
CF
2,800
0.870
1.200
0.53
2,080
0.870
1.200
0.53
3,996
1.000
1.000
0.00
B-61
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
B-62
Measure
1L T12ES U-Tube to
40W LED - Non-Int.
Ballast
50W 1L Halogen to
400W MH to 95W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
42W CFL to 13W LED Int. Ballast
50W 1L Halogen to
50W 1L Halogen to
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
11
11
72
40
2,800
857
857
0.870
99.9%
60
60
58
36
2,800
2,840
3,216
0.870
113.2%
19
19
85
54
2,800
1,586
1,435
0.870
90.5%
10
10
58
18
2,800
190
974
0.870
512.6%
1
1
68
14
2,800
132
132
0.870
100.3%
2
2
43
8
2,800
253
171
0.870
67.5%
28
28
50
8
2,800
2,865
2,865
0.870
100.0%
6
6
453
95
2,080
3,887
3,887
0.870
100.0%
22
22
42
13
3,996
2,549
2,549
1.000
100.0%
7
7
50
13
2,800
716
631
0.870
88.1%
7
7
50
13
2,800
811
631
0.870
77.8%
8
8
31
18
3,996
416
416
1.000
100.1%
9
9
31
18
2,800
285
285
0.870
100.0%
2
2
58
36
2,800
151
107
0.870
70.8%
5
5
42
13
2,800
353
353
0.870
99.9%
Total
17,892
18,509
103.4%
B-63
Measure
1L T12ES U-Tube to
40W LED - Non-Int.
Ballast
50W 1L Halogen to
400W MH to 95W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
50W 1L Halogen to
50W 1L Halogen to
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Base
Post
Base
Expected
kW
Savings
Wattage
CF
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
11
11
72
40
0.53
0.22
0.22
1.200
98.3%
60
60
58
36
0.53
0.74
0.84
1.200
113.3%
19
19
85
54
0.53
0.41
0.37
1.200
89.4%
10
10
58
18
0.53
0.05
0.25
1.200
504.0%
1
1
68
14
0.53
0.03
0.03
1.200
87.4%
2
2
43
8
0.53
0.07
0.04
1.200
60.5%
28
28
50
8
0.53
0.75
0.75
1.200
100.3%
6
6
453
95
0.53
1.37
1.37
1.200
100.3%
22
22
42
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
7
7
50
13
0.53
0.19
0.16
1.200
85.6%
7
7
50
13
0.53
0.21
0.16
1.200
75.5%
8
8
31
18
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
9
9
31
18
0.53
0.07
0.07
1.200
94.1%
2
2
58
36
0.53
0.04
0.03
1.200
76.1%
5
5
42
13
0.53
0.09
0.09
1.200
97.6%
4.25
4.38
Total
103.1%
Results
The kWh realization rate for PRF-327867 is 103.4%and the kW realization rate is
103.1%.
On site, the evaluators verified (10) 18W LED fixtures replacing 4’ 2L T8 fixtures
replaced by, instead of replacing 4’ 1L T8 fixtures, which resulted in an increase in kWh
and kW savings.
B-64
Verified
Measure
1L T12ES U-Tube to 40W
Ballast
LED - Int. Ballast
LED - Int. Ballast
LED - Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
857
0.22
99.9%
98.3%
3,216
0.84
113.2%
113.3%
1,435
0.37
90.5%
89.4%
974
0.25
512.6%
504.0%
132
0.03
100.3%
87.4%
171
0.04
67.5%
60.5%
2,865
0.75
100.0%
100.3%
3,887
1.37
100.0%
100.3%
2,549
0.00
100.0%
N/A
631
0.16
88.1%
85.6%
631
0.16
77.8%
75.5%
416
0.00
100.1%
N/A
285
0.07
100.0%
94.1%
107
0.03
70.8%
76.1%
353
0.09
99.9%
97.6%
18,509
4.38
103.4%
103.1%
B-65
Project Number
Program
PRJ-410522
Project Background

(16) 223W LED fixtures, replacing (16) 1000W Metal Halide fixtures
On-site, the evaluators did not verify (2) 223W LED fixtures.
M&V Methodology
Building Type
Heating
Type
Annual
Hours
IEFE
IEFD
CF
None
3,996
1.000
1.000
0.00
Outdoor
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
B-66
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
1000W MH to 223W
16
16
Wattage
Base
Post
1,078
223
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
3,996
61,498
54,665
1.000
88.9 %
Total
61,498
54,665
88.9%
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
1000W MH to 223W
16
16
Wattage
Base
Post
1,078
223
CF
0.00
Total
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
0.00
0.00
N/A
Results
The kWh realization rate for PRJ-410522 is 88.9%.
kWh savings are lower than listed in ex ante calculations because (2) 223W LEDs were
unaccounted for and could not be found on site. This change reduced project savings
by 6,833 kWh (11.1%).
Verified
Measure
- Non-Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
54,665
0.00
88.9%
N/A
54.665
0.00
88.9%
N/A
B-67
Project Number
Program
PRJ-421647
Project Background
implementing energy efficient lighting in their parking lot and service areas. On-site, the
evaluators verified the participant had installed:




(48) 300W LED fixtures, replacing (48) 1000W Metal Halide fixtures;
(13) 45W LED fixtures, replacing (18) 400W Metal Halide fixtures.
M&V Methodology
Building Type
Heating
Type
Annual
Hours
IEFE
IEFD
CF
None
3,996
1.000
1.000
0.00
None
2,600
1.000
1.000
0.90
Outdoor
Service Excluding
Food
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
B-68
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
1000W MH to 300W
1000W MH to 152W
400W MH to 45W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
400W MH to 45W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
48
48
1,078
300
3,996
149,227
149,227
1.000
100.0%
18
18
1,078
152
3,996
66,605
66,605
1.000
100.0%
12
17
453
45
2,600
9,922
12,145
1.000
122.4%
18
13
453
45
2,600
14,882
19,679
1.000
132.2%
Total
240,636
247,656
102.9%
B-69
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Measure
1000W MH to 300W
1000W MH to 152W
400W MH to 45W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
400W MH to 45W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
Wattage
Base
Post
CF
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
48
48
1,078
300
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
18
18
1,078
152
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
12
17
453
45
0.90
0.00
4.20
1.000
N/A
18
13
453
45
0.90
0.00
6.81
1.000
0.00
11.01
Total
N/A
Results
kWh savings are higher than listed in ex ante calculations in part because on-site
evaluation confirmed the installation of only 30 45W LED fixtures instead of 90. This
difference in fixture number is responsible for a 7,020 kWh (2.9%) increase in project
savings.
Realized kW savings for this project is 11.01 kW. This number differs from the 0 kW
predicted in ex ante calculations because of a change in confidence factor from 0 to
0.90 for the indoor service areas.
Verified
Measure
- Non-Int. Ballast
- Non-Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
149,227
0.00
100.0%
N/A
66,605
0.00
100.0%
N/A
12,145
4.20
122.4%
N/A
19,679
6.81
132.2%
N/A
247,656
11.01
102.9%
N/A
B-70
Project Number
Program
PRJ-425727
Project Background
implementing energy efficient lighting in their parking lot and service areas. On-site, the
evaluators verified the participant had installed:



M&V Methodology
Building Type
Heating
Type
Annual
Hours
IEFE
IEFD
CF
None
3,996
1.000
1.000
0.00
Gas
2,860
1.090
1.200
0.90
Outdoor
Service Excluding
Food
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
B-71
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
1000W MH to 300W
400W MH to 135W
175W MH to 45W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
32
32
1,078
300
3,996
99,484
99,484
1.000
108.1%
38
30
453
135
2,860
32,627
41,037
1.090
125.8%
8
8
208
45
2,860
3,521
4,065
1.090
115.5%
Total
135,632
144,586
106.6%
Measure
1000W MH to 300W
400W MH to 135W
175W MH to 45W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
CF
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
32
32
1,078
300
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
38
30
453
135
0.90
0.00
14.22
1.200
N/A
8
8
208
45
0.90
0.00
1.41
1.200
N/A
0.00
15.63
Total
N/A
B-72
Results
kWh savings are higher than listed in ex ante calculations in part because hours of light
operation used in ex-post calculations (2,860) are higher than those used in ex-ante
calculations (2,700). This change increased project savings by 2,141 kWh (1.6%). In
addition, a change in the CIFE used for the indoor service areas from 1.000 to 1.09 is
responsible for a change in project savings of 3,253 kWh (2.4%). Finally, on-site
evaluation confirmed the installation of only 30 135W LED fixtures instead of 38. This
difference in fixture number is responsible for a 2,916 kWh (2.1%) increase in project
savings.
Realized kW savings for this project are 15.63. This number differs from the 0 predicted
in ex ante calculations because of a change in confidence factor from 0 to 0.90 for the
indoor service areas.
Verified
Measure
- Non-Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
99,484
0.00
100.0%
N/A
41,037
14.22
125.8%
N/A
4,065
1.41
115.5%
N/A
144,586
15.63
106.6%
N/A
B-73
Project Number
Program
PRJ-464794
Large Commercial and Industrial
Project Background
had installed:


(1240) 18W LED fixtures with occupancy sensors, replacing (620) 4’ 3-lamp T8 fixtures
with occupancy sensors; and
(122) 9W LED fixtures, replacing (56) 1-lamp U-tube T8 fixtures.
M&V Methodology
Building Type
Heating
Type
Annual
Hours
IEFE
IEFD
CF
Office
Office
Gas
Gas
2,616
3,737
1.090
1.090
1.200
1.200
0.54
0.77
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
B-74
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
1L T8 U-Tube to 9W
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
620
1240
85
18
2,616
86,623
86,623
1.090
100.0%
56
112
59
9
3,737
9,352
9,352
1.090
100.0%
95,976
95,975
Total
100.0%
Measure
1L T8 U-Tube to 9W
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
CF
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
620
1240
85
18
0.54
19.65
19.65
1.200
100.0%
56
112
59
9
0.77
2.12
2.12
1.200
100.0%
21.77
21.77
Total
100.0%
B-75
Results
Verified
Measure
1L T8 U-Tube to 9W LED Non-Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
86,623
19.65
100.0%
100.0%
9,352
2.12
100.0%
100.0%
95,975
21.77
100.0%
100.0%
B-76
Project Number
Program
PRJ-473126
Project Background





(34) 283W LED fixtures, replacing (34) 1000W Metal Halide fixtures ;
M&V Methodology
Building Type
Heating
Type
Annual
Hours
IEFE
IEFD
CF
None
3,996
1.000
1.000
0.00
Outdoor
as follows:
ℎ
=
∗
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
AOHbase
AOHpost
IEFE
B-77
calculated as:
=
−
∗
∗
kWbase
kWpost
CF
IEFD
Measure
1000W MH to 283W
1000W MH to 144W
1000W MH to 199W
150W MH to 29W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
150W MH to 70W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
AOH
Expected
kWh
Savings
Realized
kWh
Savings
IEFE
Realization
Rate
34
34
1,078
283
3,996
108,012
108,012
1.000
100.0%
4
2
1,078
144
3,996
16,080
16,080
1.000
100.0%
4
2
1,078
199
3,996
15,640
15,640
1.000
100.0%
9
9
183
29
3,996
5,538
5,538
1.000
100.0%
4
4
183
70
3,996
1,806
1,806
1.000
100.0%
Total
147,076
147,076
100.0%
Measure
1000W MH to 283W
1000W MH to 144W
1000W MH to 199W
150W MH to 29W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
150W MH to 70W LED
- Non-Int. Ballast
Quantity
(Fixtures)
Base Post
Wattage
Base
Post
CF
Expected
kW
Savings
Realized
kW
Savings
IEFD
Realization
Rate
34
34
1,078
283
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
4
2
1,078
144
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
4
2
1,078
199
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
9
9
183
29
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
4
4
183
70
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.000
N/A
0.00
0.00
Total
N/A
B-78
Results
Verified
Measure
- Non-Int. Ballast
- Non-Int. Ballast
- Non-Int. Ballast
Total
kWh Savings
kW Savings
kWh
Realization
Rate
kW
Realization
Rate
108,012
0.00
100.0%
N/A
16,080
0.00
100.0%
N/A
15,640
0.00
100.0%
N/A
5,538
0.00
100.0%
N/A
1,806
0.00
100.0%
N/A
147,076
0.00
100.0%
N/A
B-79

Cleco Power 2014-2015 Quick Start Annual Report

Transcription

Similar documents

BevMo! - Bill Brown Sales

Van Houtte Coffee Services

Case Study_SUNFOLD powers a living camp of a

Titletown Oil Corp.

Energy Matters Fall 2014

Iluminate Your Style

JOEL FITZPATRICK STUDIO

Monser Brothers Tire Sales Inc.

Alfredo De Vido Architects Kate`s Paperie

Fred Meyer Stores—Albany

Energy Matters Spring 2014