Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program Presented by: Sharyn Barata Vice President - Marketing Opinion Dynamics Corp. Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program -Presentation to CALMAC- October 17, 2007 Big empty box in white font

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 2 Overview of Program ›Started as several separate, independent programs ›Some well-established program components (SCE mail) and some very new (PG&E’s in- home program started Jan 2005) ›Added the “in-home” delivery mechanism to the statewide program in Statewide HEES

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 3 Original HEES Eval Objectives »Conduct a process evaluation »Test program assumptions: ›Customers lack complete e-e knowledge ›HEES fills the knowledge gap ›Knowledge engenders action ›HEES plays a substantial, unique informational role

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 4 HEES Process Methodology »In-depth interviews with administrators and review of materials »Program theory/metric workshop »General population survey »Review databases/verify number of audits completed by each IOU/Cross HEES databases with other CA program databases »Conduct satisfaction survey

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 5 HEES Process Methodology Cont »Conduct adoption survey with 2004/5 participants »Conduct follow-up interviews with participants in both HEES and another impact program (based on database crossing) »In all 5000 surveys were conducted as part of this effort

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 6 Program Structure and Delivery Versions of HEES MailOnlineIn-Home PG&E Kema-XenergyNexusKema-Xenergy2 SCE Kema-Xenergy CSG3 SDG&E Kema-XenergyEnercomCSG3 SoCalGas Kema-XenergyEnercomSempra3 133

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 7 Program Structure and Delivery Direct Costs Per Unit Vary Greatly by Delivery Mechanism, Channel, Utility and Vendor MailOnlineIn-Home PG&E Kema-Xenergy ($25.00) Nexus ($20.00) Kema-Xenergy ($60.00) SCE Kema-Xenergy ($12.30) Kema-Xenergy ($11.32) CSG ($81.81) SoCalGas Kema-Xenergy ($22.56) Enercom (not provided) CSG ($41.91) SDG&E Kema-Xenergy (not provided) Enercom (not provided) Sempra/SDG&E ($35.00 for HTR)

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 8 Program Structure and Delivery »Recommendations made to customers ›235 unique recommendations (some similar) ›110 characterizations (when grouped) ›16 types or “measures/end uses” covered »Approximately split between measures (which require equipment) and practices (behavioral) »Median number of recommendations per channel range from 3 to 16 (overall mean = 7 recs/house)

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 9 Program Structure and Delivery 1.Use compact fluorescent bulbs (71% receive rec.) 2.Seal air leaks and install weatherstripping (67%) 3.Have ducts tested/sealed, clean or replace ac filters, shade windows and avoid using appliances (45%) 4.Replace washer (30%) 5.Lower heater temperature setting (27%) 6.Install energy efficient shower heads/aerators (25%) Top recommendations to customers:

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 10 Marketing Top Ways That Participants Learned About HEES (multiple response) Total (n=1045) Mail (n=242) In-Home (n=242) Online (n=561) Utility bill insert27%31% 23%* Utility website24%4% 42%* Mail survey16%48%*6% Utility representative8%2%21%*4% Friend or relative7% 16%*3% Online banner7%2%1%11%* 5%-- 10% * Independent Z-Test for Percentages. Asterisks indicate significance (significantly different than comparison groups) at 90% confidence +/- 10% error.

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 11 Participation »Participant was defined as a customer who received some form of recommendations through the program »All of the channels that reported program goals met their targets. »Over 151,000 customers participated in HEES in 2004 and 2005 combined. ›67% participated by mail ›23% participated online ›10% participated through in-home visits.

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 12 Participation 57% said they thoroughly read the report Total (n=1045) Mail (n=242) In- Home (n=242) Online (n=561) Read the report thoroughly57%62%  59%53% Read some portions of the report20%16% 24%^ Just glance through it10% 11% Do not read the report at all2% 1% Do not recall receiving the report11% 13%11%  Independent Z-Test for percentages. Symbol indicates significance (significantly higher than online group) at 90% confidence +/- 10% error. ^ Symbol indicates significance (significantly higher than mail and in-home groups) at 90% confidence +/- 10% error

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 13 Satisfaction Satisfaction (By Delivery Mechanism) *Independent Z-Test for percentages. Symbol indicates significance (significantly higher than comparison groups) at 90% confidence +/- 10% error. ^ Symbol indicates significance (significantly lower than comparison groups) at 90% confidence +/- 10% error

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 14 Awareness-Action Continuum General Population v. Participants (Prior to HEES Participation ) Not aware of actions Aware, not reached decision point Aware, considered, NOT taken action yet Has taken actions to reduce Independent Z-Test for percentages. The percentage of program participants that report taking actions action is significantly higher than comparison groups at 90% confidence +/- 10% error.

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 15 Overall Usefulness of Information »Not “all things” to “all people” but valuable to many »39% felt that HEES played a unique informational role—they could not have found this information anywhere else (or 44% if you exclude “did not read report”) »44% gave a rating of 8, 9 or 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is “extremely useful”. Mean was 6.8 ~Similar across all delivery mechanisms

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 16 Overall Usefulness of Information ›26% of the participants say they had already done most of the recommendations in the energy report ›37% say they had taken about half the actions suggested ›21% had done one or two actions ›Only 9% had not taken any of the actions recommended by HEES »Not all of the recommendations made by HEES are actionable because many participants had already taken at least some of the actions recommended by HEES

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 17 Adoption of Recommendations »Customer adoption of program recommendations ›By recommendation—13% of all recommendations adopted ~Install CFLs ~Seal air leaks/Install weatherstripping ~Lowering temperatures of ac or water ›By person—38% influenced by HEES to take at least one recommendation

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 18 Cross-Program Marketing »HEES encourages customers to participate in other programs by: ›Including promotional inserts in the energy report ›Providing links to other programs in the online survey ›Verbally promoting programs during the in-home survey ›Including information such as the 800 number in the recommendations

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 19 Cross-Program Marketing »Four delivery channels: (1) PG&E mail, (2) SCE mail, (3) SCE in-home, and (4) SCE online ›based on data availability »Crossing of databases ›to determine percentage of HEES participants who then participated in other utility programs ›programs included: ~Appliance Recycling Program ~Rebate Programs (Single- and Multi-Family) ~The Summer Discount Plan (or AC Cycling Program) ~The 20/20 Program (less emphasis on this one) »Cross-program telephone survey with customers to determine the extent to which they report being influenced

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 20 Cross-Program Marketing Program Participants Participated in at Least One Other Program Since Jan 2004 Non-Participants Participated in at Least One Other Program Since Jan 2004 Single-Family Rebate 6.5%4.7% Multi-Family Rebate 2.4%1.7% Appliance Recycling 5.5%6.0% AC Cycling 7.5%7.9% 20/20 7.5%8.2% Total 25.7%25.6%

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 21 Cross-Program Marketing Adjusted database numbers by percentages that self- reported that HEES played some role (ranged from 28%-50% depending on program/utility) On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is no influence and 5 is a great deal of influence, the influence that different factors had on their decision to participate in additional programs

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 22 Cross-Program Marketing »Influences a small percentage of participants to participate in other energy efficiency program efforts (~5% over two year period) ~extrapolating using SCE numbers since that is “best guess” »There does not appear to be conclusive evidence that HEES leads to an increase in other program participation ~primarily based on database review

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 23  Collect complete customer information  Develop a statewide master list of recommendations with savings estimates, fuel type, EULs  Flag participants who receive CFLs  Consider budgeting by delivery mechanism  Consider analyzing each channel separately in future evaluation efforts Things to Consider For The Future On the HEES Databases/Evaluation…

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 24 Things to Consider For The Future On the HEES Report…  Review the wording of all recommendations to ensure that they are actionable  Ensure that the list of possible recommendations is complete within each channel On the HEES Survey…  Collect additional information to help develop more specific recommendations

Statewide Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program 25 Sharyn Barata Opinion Dynamics Corp Contact Information