1. 1 NORTHWEST ENERGY EFFICIENCY ALLIANCE TV Initiative Webinar Ty Stober & Praveen Chalise March 25, 2014

2. 2 Desired Outcomes You leave the webinar understanding:  the “why” behind the TV initiative  lessons learned through Market Progress Evaluation Reports (MPERs) – and adjustments made along the way  the rationale behind transitioning out of the market and the hand off to long term monitoring and tracking

3. 3 How it all began 26 - 16

4. 4 Why a TV Initiative  Plasma TVs consuming 2x energy CRTs  98% TV penetration of US Households  # sets per household climbing  DTV Transition 6/12/2009  More efficient technology existed

5. 5 Initiative Background 2008200920102011201220132014  Pilot TVs with CA  2010-14 Business Plan  Pilot TVs with CA  2010-14 Business Plan  ENERGY STAR 5.3  9 months early  108 watt cap  ENERGY STAR 5.3  9 months early  108 watt cap  Initiative winds down  TVs Transfer to RPP Pilot  Regional Plug Load Platform Discussion  ENERGY STAR 3.0  Regional Plug Load Platform Discussion  ENERGY STAR 3.0  5 National + Regional Retailers  ENERGY STAR 4.0  5 National + Regional Retailers  ENERGY STAR 4.0  Target Joins Program

6. 66 Televisions – Market Transformation Leverage mid-stream incentives to influence retailer buying practices, ultimately driving the manufacturing, product specifications and standards of energy-efficient televisions.  Consumers weren’t aware or concerned  So, manufacturers and retailers didn’t care  Resistance to standards  Marketing links EE and Advanced Technology  Super Regional market power to influence retailers  Drive ENERGY STAR specification INTERVENTIONSOUTCOMES MARKET BARRIERS  Consumers pay attention  Dominant market share for TVs that meet program specifications  ENERGY STAR assists standards implementation

7. 7 Market Progress Evaluation Report 2 (MPER2)  Covers 2011, Published 2013  Initiative influenced retailers’ assortment decisions  Products on the shelf led to increased sales  Initiative influenced ENERGY STAR specifications

8. 8 MPER2 (2011) Other Points of Interest  Validated savings model  In-store video increased sales at one retailer  Retailers valued in-store activities

9. 9 Critiques from MPER2 (2011)  Not seeing retailers buying formulas, limits ability to quantify program influence  Regional impact measurement hindered by limited data set and lack of control groups  No short-term impact on product design  Initiative did not impact store associate behavior  Retailers didn’t promote TVs beyond initiative activities

10. 10 Televisions – Market Transformation Leverage mid-stream incentives to influence retailer buying practices, ultimately driving the manufacturing, product specifications and standards of energy-efficient televisions.  Consumers weren’t aware or concerned  So, manufacturers and retailers didn’t care  Resistance to standards  Marketing links EE and Advanced Technology  Super Regional market power to influence retailers  Drive ENERGY STAR specification INTERVENTIONSOUTCOMES MARKET BARRIERS  Consumers pay attention  Dominant market share for TVs that meet program specifications  ENERGY STAR assists standards implementation

11. 11 2013 Highlights  Compensated on 20% above ENERGY STAR 6.0 and on Most Efficient 2013  Focused on market pull activities  Laid groundwork for transferring assets to Retail Products Portfolio

12. 12 TV Energy Savings 13 37 68 102 139 177 Total Regional Savings Today 2013 Goal 27.7 aMW

13. 13 Tier Progression

14. 14 TVs – Market Transformation in Action % Market Share of TVs

15. 15 TVs – Market Transformation in Action % Market Share of TVs Transformation Market

16. 16 TVs – Market Transformation in Action % Market Share of TVs We are here.

17. 17 Average TV Energy Consumption TV’S: Use 56% Less Energy Than Pre-Program! ENERGY STAR 5 Effective ENERGY STAR 5 Effective

18. 18 Changes in TV Energy Intensity over time

19. 19 Next Steps  Transition Complete milestone June 30  Monitor effects of new DOE test spec  Participate in ENERGY STAR 7.0 process  Participate in DOE standards process  Support state standards

20. 20 Review Desired Outcomes Are you leaving the webinar understanding:  the “why” behind the TV initiative?  lessons learned through Market Progress Evaluation Reports (MPERs) – and the adjustments made along the way?  the rationale behind transitioning out of the market and the hand off to long term monitoring and tracking?

21. 21 Wrap-up  Questions  Ty Stober, Initiative Manager tstober@neea.org 503-688-5494 tstober@neea.org