1. 2003 California Statewide Multifamily Program Evaluation Wirtshafter Associates, Inc. Energy Market Innovations, Inc. Itron, Inc. Kreitler Research and Consulting

2. Multi-family Rebate Program Features Rebates for a broad list of energy efficiency measures installed in apartments and in common areas Contractors reserve incentives on first-come basis. (reservation held 45 days). Utilities verify installations, (SDG&E 100%, other 35%)

3. PY2003 Multifamily Rebate Participation Utility Number of ComplexeskWhTherm Quantity of MeasuresIncentives SCG3744,371,663736,79852,942$1,139,208 SDG&E2063,595,507377,33044,261$1,528,823 SCE2434,607,2850127,554$1,803,970 PG&E50310,047,686602,917401,113$3,499,719 Total1,32622,622,1411,717,045625,870$7,971,720

4. Evaluation Methodology Process Evaluation and Summary of Accomplishments. Contractor Interviews. (22) Owner/Property Manager Surveys. (150) On-Site Verification and Tenant Surveys. (102) Impact Savings Assessment. Hard-to-Reach Assessment.

5. MFRP 2002 Issues New Program in 2002 Serious issue of lamp quality Large number of uninstalled or removed lamps Many lamps put in low use applications Low level of gas measure activity Funds ran out quickly MFRP 2003Managers Used 2002 Recommendations to Modify Program

6. 2002 On-sites and Owner Surveys Revealed Lamp Retention Issues Lamps not installed, burned out, or removed Recommendations Made in 2002 Report Increase utility verification Hold contractors responsible

7. Lamp Retention Issues 2003-04 Larger contractors resolved issues by changing lamp manufacturers, revisiting 2002 sites, and supplying additional lamps Utilities higher verification seems to have eliminated most of the non-install issue Managers removing poorly performing contractors from program Problems with some small contractors re- entering under new names remains

8. Lamp Quality Was a Big Issues for Property Managers In 2002, property managers felt they were receiving free items and did not question quality. They ended up spending time replacing lamps Recommendations Made in 2002 Report Empower owners to hold contractors to provide reliable, quality measures

9. Empowering Owners Created manual for property owners that explained program and the property owners options and responsibilities Manual discusses both how to choose a contractor and the equipment

10. Restricting Lamps to High Use Applications 2003 Program restricted lamps to 8- 10 per unit. 2003-04 Evaluation recommends further restriction of numbers and study of run times.

11. Reaching Gas Markets There are no gas technologies, except thermostats, that can be given away by contractors. In 2003, utilities did reach gas activity goals, but largely due to thermostat installations. Need greater buy-in by owner who must contribute if larger items to be rebated.

12. Program Deserves Greater Funding If quality issues can be resolved, program dollars should be increased MFRP is only program reaching residential tenant sector Market is largely uncaptured, unlimited, and non-free-rider By definition, they are Hard-to-Reach

13. Hard to Reach Issues Program Policy that Emphasized Serving Rural Areas was counter- intuitive. Contractors mined neighbors--Areas served were very concentrated.(4% of Census Block Groups has activity).

14. 2003-04 Recommendations Maintain close scrutiny of contractor activities. Make it clear in the application that contractors who are found to not install products for which rebates are claimed will be banned from future participation. Continue efforts to educate property managers Dedicate more funds to applications directed by property managers

15. 2003-04 Recommendations (cont) De-emphasize non-hard-wired solutions. Reduce the number of lamps per unit even further Monitor the programmable thermostat settings closely Determine run-time of lamps. Expand multifamily reach into geographic areas with high potential but no current activity. Increase program funding