Persistence and Cost of Behavioral Programs
Presented to NASUCA Mid-Year Meeting
June 25, 2012
by
Jeffrey Loiter, Managing Consultant
What is Persistence?
How permanent is the behavior change?
Is permanence of change dependent on continued feedback?
Still not widely studied
– ACEEE identified “critical lack of information” on long-term
persistence in 2010 (Friedrich et al 2010)
– Only 4 out of 10 programs included in a 2011 BPA survey
planning future persistence evaluation (Schick and Goodwin
2011)
– Particularly weak in C&I sector
Continued Feedback = Persistent Savings
Meta Study (Ehrhardt-Martinez et al (2010))
– 70% of studies showed persistent or increased savings, as did
– 100% of the long-term (1 to 3 year) studies
SMUD: Increasing savings over first year, then remaining
steady or continuing to increase into second and third years
(Cooney 2011)
National Grid (electric) and NSTAR (gas): Preliminary findings
indicate savings increase or remain steady when program
continues for second year (Opinion Dynamics 2012)
Persistence may exist even without continued feedback
– Found in 5 of 6 studies (Ehrhardt-Martinez et al (2010)
What Does it Cost?
Key variable is persistence!
– Annual vs. lifetime or levelized costs
What costs are included, and for how long?
More data available
Large range of demonstrated costs
Cost Outcomes
Program
NGrid
NGrid
Seattle City Light
Energy Trust of Oregon
Illinois CUB low
Illinois CUB high
SMUD pilot low
SMUD pilot high
Payson City
Year
2010
2011
2010
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
¢/ann. kWh
4.2
5.3
3.0
7.4
3.5
5.5
5.0
6.7
2.1
Sources: National Grid data and Schick and Goodwin (2011)
Suggestions for Consumer Advocates
Demand good evaluation
– Supported by the program design
– Statistically valid
– Answers the right questions
Track the costs
Know what you are buying
References
Cooney, K. (2011) Evaluation Report: OPOWER SMUD Pilot Year 2. Navigant
Consulting. February 20.
Ehrhardt-Martinez, K. et al (2010) Advanced Metering Initiatives and Residential
Feedback Programs: A Meta-Review for Household Electricity-Saving
Opportunities. ACEEE Report Number E105. June.
Friedrich, K, et al. (2010) Visible and Concrete Savings: Case Studies of
Effective Behavioral Approaches to Improving Customer Energy Efficiency.
ACEEE Report Number E108. October.
Opinion Dynamics (2012) Massachusetts Cross Cutting Behavioral Program
2011 Impact Findings Draft. May
Schick, S. and S. Goodwin (2011) Residential Behavior Based Energy Efficiency
Program Profiles 2011. Bonneville Power Administration. December.
Jeffrey Loiter, Managing Consultant
Optimal Energy, Inc
[email protected]
802.453.5100 x18
www.optenergy.com