Northeast Utilities - Energy Efficiency Program Library · Web viewNortheast Utilities is performing research to see what high-value new construction design elements they could

Northeast UtilitiesConservation and Load Management Programs

New Construction Program Report on 2000 Measure Installations

Impact EvaluationFinal Report

December 2002

Prepared for:Northeast Utilities

Market Planning & Regulatory Support66 Curtis Street

New Britain, CT 06052

Prepared by:RLW Analytics, Inc.

179 Main Street, 3rd FloorMiddletown, CT 06457

andThe Nicholas Group21 Greendale AvenueCromwell, CT 06416

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all of the people at Northeast Utilities and the Collaborative who took the time to support and help with this study. Regrettably, we cannot thank everyone individually, but we do want to acknowledge the contributions made by Kate Evans and Dave Bebrin. The data, insight, and support provided by these individuals helped to establish the foundation for this report. Of course, we assume sole responsibility for any errors or omissions.

New Construction ProgramReport on 2000 Measure Installations

Impact Evaluation –Draft Report

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................I1.1. 2000 Evaluation Approach Summary..............................................................................i1.2. 2000 Annual Savings Summary......................................................................................ii1.3. Market Actor Summary.................................................................................................iii1.4. Lessons Learned Summary............................................................................................iv

2. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE........................................................................12.1. Evaluation Objectives......................................................................................................1

3. IMPACT EVALUATION APPROACH.................................................................2

4. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS...................................................................3

5. SAMPLE DESIGN AND SELECTION..................................................................55.1. On-Site Sample Design...................................................................................................55.2. Sample Validation...........................................................................................................75.3. On-Site Sample Selection................................................................................................85.4. Market Actor Sample Design and Selection...................................................................9

6. ON-SITE ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY........................106.1. Overview.......................................................................................................................106.2. Comprehensive File Reviews........................................................................................116.3. On-site Engineering Assessments.................................................................................12

7. DETERMINING GROSS SAVINGS.....................................................................147.1. File Review to Tracking Savings..................................................................................147.2. Gross Annual Savings...................................................................................................157.3. Gross Realization Rate Summary..................................................................................177.4. Gross Lifetime Savings.................................................................................................17

8. DETERMINING NET EFFECTS..........................................................................198.1. Net Savings....................................................................................................................198.2. Net Annual Energy Savings Summary..........................................................................20

9. NEW CONSTRUCTION SURVEY RESULTS....................................................229.1. 2000 On-Site Survey Results........................................................................................229.2. 2000 Market Actor Survey Results...............................................................................23

9.2.1. Analysis......................................................................................................249.2.2. Questions of Interest to Northeast Utilities...............................................269.2.3. Summary....................................................................................................28

10. SUMMARY OF MAJOR IMPACT FINDINGS..............................................2910.1. 2000 Annual Savings.....................................................................................................29

10.2. 2000 Lifetime Savings...................................................................................................30

11. LESSONS LEARNED.........................................................................................3111.1. Recommendations.........................................................................................................31

11.1.1. Establish Definitive Base Case Scenarios for DOE2 Simulations............3111.1.2. Alternate Program Evaluation Periods With End Use Analysis...............3211.1.3. Standardize Savings Estimates Using Ratios To Previous Studies...........3211.1.4. Extend Utility Bill Review To All Prescriptive Sites..................................3311.1.5. Modify Occupancy Sensor Savings Calculations......................................33

APPENDIX A: ON-SITE MEASURE EVALUATIONS...............................................1

APPENDIX B: SURVEY FORMS AND SCORING METHODS................................1Onsite Survey Form......................................................................................................................2Market Actor Survey Form.........................................................................................................12Survey Scoring for On-Site Surveys...........................................................................................20

APPENDIX C: SURVEY AND INTERVIEW MARGINALS......................................12000 Market Actor Interview Response Summary.......................................................................22000 On-Site Survey Marginals.................................................................................................19


Impact Evaluation – Draft Report

Listing of Tables

Table Ex 1: 2000 End-Use Net Annual Savings by Service Territory................................iiTable Ex 2: Annual Net Realization Rates.........................................................................iiiTable Ex 3: 2000 End-Use Net Lifetime Savings by Service Territory.............................iii

Table 1: 2000 Tracking System Savings Summary.............................................................3Table 2: 2000 New Construction Preliminary Sample Design Summary...........................7Table 3: End-Use Coverage with Supplemental Sample.....................................................8Table 4: 2000 Sample Selection and Tracking Savings Estimates......................................9Table 5: File Review to Tracking Summary: Lighting......................................................14Table 6: File Review to Tracking Summary: Non-Lighting Measure Variances.............15Table 7: Summary of File Review Annual Savings..........................................................15Table 8: 2000 New Construction On-Site to Tracking Summary.....................................16Table 9: Gross Annual Savings Summary.........................................................................17Table 10: 2000 Realization Rates: Gross Savings versus Tracking System Savings........17Table 11: 2000 Gross Lifetime Savings............................................................................18Table 12: 2000 Lifetime Realization Rates: On-Site versus Tracking Savings................18Table 13: 2000 Net Annual Savings..................................................................................20Table 14: 2000 Net Annual Energy Savings.....................................................................21Table 15: 2000 Net Realization Rate Summary: Net vs. Tracking...................................21Table 16: 2000 Free Ridership Rates by Territory and Segment......................................21Table 17: 2000 End-Use Savings Summary: Net Annual Energy (kWh).........................29Table 18: 2000 Savings Summary: Net Realization Rates (%).........................................30Table 19: 2000 Summary of Free Ridership Rates............................................................30Table 20: 2000 Summary of Lifetime Energy Savings.....................................................30Table 21: Market Actor Firm and Respondent Demographics............................................2Table 22: Market Actor Project Frequencies by Type, SF, and Geography........................2Table 23: Market Actor Project Frequencies by Sector.......................................................3Table 24: Project Distribution by Nature of Design............................................................3Table 25: Architect Perceptions of Program on Energy Efficiency Design/Equipment.....4Table 26: Engineer Perceptions of Program on Energy Efficiency Design/Equipment......4Table 27: Perceptions of Program Influence on Local Codes and Standards......................5Table 28: Familiarity and Use of Incentives........................................................................6Table 29: Familiarity/Use of Incentives By Those Familiar with Account Reps................6Table 30: Perception of Program Impact vs. Incentive Familiarity/Use.............................7Table 31: Daylighting Controls – Questions and Responses...............................................8Table 32: Recent Project Sample Group – Sample Types, Ranges, and Averages.............9Table 33: Recent Project – Involvement in Design, Installation, and Commissioning.....10Table 34: Those With Primary Responsibility for Specific Design Portions....................11Table 35: Importance of Energy Efficiency and Other Factors in the Project..................12Table 36: Weighted Scoring –Importance of Energy Efficiency in the Project Design....12

Table 37: Incentive Influence on Energy Efficiency Selection.........................................14Table 38: Firms/People Identified As Doing Follow Up On Specs..................................14Table 39: Actions Identified for Follow-Up on Specs.......................................................15Table 40: Purchasing and Stocking Issues.........................................................................15Table 41: Recommendations for Utility Support...............................................................17

Listing of Figures

Figure 1: 2000 Tracking System Savings by Service Territory & Market Segment...........3Figure 2: 2000 Tracking System Savings by End-Use........................................................4Figure 3: Distribution of Savings........................................................................................5Figure 4: Opinions That Carried the Most Weight............................................................13Figure 5: Final Decision Maker on Efficiency Level........................................................13Figure 6: Factors Influencing Efficiency...........................................................................13


Impact Evaluation –Draft Report

1. Executive SummaryThis report summarizes work done in 2000 by Northeast Utilities (NU) to verify the installation and continued operation of measures installed in 2000 as part of the New Construction Program. This program is the Company’s major commercial and industrial new construction program and includes projects undertaking additions and major renovations. The objective of this study was to develop final net annual and net lifetime energy savings for the measures installed in 2000.

During 2000, 310 NU customers participated in the program, resulting in an estimated annual savings of 42,905 MWh. Of the total projects completed, 281 installed “Lighting” energy efficiency measures (EEMs), which accounted for 65% of the 2000 total savings or 28,032 MWh. Of the 14,873 MWh of non-lighting savings, nearly 41% or 6,067 MWh was associated with the “Cooling” end-use, 28% with the “Other” end-use, and 21% were realized through the installation of “Refrigeration” measures. The remaining 10% can be attributed to the “Heating,” “Motor,” and “Process” end-uses.

1.1. 2000 Evaluation Approach SummaryThe 2000 impact evaluation work satisfied the following objectives:

1. Conduct file reviews of program documentation for only program participants who are visited on site.

2. Conduct comprehensive onsite engineering inspections on a sample of program participants who installed measures identified with Cooling, Heating, Lighting, Other, Refrigeration, Process, or Water Heating measures to determine gross energy savings associated with those measures.

3. Conduct a technical process survey in a personal interview format to inform the net energy impacts and provide recommendations on future program offerings.

4. Determine and quantify the net energy savings derived from program participation for the entire program population for 2000. Net savings include impacts from free riders, including partial free riders, and participant free drivers.

5. Assess the effects of the program on the new construction market among the following market groups: engineers, designers, architects, and developers. In addition, determine the level of market effects as reflected in code changes.

6. Assess the specifications of new construction projects in the market, in particular whether the energy efficient equipment is being specified, and if not, why.

7. Produce a written report that documents all findings, including a section identifying lessons learned as a result of the evaluation. Reporting will include a section containing write-ups for each technology visited during the evaluation detailing the calculation of energy savings and any other site-specific findings.

8. Develop a baseline database for future persistence of savings studies.

1.2. 2000 Annual Savings SummaryTable Ex 1 presents a summary of the major findings at the end-use level. The table presents the 2000 net results by operating company, market segment, and end-use. For CL&P the total 2000 energy savings are estimated to be approximately 37,934 MWh with an achieved relative precision of ±14.1%. For WMECo, the 2000 energy savings are estimated to be 4,081 MWh with an achieved relative precision of ±9.9%. This yields an overall annual energy savings for the 2000 program of 42,015 MWh and an achieved relative precision of ±13.7%.

Service MajorTerritory Segment Total Cooling Heating Lighting Other Process Motors Refrigeration

CL&P Commercial 30,452,281 4,665,762 907,281 18,271,205 5,873,066 0 247,015 487,952Industrial 7,481,814 890,933 130,985 4,672,733 484,660 7,281 11,105 1,284,117

Total 37,934,095 5,556,695 1,038,266 22,943,938 6,357,726 7,281 258,120 1,772,06999.0% 96.6% 118.7% 94.4% 154.8% 68.3% 60.7% 62.5%

±14.1% ±13.3% ±34.2% ±20.8% ±21.2% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%WMECo Commercial 2,923,000 396,341 48,613 2,111,677 102,253 0 108,591 155,525

Industrial 1,158,303 6,111 0 1,152,192 0 0 0 0Total 4,081,303 402,452 48,613 3,263,869 102,253 0 108,591 155,525

88.7% 128.9% 84.8% 87.4% 78.8% N/A 96.0% 61.2%±9.9% ±5.0% ±1.0% ±11.2% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

NU System Commercial 33,375,281 5,062,103 955,894 20,382,882 5,975,319 0 355,606 643,477Industrial 8,640,117 897,044 130,985 5,824,925 484,660 7,281 11,105 1,284,117

Total 42,015,398 5,959,147 1,086,879 26,207,807 6,459,979 7,281 366,711 1,927,59497.9% 98.2% 116.6% 93.5% 152.5% 68.3% 68.1% 62.4%

±13.7% ±12.8% ±32.8% ±19.6% ±20.9% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

Net Estimates of Annual Savings (kWh)

Realization RateRelative Precision

Realization Rate


Relative Precision

2000 New Construction Program

Table Ex 1: 2000 End-Use Net Annual Savings by Service Territory

Table Ex 2 presents a summary of the 2000 net realization rates by operating company, market segment, and end-use. The net realization rate for CL&P is calculated to be 99%. For WMECO the realization rate is calculated to be 88.7% yielding an overall net realization for the NU System of 97.9%. The net realization rate for the commercial class is estimated to be 98.1% and the industrial net realization rate is estimated to be 97.1%. Again, this yields an overall net realization rate of 97.9% at the system level.

Service RelativeTerritory Precision Total Cooling Heating Lighting Other Process Motors Refrigeration

CL&P ±14.1% 99.0% 96.6% 118.7% 94.4% 154.8% 68.3% 60.7% 62.5%WMECo ±9.9% 88.7% 128.9% 84.8% 87.4% 78.8% N/A 96.0% 61.2%

Commercial ±16.5% 98.1% 101.9% 117.8% 92.0% 153.9% N/A 67.4% 38.6%Industrial ±16.3% 97.1% 81.4% 108.7% 99.1% 136.4% 68.3% 100.0% 90.5%

NU System ±13.7% 97.9% 98.2% 116.6% 93.5% 152.5% 68.3% 68.1% 62.4%

2000 New Construction ProgramAnnual Net Realization Rates

By Major Segment

Overall

By Service Territory

Table Ex 2: Annual Net Realization Rates

Table Ex 3 below presents the estimated net lifetime savings of the 2000 New Construction Program measure installs. A total of 687,855 MWh is estimated to be saved in CL&P and 77,844 MWh in WMECo during the lifetime of measures installed in 2000. In total, 765,670 MWh is estimated to be saved at the NU System level.


CL&P Commercial 547,528,981 75,208,621 13,397,721 356,110,454 88,660,661 0 4,180,680 9,970,844Industrial 140,326,401 13,227,311 1,964,771 94,525,128 7,269,896 36,405 188,784 23,114,106

Total 687,855,382 88,435,932 15,362,492 450,635,582 95,930,557 36,405 4,369,464 33,084,95098.8% 94.5% 119.3% 96.7% 154.3% 68.3% 61.4% 60.8%

±14.3% ±10.6% ±35.1% ±20.2% ±21.1% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%WMECo Commercial 54,355,738 5,818,645 615,491 41,597,698 1,773,372 0 2,508,240 2,042,292

Industrial 23,488,584 85,554 0 23,403,030 0 0 0 0Total 77,844,322 5,904,199 615,491 65,000,728 1,773,372 0 2,508,240 2,042,292

90.4% 129.5% 80.7% 88.6% 78.8% N/A 144.6% 59.0%±9.5% ±5.3% ±1.1% ±10.7% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%

NU System Commercial 601,884,719 81,027,266 14,013,212 397,708,152 90,434,033 0 6,688,920 12,013,136Industrial 163,814,985 13,312,865 1,964,771 117,928,158 7,269,896 36,405 188,784 23,114,106

Total 765,699,704 94,340,131 15,977,983 515,636,310 97,703,929 36,405 6,877,704 35,127,24297.9% 96.1% 117.1% 95.6% 151.6% 68.3% 77.7% 60.7%

±13.8% ±10.3% ±33.8% ±19.0% ±20.8% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%


Relative Precision



Realization Rate

Net Estimates of Lifetime Savings (kWh)

Table Ex 3: 2000 End-Use Net Lifetime Savings by Service Territory

1.3. Market Actor SummaryThe New Construction program has made moderate progress with awareness of the program among market actors, particularly with architects. There does not yet seem to be any noticeable change in local codes or standards because of the program. Engineers appear to lag behind architects in familiarity and use of the New Construction program. However, it should be noted that in a correlation analysis, large engineering firms were noted to be more familiar with the program and more likely to use the incentives than small engineering firms. No correlation was noted among large versus small architect firms.

Decision making in the early stages of new construction rests primarily with owners and architects, and then tends to be dispersed into various combinations of owners, architects, and engineers. Architects reported that owners have a key role in the final decisions on energy efficient designs and equipment, although the analysis of other questions in the survey, suggests that often times the owner reported not knowing exactly what was done through the program or considered before the program. This indicates to the evaluation team that architects do have more decision making weight than they reported. HVAC, mechanical and lighting engineers or consultants are seen to have influence on the design process, but there is evidence of collaboration or concurrence on a wide scale with the architect and/or owner on projects. Daylighting appears to be embraced by a segment of architectural firms, but others have not done much with it.

In gathering information on other services customers would like provided by NU, the top choices were given as education, training, or seminars on energy efficient equipment or designs. We feel this reflects well on the opportunities that lay in waiting for seminars that NU is currently offering, including seminars on chillers and controls, among others.

Those who have understood and taken advantage of the New Construction program have in most cases reacted favorably to it. There appears to be some gaps in knowledge and awareness with about half of the architects and most of the engineers that were interviewed in this survey. It may be beneficial for NU to consider new or increased marketing activities to move the program to capture more opportunities that can be leveraged through getting word of the program to architects and engineers.

1.4. Lessons Learned SummaryThe following are recommendations that flowed from an assessment of the lessons learned during the process of evaluating the New Construction Program. Establish Definitive Base Case Scenarios for DOE2 SimulationsProject files were reviewed for all sites, prescriptive as well as comprehensive, in the initial part of the analysis process. These files contained entire histories of each project and it was even possible to identify the evolution of the measures by reviewing this paper trail. While the folders were not always complete, the information necessary was attainable for most measures and locations with only minor exceptions. The single largest information gap is associated with the DOE2 simulations. Understandably, the DOE2 analysis is developed through an interactive process, which often involved re-simulations that are made by the New Construction vendors in response to contemplated or intended changes. The DOE2 process is further complicated by the ongoing development of both the customer specific baseline assumptions and the final design specifications. Often, due to the complexity of this interactive process, impacts to the original base case scenarios are not noted or quantified, although the impact of the change on the measure level is documented. What is missing is a new “final” base case and new “final” project DOE2 simulation with the installed measures. The less the base case files represent the final facility profile, the greater the variances between the tracking and calculated savings will be.

Alternate Program Evaluation Periods With End Use AnalysisMonitoring and field measurements for the 2000 New Construction Program began in September and continued through December. Much of the monitoring period occurred during the fall season when there were little or no cooling loads. The entire program population included measures with 14,873,187 kWh with non-lighting end usage. Cooling measures accounted for slightly over six million kWh, or 40.8% of all non-lighting usage. Heating measures made up only 6.3% of total non-lighting load. However, the monitoring period coincided more with the heating season and heating loads. In these instances, the cooling analyses were based upon nameplate data, design information, discussions with facility personnel, vendor information, and hard copies of control documentation strategies. Fortunately, larger facilities had well maintained facility management systems, which provided historical data on cooling season operation that was incorporated into the savings calculations. While we are confident that the savings calculations in the report are accurate, the cost and effort of the monitoring part of the process would have been better utilized on the end use representing 40.8% of the non-lighting savings. Subsequent year programs should be staggered to alternate between heating and cooling monitoring efforts.

Standardize Savings Estimates Using Ratios To Previous StudiesThis practice was limited to the refrigeration sites included in the 2000 New Construction Program. Although the use of ratios to estimate the savings of similar measures is a valid practice, great care should be taken to make sure that the variable being used to develop the ratio has a direct impact on the measure savings. Additionally great care should be taken to ensure that the original savings estimate was valid and is applicable to the current measure. One of the major problems with the use of ratio estimators, from an evaluator’s point of view, is that the files tend to be incomplete with regard to the original assumptions used to generate the savings estimate. The variance in program savings to tracking saving is due, in part, to relying on the ratios.

This does not mean that using ratios is not a viable calculation strategy. These savings are based upon previously proven calculations and technologies. However, a template should be made with standards and conditions that the measure savings are predicated upon. This should be similar to the methodology and standardization currently used with lighting, variable speed drives, and premium efficiency motors. This template should include all the key variables required for calculation: box temperature, number of doors, and type of refrigerant for example. The input for the new location should also include these variables to minimize mismatching system types and variables.

Extend Utility Bill Review To All Prescriptive SitesIt was noted this year that there was a considerable turnover of the decision makers at the sites. Many of the new people had either no knowledge of the project, or had limited input during the process. Having a billing history for those locations would provide one more tool to determine what actually occurred in those facilities. It would supply information on seasonal operations that may not be known or easily identified and could point to major changes in operation that occurred prior to the arrival of the contact person.

Modify Occupancy Sensor Savings CalculationsOccupancy sensors were recommended at a dozen locations in the sample population to control lighting operation. Most of these savings were incorporated into the lighting saving and not generated as a stand-alone measure. This is due in part to the lighting calculation spreadsheet. A list of eligible fixtures is entered into the spreadsheet. Comparing the new proposed connected load with the base load generates lighting savings. An average annual hourly operation is used to calculate both the pre and post lighting consumption values. Occupancy sensor quantities are linked with the fixture list and the same annual operating hours are applied to the occupancy sensors operation along with a standard 30% reduction in operation.

The savings generated in the site analysis from the occupancy sensor operation was less than the base calculations in 11 of the 12 locations. Most of the variances were considerable and the calculated savings was 37.5% less as a whole when compared with base estimates. This is due to two major factors. The 30.0% reduction was not achieved in most locations. The average value was approximately 22.6%. The greatest impact

came from utilizing the average annual operating hour value to establish base operation. The average annual operating hour value consists of all locations. In schools, for example, it includes hallways, night and security circuits, the gymnasium, and other locations with long operation that raise the total annual value. Sensors are located in other areas, such as classrooms and offices that collectively have an annual operation less than the total facility average. At one school, monitored sensor operation was only 1.0% less than projected, but the annual operation for just the classrooms was nearly 18.0% less than the value used. The lighting spreadsheets should be modified to include a separate cell with an estimated annual operation for just the sensor locations.


Impact Evaluation –Final Report

2. Introduction and PurposeThis report summarizes the work completed in 2000 to quantify the net annual and lifetime energy impacts of measures installed in Northeast Utilities’ 2000 New Construction Program. This program is the Company’s major commercial and industrial new construction program and includes projects undertaking additions and major renovations.

2.1. Evaluation ObjectivesThe 2000 impact evaluation work included the following:

Conduct file reviews of program documentation for only program participants who are visited on site;

Conduct comprehensive onsite engineering inspections on a sample of program participants who installed measures identified with Cooling, Heating, Lighting, Other, Refrigeration, Process, or Water Heating measures to determine gross energy savings associated with those measures;

Conduct a technical process survey in a personal interview format to inform the net energy impacts and provide recommendations on future program offerings;

Determine and quantify the net energy savings derived from program participation for the entire program population for 2000. Net savings include impacts from free riders, including partial free riders, and participant free drivers;

Assess the effects of the program on the new construction market among the following market groups: engineers, designers, architects, and developers. In addition, determine the level of market effects as reflected in code changes;

Assess the specifications of new construction projects in the market, in particular whether the energy efficient equipment is being specified, and if not, why;

Produce a written report that documents all findings, including a section identifying lessons learned as a result of the evaluation. Reporting will include a section containing write-ups for each technology visited during the evaluation detailing the calculation of energy savings and any other site specific findings; and

Develop a baseline database for future persistence of savings studies.

Northeast UtilitiesNew Construction Program 2000 Impact Evaluation – Final Report _______________________Page 2

3. Impact Evaluation ApproachThe impact evaluation methodology employed on-site engineering inspections supported by direct measurement, DOE 2.1 simulation modeling, and other auxiliary data, e.g., billing data. The on-site inspections were implemented for a stratified sample of non-lighting end-uses. The specific approach applied at each site was site, end-use, and technology specific. More details regarding the on-site and modeling approach can be found in Appendix A. The impact evaluation consisted of the following evaluation activities:

1. File Reviews - We conducted file reviews of program documentation for all program participants and measures included in the on-site sample. Next, we compared and extrapolated the file review estimates to the population estimates contained in the tracking system. In addition, as part of the file review process, as appropriate we re-allocated ‘other’ savings into the end-uses of interest to this evaluation for the 60 sites in the original population with ‘other’ end-use savings.

2. Sample Designs - We developed and selected a stratified sample of program participants by service territory and C/I market segment. These participants provided the core sample for use in determining the gross and net impacts associated with non-lighting measures. This included the selection of a supplemental sample to ensure adequate end-use coverage for the gross and net savings estimates.

3. On-Site Engineering Assessments - We conducted comprehensive onsite engineering inspections on a stratified sample of 42 program participants who installed measures to determine gross and net energy savings associated with those measures.

4. Gross Impact Analysis – A variety of strategies were employed to develop the gross savings estimates. For lighting measures, this included using spreadsheet analysis and monitored data to generate the direct estimate of gross savings. For non-lighting measures, engineering analyses or DOE 2 re-simulation modeling was used to develop gross savings estimates, also with monitored data from the sites visited.

5. Technical Process Survey - We conducted a technical process survey in a personal interview format to inform the net energy impacts and provide recommendations on future program delivery mechanisms that may reduce negative net impacts. Net savings include impacts from free riders including partial free riders, and participant free drivers.

6. Statistical Analysis - We performed the statistical analyses by service territory and C/I market segment to determine the gross and net realization rates.

7. Reporting - We produced this written report documenting all findings including a section identifying lessons learned as a result of the evaluation. For projects where site visits were conducted, the reporting includes a separate section discussing the findings by technology.

8. Persistence Database – We developed a baseline database for future persistence of savings studies.


4. Population CharacteristicsDuring 2000, 310 NU customers participated in the program resulting in annual energy savings of 42,905 MWh. Table 1 presents a summary of the tracking system savings by service territory, C/I market segment, and end-use. As might be expected, the majority of program savings in the tracking system occurs in the CL&P territory.

Service MajorTerritory Segment Total Cooling Heating Lighting Other Process Other Motors Refrigeration

CL&P Commercial 30,712,270 4,662,019 754,143 19,715,559 3,752,097 0 414,427 1,414,025Industrial 7,592,676 1,093,153 120,447 4,582,524 355,346 10,659 11,105 1,419,442

Total 38,304,946 5,755,172 874,590 24,298,083 4,107,443 10,659 425,532 2,833,467WMECo Commercial 3,294,731 303,809 57,351 2,436,731 129,716 0 113,066 254,058


NU System Commercial 34,007,001 4,965,828 811,494 22,152,290 3,881,813 0 527,493 1,668,083Industrial 8,898,022 1,101,477 120,447 5,879,546 355,346 10,659 11,105 1,419,442

Total 42,905,023 6,067,305 931,941 28,031,836 4,237,159 10,659 538,598 3,087,525

Tracking System Estimates of Annual Savings (kWh)2000 Energy Conscious Construction Program

Table 1: 2000 Tracking System Savings Summary

Figure 1 highlights the total annual savings by service territory and major customer class, i.e., commercial or industrial. In aggregate, the commercial participants (the shaded areas) account for nearly 80% of the total annual savings. The Connecticut Light & Power (CL&P) commercial and industrial participants account for 38,305 MWh or 89% of the total savings. Within the CL&P service territory, the commercial participants account for 30,712 MWh or 80% of the total savings for the CL&P service territory. For WMECo, the commercial participants account for nearly 72% of the total WMECo savings or approximately 3,295 MWh.

2000 New Construction ProgramSavings By Service Territory and Market Segment

CL&P-Com30,712 MWh 71.6%

CL&P-Ind7,593 MWh 17.7%

WMECO-Com3,295 MWh 7.7%

WMECO-Ind1,305 MWh 3.0%

Figure 1: 2000 Tracking System Savings by Service Territory & Market Segment

Figure 2 presents the 2000 tracking system savings by end-use. During 2000, 281 projects installed only “Lighting” EEMs. In aggregate, “Lighting” EEMs account for nearly 28,032 MWh or 65% of 2000 total savings. The “Other” and “Cooling” EEMs combine for a total of 10,304 MWh of savings or 24% of the total annual savings. The


remaining 11% can be attributed to the “Refrigeration,” “Heating,” “Motor,” and “Process” end-uses.

2000 New Construction ProgramTotal Savings by End-Use

Process (0.0%)11 MWh

Cooling (14.1%)6,067 MWh

Heating (2.2%)932 MWh

Other (9.9%)4,237 MWh

Lighting (65.3%)28,032 MWh

Other Motors (1.3%)539 MWh

Refrigeration (7.2%)3,088 MWh

Figure 2: 2000 Tracking System Savings by End-Use


5. Sample Design and SelectionThis section presents the designs used to select samples for the two primary data collection activities associated with this evaluation; the on-site engineering assessments and market actor interviews.

5.1. On-Site Sample DesignThe sample design process began by examining the distribution of savings associated with the individual program participants. Figure 3 presents a histogram of these savings. The histogram shows that one-half (i.e., the median) of the projects save less than 55 MWh individually whereas the largest project saves nearly 3,500 MWh. Ninety percent of all projects save less than 375 MWh.

2000 New Construction ProgramDistribution of Savings

50 100 150 200 250 300

Program Participants

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500Estimated Savings (MWh)

Median: 55 MWh90th Percentile: 375 MWh

Figure 3: Distribution of Savings

The sample design was constructed based on statistical parameters developed from the 1997-1998 Impact Evaluations. The statistical parameters1 include the error ratio---used to determine the sample size required to achieve a stated level of statistical accuracy and the gamma parameter---used to establish the optimum stratification. During the 1997-1998 evaluation, the error ratio parameter was found to differ by jurisdiction. The error ratio calculated for CL&P was 35% and for WMECo 25%. Please note that the smaller the error ratio, the smaller the required sample size needed for a stated level of precision. The actual sample size required is impacted by the distribution of savings in the jurisdiction, e.g., if a large percentage of savings is contained in a few accounts then a smaller sample will be 1 Additional detail on these parameters can be found in “Model-Based Statistical Sampling, User’s Guide and Reference Manual”, Roger L. Wright, revised December 1996.


required than if the savings were more uniformly distributed. Since only three participants had tracking savings in excess of 1,000 MWh of savings, we have isolated these three participants from the population and will include them in the final sample.

An additional consideration in the sample design is the need to get coverage for all end-uses that will be subsequently reported. To do so, RLW first conducted a supplemental file review of projects with ‘Other’ measures to categorize them into their proper end-uses (approximately 60 projects had ‘Other’ savings under the original tracking system end-uses). While this was not a full file review, it was a review of file documentation to identify those ‘other’ measure savings that needed to be broken out into one of the new end-use categories.

It is important to note that the sample design is based upon the end-uses as allocated by the re-categorization of ‘Other’ End-Use savings. Since only one customer had “Process” savings this customer was isolated from the population and was included in the sample.

Based upon the tracking data, a detailed sample was designed to meet the specified precision of ±10% precision at the 90% level of confidence for each service territory individually (CL&P and WMECo). Verification of the sample’s coverage of end-use savings and territory was also considered as part of the final sample design, along with the number of customers required from each territory to meet the stated precision. It is important to note that prior to the sampling process RLW re-categorized the savings from the five categories in the tracking system (Cooling, Heating, Lighting, Other, and Process) to include those required in future reporting (Water Heating, Other Motors, and Refrigeration).

Table 2 presents the preliminary model-based statistical sample (MBSS) design and proposed selection for the on-site work associated with the 2000 New Construction Impact Evaluation. The table includes the jurisdiction, stratum indicator, cut-point based on the tracking estimate of annual savings, the amount of savings contained in each stratum, the required sample size in each stratum, and the case weight for use in the subsequent analysis. The stratum cut-points in the two jurisdictions are substantially different from one another. The projects completed in WMECo are smaller than those completed in CL&P. To achieve ±10% precision for CL&P we needed a sample of 22 program participants. Similarly, to achieve ±10% precision for WMECo, we need a sample of 16 program participants.


Sample Cut-Points Participants Total Savings Size

Jurisdiction Strata (MWh) (N) (MWh) (n)CL&P 1 107,030 150 4,817,909 5 CL&P 2 207,956 44 6,387,875 4 CL&P 3 338,842 26 6,755,654 4 CL&P 4 498,985 18 7,851,598 4 CL&P 5 1,477,057 12 9,198,082 4 CL&P 6 3,293,828 1 3,293,828 1

CL&P Totals 251 38,304,946 22 WMECO 1 26,268 31 411,228 3 WMECO 2 74,480 11 544,520 3 WMECO 3 118,675 6 598,560 3 WMECO 4 146,851 5 662,592 3 WMECO 5 800,362 6 2,383,177 4

WMECO Totals 59 4,600,077 16 NU Totals 310 42,905,023 38

Population Statistics

Table 2: 2000 New Construction Preliminary Sample Design Summary

5.2. Sample ValidationAfter selecting the preliminary sample, a number of comparisons were made to ensure that the sample would provide adequate coverage at the end-use level. Again, it is important to note that this validation was performed following re-categorization of the end-uses. In a review of the sample selection, it was decided to augment the proposed sample with four additional sample points to improve the end-use coverage. Adding these additional sample points improved the end-use coverage for both CL&P and WMECo. The end-use covered with the supplemental sample is presented in Table 3. Most notably for CL&P, the percentage of “Cooling” savings examined increases from 44% to 53%, and more important, the percentage of “Refrigeration” savings increases from 0% to 62%.

This augmentation was particularly important as the re-allocation of end-use savings from the historical end-uses to the new set of end-uses created more reporting cells that needed to be adequately covered in the sample. RLW also reviewed the overall coverage of Commercial vs. Industrial in the sample design. For CL&P, the sample had 8 Industrial and 17 Commercial sites as compared to the 42 and 219 in the population, respectively. Similarly, the WMECo sample has 5 Industrial and 12 Commercial sites as compared to 11 and 48 in the population, respectively. This should provide adequate coverage should we choose to disaggregate the savings and realization rates by Commercial and Industrial component.


Participants Cooling Heating Lighting Other Process Motors Refrigeration Total25 3,039,181 331,285 5,421,583 2,291,872 10,659 220,381 1,760,954 13,075,915251 5,755,172 874,590 24,298,083 4,107,443 10,659 425,532 2,833,467 38,304,946

10.0% 52.8% 37.9% 22.3% 55.8% 100.0% 51.8% 62.1% 34.1%

17 285,150 57,351 2,053,089 28,411 0 108,800 241,980 2,774,78159 312,133 57,351 3,733,753 129,716 0 113,066 254,058 4,600,077

28.8% 91.4% 100.0% 55.0% 21.9% N/A 96.2% 95.2% 60.3%

42 3,324,331 388,636 7,474,672 2,320,283 10,659 329,181 2,002,934 15,850,696310 6,067,305 931,941 28,031,836 4,237,159 10,659 538,598 3,087,525 42,905,023

13.5% 54.8% 41.7% 26.7% 54.8% 100.0% 61.1% 64.9% 36.9%

Total NU SampleNortheast Utilities System

Connecticut Light and Power Company

Total CL&P SampleDescription

Total WMECo SampleWestern Massachusetts Electric Company

Total NU PopulationNU Sample Coverage

Total CL&P PopulationCL&P Sample Coverage

Total WMECo PopulationWMECo Sample Coverage

Table 3: End-Use Coverage with Supplemental Sample

The Comprehensive Area of the New Construction program is focused on the Company's largest commercial and industrial customers. These large customers present unique challenges to the fieldwork including the potential need to address the special nature of some of the New Construction program participants. Due to such sensitivity issues, we were unable to secure all of the originally selected participants into the sample. Three of the originally sampled 42 sites needed to be replaced, two of them due to unresponsiveness to recruitment efforts and one due to the contact having no time to meet with the evaluation team.

5.3. On-Site Sample SelectionThe population of program participants was assigned a random number and sorted by stratum and selected for inclusion in the sample based on the design presented in Table 2, followed by the random selection of four supplemental sample points, as discussed above. The following table presents the project number, C/I market segment, strata assignment, and estimated savings by end-use for the final sample. In addition, the table summarizes the total savings by end-use, C/I market segment, and service territory. Table 4 presents the final sample selected to represent the 2000 program participants.


Cooling Heating Lighting Other Process Motors Refrigeration TotalCE99P047 Commercial 1 14,260 28,861 4,643 24,645 0 0 0 72,409CE00P222 Commercial 1 0 0 0 57,066 0 0 0 57,066EA00P627 Commercial 1 1,479 0 24,453 0 0 0 0 25,932WE99P057 Industrial 1 0 0 0 0 10,659 0 0 10,659WE00P094 Commercial 1 0 0 9,937 0 0 0 0 9,937CE99P064 Industrial 2 0 0 115,762 0 0 0 0 115,762EA00P037 Commercial 2 0 0 137,280 0 0 0 0 137,280EA00P134 Commercial 2 171,418 0 0 0 0 800 0 172,218WE99P121 Industrial 2 0 0 143,182 0 0 0 0 143,182CE99P083 Commercial 3 0 0 257,799 0 0 0 0 257,799CE00P121 Commercial 3 30,093 0 280,513 0 0 0 0 310,606EA99P020 Commercial 3 7,831 0 211,482 0 0 0 0 219,313EA00P668 Industrial 3 0 0 285,438 0 0 0 0 285,438CE00P135 Commercial 4 43,874 0 436,046 0 0 0 0 479,920WE99P168 Commercial 4 26,585 69,615 402,785 0 0 0 0 498,985SO90C008 Commercial 4 0 10,948 233,612 30,226 0 159,381 0 434,167WE98C007 Commercial 4 0 19,853 312,194 135,152 0 11,277 0 478,476CE00C012 Industrial 5 579,793 0 0 0 0 0 0 579,793EA99C005 Industrial 5 0 0 57,615 0 0 0 1,419,442 1,477,057EA00P031 Industrial 5 20,864 0 666,664 0 0 0 0 687,528WE98C011 Commercial 5 163,700 53,341 334,343 0 0 8,867 341,512 901,763WE98C018 Commercial 5 66,396 28,220 241,662 201,549 0 16,370 0 554,197WE99C007 Industrial 5 374,324 120,447 547,538 89,945 0 0 0 1,132,254WE99P147 Commercial 5 21,711 0 718,635 0 0 0 0 740,346EA99C003 Commercial 6 1,516,853 0 0 1,753,289 0 23,686 0 3,293,828

25 3,039,181 331,285 5,421,583 2,291,872 10,659 220,381 1,760,954 13,075,915WM00P213 Commercial 1 0 0 18,236 0 0 0 0 18,236WM00P621 Industrial 1 8,324 0 14,602 0 0 0 0 22,926WM00P220 Industrial 1 0 0 7,809 0 0 0 0 7,809WM99P549 Commercial 2 0 0 29,761 0 0 0 0 29,761WM00P102 Industrial 2 0 0 53,146 0 0 0 0 53,146WM00P218 Commercial 2 3,554 0 29,654 0 0 0 0 33,208WM99P209 Commercial 3 0 0 118,490 0 0 0 0 118,490WM99P222 Commercial 3 0 0 102,237 0 0 0 0 102,237WM00P229 Industrial 3 0 0 76,001 0 0 0 0 76,001WM00P211 Commercial 4 0 23,244 106,612 0 0 0 0 129,856WM00P219 Commercial 4 0 0 121,834 0 0 0 0 121,834WM00P311 Commercial 4 19,493 33,215 67,679 0 0 0 0 120,387WM00C620 Commercial 4 0 0 38,051 0 0 108,800 0 146,851WM98P813 Commercial 5 247,414 892 43,144 0 0 0 0 291,450WM99P602 Commercial 5 0 0 258,790 0 0 0 0 258,790WM99C202 Commercial 5 6,365 0 166,681 28,411 0 0 241,980 443,437WM00P634 Industrial 5 0 0 800,362 0 0 0 0 800,362

17 285,150 57,351 2,053,089 28,411 0 108,800 241,980 2,774,781

Total CL&P Sample

Total WMECo Sample

C/I StrataEnd-Use Savings (kWh)Project

Number

Table 4: 2000 Sample Selection and Tracking Savings Estimates

5.4. Market Actor Sample Design and SelectionRLW interviewed C&I new construction market actors to gather information on the specification process for C&I new construction equipment and to assess the impact of the New Construction Program on the new construction market. The population was developed through use of an electronic SIC database with phone numbers, professional organizations such as the AIA and input from utility staff. The market actor sample included engineers, and designers and architects. A total of 40 interviews divided equally into 20 interviews per market actor (engineers and architects/designers) were completed. These were then divided between firms based in Connecticut and those based in Western Massachusetts, with several firms anticipated to work in both states. We did generate the Massachusetts architect population from architects within towns in the WMECo territory. No statistical models were utilized to derive precision estimates of the results.

Northeast UtilitiesNew Construction Program 2000 Impact Evaluation – Final Report ______________________Page 10

6. On-Site Engineering Assessment Methodology

6.1. OverviewThe on-site analysis included the development of gross and net annual and lifetime energy savings for a stratified sample of 42 program participants. The objective of the on-site engineering assessment was to develop an independent estimate of the actual EEMs installed and operating compared to the current tracking system estimate of savings. The on-site engineering assessment included:

Verification of the EEM installation schedule;

Identification of EEMs and verification of their operation as intended;

Assessment of measure persistence and gathering of baseline information;

The identification and isolation of conditions that could have affected the energy savings associated with measure installation;

Installation of monitoring equipment to discern post-installation energy consumption of EEMs in question;

Performance of a technical process survey with all decision makers to gather information on program issues such as measure persistence, economic effects, free rider, and free driver status of the measures; and

Establishing energy savings associated with each EEM.

The population and sample included both comprehensive and prescriptive sites.

For prescriptive sites, the core analyses included on-site engineering assessments for projects using as-built monitoring. The on-site engineering assessments were end-use and technology specific. For lighting measures, a complete inventory of all lighting installed at a facility was performed and lighting loggers were installed and analyzed to determine the hours of operation. A pre-post retrofit analysis was performed on this data using a spreadsheet application. For motor and industrial process measures, a post-retrofit evaluation was conducted using a comprehensive EEM survey, spot wattage measurements, and run-time hours monitoring. For temperature dependent HVAC applications, a variety of measure-specific readings such as electrical demand, ambient temperature, and relative humidity were used to support a revised engineering analysis using temperature bin methodology.

For comprehensive sites, four assessments incorporated a DOE 2.1E re-simulation model. Through modeling, complex temperature dependent measures at these generally large sites were comprehensively assessed and included all of the interactive elements of the buildings’ systems. DOE simulation modeling allowed the evaluation team to develop hourly load profiles for specific end-uses, and isolate the effects of program measures. Billing data were used for the validation and calibration of the DOE 2.1E outputs. Other specialized EEMs required the development of custom assessment approaches, generally


tailored to complement and refine the methodology employed in the original estimate of savings.

6.2. Comprehensive File ReviewsThe first step in the preparation for the on-site engineering assessment was to conduct a thorough review of program documents available from NU's files and the files of the QA/QC subcontractor. The performance of the file reviews assisted this evaluation in three ways. First, they provided an opportunity to create a measure level database, which was used to double-check the program tracking system savings at the end-use level. Second, the file reviews provided a means for evaluators to gather relevant information on the project in preparation for the measure assessments conducted during the on-site visit. Finally, these reviews provided a means for the reallocation of savings originally attributed to the “Other” end-use.

At the time of the file review, the supporting analysis of the final tracking system number was recreated and verified. Problems and inconsistencies noted in the file reviews were reviewed with the NU evaluation staff before reviewing the results with the QA/QC contractor for resolution. It was noted during the review process that a system to prevent errors due to inconsistencies within the prescriptive spreadsheets has been employed by program staff recently. Although minimal errors were identified, all file review savings estimates with any necessary follow-up notes were tracked in the evaluation database, however, tracking system changes were not made for 2000 participants. This initial review of all projects served to ensure a consistent and numerically sound basis from which to proceed with the on-site evaluations.

The estimates entered into the database for all on-sites selected as part of the 2000 New Construction evaluation included:

Inspection Report savings estimates, Revised file review savings estimates, Analyst comments, On-site savings estimates.

In addition to providing a quality assurance check of the savings estimates for the program population, the file reviews served as valuable preparation for the on-site engineering assessments. In most cases, the file documents provided full descriptions of the baseline assumptions and the installed measure conditions. It is important to note that the New Construction Program generates customer specific baselines that are comprised of modifications to baseline assumptions based upon an interactive process with the customers. In addition, the file review provided other important information including assumed hours of operation, installed equipment, locations, and other facility-specific information. Upon completion of the file review, the on-site engineer developed a more complete understanding of the facility and its measures helping to minimize the on-site time and intrusiveness to the customer. In addition, the file review provided the basis for constructing a measurement plan for each site detailing the type, location, and quantity of measurement equipment to be employed.


6.3. On-site Engineering AssessmentsThe primary objectives of the impact evaluation were to develop independent estimates of net annual energy savings associated with measure installation and to conduct a technical process evaluation leading to program insight and improvements. Strong emphasis was placed on conducting a large percentage of in-field visits and completing interviews targeted at capturing customer specific information. A vital aspect of the on-site engineering assessment was the installation of measurement equipment to aid in the development of independent estimates of demand and energy savings. The direct measurement techniques utilized included spot-watt power readings, digital data recordings, and time-of-use, current transformer, lighting logger, and motor logger metering. The emphasis was to gather detailed information for use in 1) developing a revised engineering estimate of savings drawing information from the program documentation and 2) calculating net versus gross impacts. The following sections describe the process of conducting the on-site engineering assessments. A more detailed discussion of the on-site engineering process, as well as the measure evaluations, can be found in Appendix A to this report.

On-site engineering assessments were used to calculate the savings associated with mea-sure installations during the 2000 program year. The on-site engineering assessments consisted of three distinct tasks. The first task included a walk-through survey of the en-tire facility that focused on verifying the as-built conditions, and inquiring on the baseline conditions of the energy-efficiency measures installed during the specific program year, which is developed and modified for each customer based upon an interactive process. During the survey, each EEM was field verified for installation, measure types and power consumption, hours of operation, and installed quantity. The second task, the technical process survey, consisted of a personal interview with the facility representative(s) who were most familiar with the program participation and the measures installed. The inter-view utilized a survey instrument designed to identify and isolate conditions that may have affected the energy savings associated with measure installation both in the past and in the future. Information regarding free ridership, participant free drivership, and pro-gram satisfaction were addressed. The survey instrument can be found in Appendix B of this report and a tabulation of customer responses can be found in Appendix C. The final task in the on-site engineering assessment was the installation of measurement equipment to aid in the development of independent estimates of energy savings. The type of EEM generally determined the measurement strategy. Spot-watt readings, time-of-use (TOU), current transformers (CT), and motor loggers, current loggers, four-channel data loggers, and three-phase power loggers were utilized to inform the savings calculations with a di-rect measurement of demand and hours of operation.

The on-site assessments were designed to be thorough, and were often quite time con-suming. The surveyors attempted to make each aspect of the visit as unobtrusive to the customer as possible by being well prepared for each site and by being attentive to the customers’ needs in regard to scheduling and site access.


7. Determining Gross SavingsThe gross annual energy savings were developed using a stratified ratio estimation to compare the savings found in the file reviews and on-sites to their tracking system counterparts. The analysis was conducted separately for each service territory by C/I market segment and end-use.

7.1. File Review to Tracking SavingsThe following sections present the results of the file review analysis. Tracking savings calculations and values were verified in all 42 sites analyzed in the New Construction Program through a formal file review process. Prescriptive sites accounted for 32 of the projects. The calculation sheets for these sites included project specific spreadsheets, hand calculations, and vendor provided data. The forms and calculation sheets were reviewed for accuracy; savings were recalculated using the methodology provided, and the results compared with the values in the tracking system.

Ten comprehensive sites are also included in the analysis. The methodology for calculating savings in these locations again include project specific spreadsheets, hand calculations, vendor provided data. DOE 2 building simulations were performed on several locations, but the DOE 2 simulation results were carried over into the tracking system in only four locations. The same re-analysis procedure was performed on the comprehensive sites. In addition, DOE 2 simulation base case and interactive measure runs were obtained. Both the hard copies and data input in the simulations were reviewed to provide the foundation for re-simulation runs.

The file review results were compared with values presented in the tracking system and variations were noted. Table 5 identifies the discrepancies identified in the file review of lighting savings. The locations noted here include substantial differences between the file review and tracking system values. Minor changes from rounding are not included.

Three variances were lighting related, and two were related to motor measures. No major differences were noted in the other end uses. The variations were due to either calculation or transposition errors. Tracking savings were inadvertently doubled at site EA00P031. In sites SO90C008 and WM99P209, the calculated savings were not transferred properly to the tracking system or cover sheet in Exhibit A. RLW was able to recreate the savings in these two sites, but was not able to identify a flow or paper trail that showed why the calculated values were changed. The answer may be as simple as not clearing information from a previous project or run.

ProjectNumber

State

ProgramType

C/I

Sample

Total Lighting SavingsTracking File Review % Diff

EA00P031 CT Pres I Supplemental 666,664 333,332 -50.0%SO90C008 CT Comp C Existing 233,612 255,709 9.5%WM99P209 MA Pres C Existing 118,490 26,444 -77.7%

Table 5: File Review to Tracking Summary: Lighting


Table 6 identifies the discrepancies identified in the file review of non-lighting savings. Premium efficient motor savings were calculated for site CE99P047, but the tracking savings estimate inadvertently did not take savings for air handler motors, although they had been calculated. The discrepancy at the second site is also related to premium efficient motors. The tracking savings value for these motors appears to be a duplicate of the variable speed drive savings calculated for the same site. This value is carried in the tracking spreadsheets and in Exhibit A documents. Motor savings estimates were not presented.

ProjectNumber

State

ProgramType

C/I

Strata

Total Non-Lighting SavingsTracking File Review Difference % Diff

CE99P047 CT Pres C 1 24,645 27,173 2,528 10.3%SO90C008 CT Comp C 4 159,381 75,535 (83,846) -52.6%

Table 6: File Review to Tracking Summary: Non-Lighting Measure Variances

Table 7 provides a summary of the file review estimates of annual savings. As evidenced by the table, the ratio of the “File Review” to the “Tracking System” estimate of savings was 98.4% at the NU System level. In total, the file review effort concluded that the tracking system overstates project savings by 690,890 kWh. Specific information regarding these file review discrepancies was provided to the NU Project Manager in detailed memos during the file review process and is discussed above. It was decided during this evaluation to provide all realization rates to the tracking system without making adjustments for the file review errors. However, this table reflects the impact the file reviews would have had on the tracking system had the adjustments been made.


CL&P Commercial 30,684,143 4,662,019 754,143 19,809,787 3,806,393 0 237,776 1,414,025Industrial 7,125,105 1,093,153 120,447 4,114,953 355,346 10,659 11,105 1,419,442

Total 37,809,248 5,755,172 874,590 23,924,740 4,161,739 10,659 248,881 2,833,467File Review/Tracking 98.7% 100.0% 100.0% 98.5% 101.3% 100.0% 58.5% 100.0%

WMECo Commercial 3,099,539 303,809 57,351 2,241,539 129,716 0 113,066 254,058Industrial 1,305,346 8,324 0 1,297,022 0 0 0 0

Total 4,404,885 312,133 57,351 3,538,561 129,716 0 113,066 254,058File Review/Tracking 95.8% 100.0% 100.0% 94.8% 100.0% N/A 100.0% 100.0%

NU System Commercial 33,783,682 4,965,828 811,494 22,051,326 3,936,109 0 350,842 1,668,083Industrial 8,430,451 1,101,477 120,447 5,411,975 355,346 10,659 11,105 1,419,442

Total 42,214,133 6,067,305 931,941 27,463,301 4,291,455 10,659 361,947 3,087,525File Review/Tracking 98.4% 100.0% 100.0% 98.0% 101.3% 100.0% 67.2% 100.0%

File Review Estimates of Annual Savings (kWh)2000 New Construction Program

Table 7: Summary of File Review Annual Savings

7.2. Gross Annual SavingsThe following section details the development of gross annual energy savings. For this analysis, the individual on-site savings that were determined for each sample participant were analyzed following the stratified ratio estimation sample design framework. The analysis was conducted at the service territory, C/I market segment, and end-use level.

Table 8 presents a summary of the on-site engineering estimates of savings developed for each of the 2000 CL&P and WMECO sample participants. The tables present the project number, state, C/I market segment, total savings (tracking and on-site) percentage


difference compared to the tracking estimate, and the absolute difference in aggregate and at the end-use level. A total of 42 site visits were conducted. The absolute differences ranged from a low of 336,300 MWh to a high of 1,146 MWh. Within the CL&P service territory 10 of the 25 program participants (40%) had on-site savings that were lower than the file review estimate of savings. The WMECO participants were nearly equally split with nine of the 17 participants having on-site savings lower than file review savings.

Tracking OnSite % Diff Total Cooling Heating Lighting Other Process Motors RefrigerationCE00C012 CT Ind 579,793 344,163 -40.6% -235,630 -235,630 0 0 0 0 0 0CE00P121 CT Com 310,606 497,325 60.1% 186,719 16,663 0 170,056 0 0 0 0CE00P135 CT Com 479,920 721,767 50.4% 241,847 22,382 0 219,465 0 0 0 0CE00P222 CT Com 57,066 80,531 41.1% 23,465 0 0 0 23,465 0 0 0CE99P047 CT Com 72,409 104,418 44.2% 32,009 -5,579 427 66 37,095 0 0 0CE99P064 CT Ind 115,762 238,505 106.0% 122,743 0 0 122,743 0 0 0 0CE99P083 CT Com 257,799 281,397 9.2% 23,598 0 0 23,598 0 0 0 0EA00P031 CT Ind 687,528 351,228 -48.9% -336,300 18,397 0 -354,697 0 0 0 0EA00P037 CT Com 137,280 170,931 24.5% 33,651 0 0 33,651 0 0 0 0EA00P134 CT Com 172,218 149,698 -13.1% -22,520 -22,520 0 0 0 0 0 0EA00P627 CT Com 25,932 16,703 -35.6% -9,229 -202 0 -9,027 0 0 0 0EA00P668 CT Ind 285,438 291,122 2.0% 5,684 0 0 5,684 0 0 0 0EA99C003 CT Com 3,293,828 4,440,227 34.8% 1,146,399 608,771 0 0 548,861 0 -11,233 0EA99C005 CT Ind 1,477,057 1,316,036 -10.9% -161,021 0 0 -25,696 0 0 0 -135,325EA99P020 CT Com 219,313 169,900 -22.5% -49,413 686 0 -50,099 0 0 0 0SO90C008 CT Com 434,167 456,322 5.1% 22,155 0 13,514 24,866 67,621 0 -83,846 0WE00P094 CT Com 9,937 15,769 58.7% 5,832 0 0 5,832 0 0 0 0WE98C007 CT Com 478,476 612,830 28.1% 134,354 0 28,397 14,217 85,403 0 6,337 0WE98C011 CT Com 901,763 713,585 -20.9% -188,178 -306 49,662 -16,087 0 0 2,216 -223,663WE98C018 CT Com 554,197 502,389 -9.3% -51,808 -10,595 -889 -58,748 19,355 0 -931 0WE99C007 CT Ind 1,132,254 1,187,789 4.9% 55,535 36,873 10,538 -24,608 32,732 0 0 0WE99P057 CT Ind 10,659 7,281 -31.7% -3,378 0 0 0 0 -3,378 0 0WE99P121 CT Ind 143,182 103,545 -27.7% -39,637 0 0 -39,637 0 0 0 0WE99P147 CT Com 740,346 780,662 5.4% 40,316 6,507 0 33,809 0 0 0 0WE99P168 CT Com 498,985 775,957 55.5% 276,972 -81 135 276,918 0 0 0 0WM00C620 MA Com 146,851 139,722 -4.9% -7,129 0 0 -2,823 0 0 -4,306 0WM00P102 MA Ind 53,146 53,949 1.5% 803 0 0 803 0 0 0 0WM00P211 MA Com 129,856 112,485 -13.4% -17,371 0 -9,010 -8,361 0 0 0 0WM00P213 MA Com 18,236 18,601 2.0% 365 0 0 365 0 0 0 0WM00P218 MA Com 33,208 13,829 -58.4% -19,379 -453 0 -18,926 0 0 0 0WM00P219 MA Com 121,834 240,982 97.8% 119,148 0 0 119,148 0 0 0 0WM00P220 MA Ind 7,809 7,290 -6.6% -519 0 0 -519 0 0 0 0WM00P229 MA Ind 76,001 108,163 42.3% 32,162 0 0 32,162 0 0 0 0WM00P311 MA Com 120,387 160,664 33.5% 40,277 13,538 858 25,881 0 0 0 0WM00P621 MA Ind 22,926 16,251 -29.1% -6,675 -2,213 0 -4,462 0 0 0 0WM00P634 MA Ind 800,362 902,983 12.8% 102,621 0 0 102,621 0 0 0 0WM98P813 MA Com 291,450 358,284 22.9% 66,834 68,051 -406 -811 0 0 0 0WM99C202 MA Com 443,437 391,100 -11.8% -52,337 8,828 0 2,292 -6,015 0 0 -57,442WM99P209 MA Com 118,490 23,844 -79.9% -94,646 0 0 -94,646 0 0 0 0WM99P222 MA Com 102,237 43,057 -57.9% -59,180 0 0 -59,180 0 0 0 0WM99P549 MA Com 29,761 32,379 8.8% 2,618 0 0 2,618 0 0 0 0WM99P602 MA Com 258,790 250,701 -3.1% -8,089 0 0 -8,089 0 0 0 0

Savings Totals Absolute Difference (kWh)Project Number State C/I

Table 8: 2000 New Construction On-Site to Tracking Summary

Table 9 presents a summary of the gross annual savings associated with the 2000 New Construction program. The table presents the savings by service territory, C/I market segment, and end-use. For CL&P the total commercial gross savings are estimated to be 35,976 MWh and the total industrial savings are estimated to be 7,481 MWh. In aggregate, the CL&P savings are calculated to be 43,457 MWh. The total CL&P non-lighting savings are estimated to be 15,193 MWh. For WMECo, the total gross commercial savings are estimated to be nearly 3,023 MWh and the total industrial savings are estimated to be 1,485 MWh for total WMECo savings of 4,507 MWh. The total WMECo non-lighting savings are estimated to be 856 MWh.


Appendix A contains write-ups of all measures analyzed as part of this evaluation, broken out by technology. The reasons why some technologies performed better than others can be found in this appendix.



Total 43,456,814 5,759,188 1,038,266 28,264,164 6,357,726 7,281 258,120 1,772,069113.4% 100.1% 118.7% 116.3% 154.8% 68.3% 60.7% 62.5%

WMECo Commercial 3,022,565 396,341 48,613 2,173,018 102,253 0 108,591 193,749Industrial 1,484,766 6,111 0 1,478,655 0 0 0 0

Total 4,507,331 402,452 48,613 3,651,673 102,253 0 108,591 193,74998.0% 128.9% 84.8% 97.8% 78.8% N/A 96.0% 76.3%


Total 47,964,145 6,161,640 1,086,879 31,915,837 6,459,979 7,281 366,711 1,965,818111.8% 101.6% 116.6% 113.9% 152.5% 68.3% 68.1% 63.7%

2000 New Construction ProgramGross On-Site Estimates of Annual Savings (kWh)

Realization Rate

Realization Rate

Realization Rate

Table 9: Gross Annual Savings Summary

7.3. Gross Realization Rate SummaryTable 10 presents a summary of the gross realization rates developed by comparing the total gross savings to their tracking system counterparts. The realization rates range from a low of 60.7% for CL&P “Other Motors” to a high of 154.8% for CL&P “Other”. For the CL&P, the gross realization rate is estimated to be 113.4% and for WMECo it is estimated to be 98.0%. The overall gross system realization rate is 111.8%.


CL&P Commercial 117.1% 104.4% 120.3% 119.7% 156.5% N/A 59.6% 34.5%Industrial 98.5% 81.5% 108.7% 101.9% 136.4% 68.3% 100.0% 90.5%

Subtotal 113.4% 100.1% 118.7% 116.3% 154.8% 68.3% 60.7% 62.5%WMECo Commercial 91.7% 130.5% 84.8% 89.2% 78.8% N/A 96.0% 76.3%

Industrial 113.7% 73.4% N/A 114.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal 98.0% 128.9% 84.8% 97.8% 78.8% N/A 96.0% 76.3%

NU System Commercial 114.7% 106.0% 117.8% 116.3% 153.9% N/A 67.4% 40.9%Industrial 100.8% 81.4% 108.7% 104.6% 136.4% 68.3% 100.0% 90.5%

Subtotal 111.8% 101.6% 116.6% 113.9% 152.5% 68.3% 68.1% 63.7%

2000 New Construction ProgramGross Lifetime Realization Rate %

Table 10: 2000 Realization Rates: Gross Savings versus Tracking System Savings

7.4. Gross Lifetime SavingsAn analysis similar to that presented in the previous section was completed for lifetime savings. Table 11 summarizes the gross lifetime energy savings associated with the 2000 New Construction Program by end use for CL&P, WMECo, and the NU System. For the 2000 program the total lifetime gross savings are estimated to be approximately 882,004 MWh.




Total 796,171,623 91,397,571 15,362,492 555,990,184 95,930,557 36,405 4,369,464 33,084,950114.4% 97.7% 119.3% 119.3% 154.3% 68.3% 61.4% 60.8%

WMECo Commercial 56,043,249 5,818,645 615,491 42,717,318 1,773,372 0 2,508,240 2,610,183Industrial 29,789,256 85,554 0 29,703,702 0 0 0 0

Total 85,832,505 5,904,199 615,491 72,421,020 1,773,372 0 2,508,240 2,610,18399.7% 129.5% 80.7% 98.7% 78.8% N/A 144.6% 75.4%


Total 882,004,128 97,301,770 15,977,983 628,411,204 97,703,929 36,405 6,877,704 35,695,133112.7% 99.1% 117.1% 116.5% 151.6% 68.3% 77.7% 61.6%

Gross On-Site Estimates of Lifetime Savings (kWh)

Realization Rate

Realization Rate

Realization Rate


Table 11: 2000 Gross Lifetime Savings

Table 12 presents a summary of the 2000 gross and lifetime realization rates for the New Construction program. The table presents the gross on-site savings versus their tracking counterpart. For lifetime savings, the gross realization rates against the tracking were 114.4% for CL&P and 99.7% for WMECo yielding an overall gross realization rate of 112.7%.



Subtotal 114.4% 97.7% 119.3% 119.3% 154.3% 68.3% 61.4% 60.8%WMECo Commercial 92.8% 130.9% 80.7% 89.5% 78.8% N/A 144.6% 75.4%

Industrial 115.6% 73.4% N/A 115.8% N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal 99.7% 129.5% 80.7% 98.7% 78.8% N/A 144.6% 75.4%


Subtotal 112.7% 99.1% 117.1% 116.5% 151.6% 68.3% 77.7% 61.6%

2000 New Construction ProgramGross Lifetime Realization Rate %

Table 12: 2000 Lifetime Realization Rates: On-Site versus Tracking Savings


8. Determining Net EffectsHaving developed gross savings estimates, the next step in the analysis was to develop net savings estimates that account for free ridership and free drivership. RLW gathered infor-mation to address net savings during the technical process survey completed for all 2000 on-site sample participants.

The very nature of the New Construction program makes determination of free ridership difficult. Historical issues considered in the technical process survey development in-cluded:

New construction projects occasionally occur in multiple stages that span several years. When the interview occurs in the last phase of the construction process, the participants’ baseline construction practice has been altered as a result of participation in the program.

For 2000, the free ridership analysis addresses partial free rider effects. For all retrofits, the customer was queried as to modifications to the timing of installation brought about by New Construction participation and the individual measure baseline in absence of the program. These factors were used to develop a partial free rider estimate for these participants.

The project team recognized the challenges associated with effectively determining net program effects. Similar to previous New Construction evaluations, we used an in-person interview/survey based approach to assess 2000 participant free ridership. In addition to free ridership, RLW used in-field surveys and direct observation to obtain information on participant free drivership. The free rider/free driver survey including a full discussion of the determination procedures for free ridership and free drivership are presented in Appendix B.

8.1. Net SavingsBased on the customer’s responses to the free rider survey, 3 CL&P program participant and 3 WMECO participants indicated free ridership and two participants indicated free drivership. The savings at three of the sites were deemed to be 100% free ridership because the on-site survey indicated that the owners of the building definitely would have installed the measures without receiving the financial incentive. Four of the sites were determined to have partial free ridership levels due to their responses with respect to levels of efficiency they would have installed without the program. One of the two free drivers was also a site with free ridership (WM99C202) that still resulted in negative net savings.

The net on-site savings have been added to the tracking system, file review, and gross savings estimates and are presented in Table 13. Once again, the net savings were analyzed following the analysis framework presented in Section 5 Sample Design andSelection, with the analysis completed by service territory, C/I market segment, and end-use.


Tracking File Review Gross Net % Diff Total Cooling Lighting RefrigerationWE00P094 CT Com 1 9,937 9,937 15,769 - -100.0% -15,769 0 -15,769 0WM00P213 MA Com 1 18,236 18,236 18,601 18,601 0.0% 0 0 0 0EA00P627 CT Com 1 25,932 25,932 16,703 16,703 0.0% 0 0 0 0CE00P222 CT Com 1 57,066 57,066 80,531 80,531 0.0% 0 0 0 0CE99P047 CT Com 1 72,409 74,937 104,418 104,418 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM99P549 MA Com 2 29,761 29,761 32,379 32,379 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM00P218 MA Com 2 33,208 33,208 13,829 13,829 0.0% 0 0 0 0EA00P037 CT Com 2 137,280 137,280 170,931 170,931 0.0% 0 0 0 0EA00P134 CT Com 2 172,218 172,218 149,698 149,698 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM99P222 MA Com 3 102,237 102,237 43,057 14,131 -67.2% -28,926 0 -28,926 0WM99P209 MA Com 3 118,490 26,444 23,844 23,844 0.0% 0 0 0 0EA99P020 CT Com 3 219,313 219,313 169,900 169,900 0.0% 0 0 0 0CE99P083 CT Com 3 257,799 257,799 281,397 47,781 -83.0% -233,616 0 -233,616 0CE00P121 CT Com 3 310,606 310,606 497,325 497,325 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM00P311 MA Com 4 120,387 120,387 160,664 160,664 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM00P219 MA Com 4 121,834 121,834 240,982 240,982 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM00P211 MA Com 4 129,856 129,856 112,485 112,485 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM00C620 MA Com 4 146,851 146,851 139,722 139,722 0.0% 0 0 0 0SO90C008 CT Com 4 434,167 372,418 456,322 456,322 0.0% 0 0 0 0WE98C007 CT Com 4 478,476 478,476 612,830 612,830 0.0% 0 0 0 0CE00P135 CT Com 4 479,920 479,920 721,767 - -100.0% -721,767 -66,256 -655,511 0WE99P168 CT Com 4 498,985 498,985 775,957 775,957 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM99P602 MA Com 5 258,790 258,790 250,701 250,701 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM98P813 MA Com 5 291,450 291,450 358,284 358,284 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM99C202 MA Com 5 443,437 443,437 391,100 354,693 -9.3% -36,407 0 0 -36,407WE98C018 CT Com 5 554,197 554,197 502,389 502,389 0.0% 0 0 0 0WE99P147 CT Com 5 740,346 740,346 780,662 780,662 0.0% 0 0 0 0WE98C011 CT Com 5 901,763 901,763 713,585 713,585 0.0% 0 0 0 0EA99C003 CT Com 6 3,293,828 3,293,828 4,440,227 4,440,227 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM00P220 MA Ind 1 7,809 7,809 7,290 7,290 0.0% 0 0 0 0WE99P057 CT Ind 1 10,659 10,659 7,281 7,281 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM00P621 MA Ind 1 22,926 22,926 16,251 16,251 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM00P102 MA Ind 2 53,146 53,146 53,949 - -100.0% -53,949 0 -53,949 0CE99P064 CT Ind 2 115,762 115,762 238,505 238,505 0.0% 0 0 0 0WE99P121 CT Ind 2 143,182 143,182 103,545 103,545 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM00P229 MA Ind 3 76,001 76,001 108,163 21,828 -79.8% -86,335 0 -86,335 0EA00P668 CT Ind 3 285,438 285,438 291,122 291,122 0.0% 0 0 0 0CE00C012 CT Ind 5 579,793 579,793 344,163 345,023 0.2% 860 0 860 0EA00P031 CT Ind 5 687,528 354,196 351,228 351,228 0.0% 0 0 0 0WM00P634 MA Ind 5 800,362 800,362 902,983 902,983 0.0% 0 0 0 0WE99C007 CT Ind 5 1,132,254 1,132,254 1,187,789 1,187,789 0.0% 0 0 0 0EA99C005 CT Ind 5 1,477,057 1,477,057 1,316,036 1,316,036 0.0% 0 0 0 0

NTG Absolute Difference (kWh)Savings TotalsProject Number State C/I Strata

Table 13: 2000 Net Annual Savings

8.2. Net Annual Energy Savings SummaryThe net savings developed in the previous sections were analyzed following the sample designs presented in Section 5. Table 14 presents a summary of the net annual savings associated with the 2000 New Construction Program including an estimate of the achieved relative precision. The table presents the annual savings summarized by service territory, C/I market segment, and end-use. The total net annual savings are estimated to be 42,015 MWh with a relative precision of ±13.7%. By service territory, the savings are estimated as follows: CL&P: 37,934 MWh with an achieved relative precision of ±14.1% and WMECo: 4,081 MWh with an achieved relative precision of ±9.9%.




Total 37,934,095 5,556,695 1,038,266 22,943,938 6,357,726 7,281 258,120 1,772,06999.0% 96.6% 118.7% 94.4% 154.8% 68.3% 60.7% 62.5%



88.7% 128.9% 84.8% 87.4% 78.8% N/A 96.0% 61.2%±9.9% ±5.0% ±1.0% ±11.2% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%


Total 42,015,398 5,959,147 1,086,879 26,207,807 6,459,979 7,281 366,711 1,927,59497.9% 98.2% 116.6% 93.5% 152.5% 68.3% 68.1% 62.4%

±13.7% ±12.8% ±32.8% ±19.6% ±20.9% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%



Realization Rate


Relative Precision


Table 14: 2000 Net Annual Energy Savings

Table 15 contrasts the net savings estimates with the tracking system estimates of savings. Based on the tracking system estimates of savings, the net realization rates range from a low of 62.4% for “Refrigeration” measures to a high of 152.5% for “Other” measures. In addition, includes an estimate of the free ridership rate by service territory, C/I market segment, and end-use. The overall free ridership rate is estimated to be 12.4% largely influenced by the lighting free ridership rate of 17.9%.


CL&P ±14.1% 99.0% 96.6% 118.7% 94.4% 154.8% 68.3% 60.7% 62.5%WMECo ±9.9% 88.7% 128.9% 84.8% 87.4% 78.8% N/A 96.0% 61.2%


NU System ±13.7% 97.9% 98.2% 116.6% 93.5% 152.5% 68.3% 68.1% 62.4%


By Major Segment

Overall


Table 15: 2000 Net Realization Rate Summary: Net vs. Tracking



Total 12.7% 3.5% 0.0% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%WMECo Commercial 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 0.0% N/A 0.0% 24.0%

Industrial 22.0% 0.0% N/A 22.1% N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 10.6% 0.0% N/A 0.0% 24.0%


Total 12.4% 3.3% 0.0% 17.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%

Annual Free Ridership Rates2000 New Construction Program

Table 16: 2000 Free Ridership Rates by Territory and Segment


9. New Construction Survey Results

9.1. 2000 On-Site Survey ResultsInterviews were conducted with a representative of the facility who was familiar with both the New Construction Program participation and the installed measures. The primary focus of the survey was to identify changes that may have affected energy consumption and to gather process-related information. A total of 39 interviews were completed to support the impact evaluation of the 2000 New Construction measure installations.2 Thirty interviews were completed for the prescriptive program, and nine interviews were completed for the comprehensive program. An Interview Guide/Survey was completed for each site, which included questions to assess free ridership, as well as, free drivership. The interview guide and survey are contained in Appendix B of this report.

Participants were asked what factors motivated their company to participate in the New Construction Program3. Over 87% of the respondents stated that they participated to reduce energy bills and save money. The program incentive motivated 58.6% of the respondents to participate in the program. Energy savings/improved efficiency and reduction of initial purchase cost were the next most frequent motivators of program participation with mentions by 35.7% and 34.3% of the sample, respectively.

When participants were asked whether a value engineering economic analysis had been performed on the measures, 42.9% responded in a negative manner with another 41.6% responding affirmatively.

Sixty-one percent of the New Construction participants have participated in previous Northeast Utilities sponsored programs. Only two individuals cited that past program participation was not a major influence in their company’s decision to participate. Sixty-six percent of those participants who had previous experience in similar programs stated that past program participation was very influential in their decision to install the measures through the program. Slightly more than 62% stated that their utility representative recommended they install the energy efficient measures with over 54% of these customers stating that they probably/definitely would not have installed the measures if the recommendation had not been made.

Almost 47% of the participants cited either improved performance or simple payback as the criteria used to select energy efficient equipment. In addition, 39% of the respondents stated that first cost dictates selection4. Just over 36% stated “Other” criteria such as reliability, engineering expertise & analysis, and cost/benefit comparison.

More than 88% of the participants in the sample are satisfied with Northeast Utilities and would approach the company for advice in the future. The respondents stated that the

2 The sample size for the 2000 evaluation was 42 however evaluators were unable to complete interviews with three participants, because the contact personnel were no longer with the participant companies.3 Multiple responses were allowed. Therefore, percentages will not add up to 100%.4 Multiple responses were allowed. Therefore, percentages will not add up to 100%.


utility provides good service and information, and the staff is knowledgeable. The participants also felt that interactions with utility representatives were positive and helped create a good working relationship. Additional services the customers are seeking include more rebates and site-specific analyses (with long term benefits analysis, payback analysis, building design training and analysis and energy efficient maintenance systems specifically mentioned).

9.2. 2000 Market Actor Survey ResultsRLW interviewed 40 C&I new construction market actors to gather information on the specification process for C&I new construction equipment and to assess the impact of the New Construction Program on the new construction market. The sample consisted of 20 interviews with engineers and 20 interviews with designers and architects. These groups were divided between firms based in Connecticut and those based in Western Massachusetts. They were further stratified by sales volume to ensure that the results were representative of the populations of interest. These actor segments were chosen to provide unique, business-specific perspectives of the new construction market to identify changes in the marketplace.

As per the work scope, these market actors were interviewed for four primary purposes:

1. Decision-making process, including: key decision-makers for each step; timing; design practices; processes; equipment specification; quality control processes and standards;

2. Barriers to considering/incorporating energy efficient specifications;3. Opportunities for energy efficiency concepts/services; and4. Recent changes in codes or other standards that may have been influenced by the

New Construction Program or other utility sponsored programs.

A generic interview guide was written by topic and allowed the interviewee to skip sec-tions where they felt the respondents were not knowledgeable. The questionnaire was composed primarily of broad, open-ended questions that enabled the investigator to iden-tify several elements or qualities within a topic and give him or her the opportunity to probe specific issues in depth. Most of these interviews lasted 15 to 30 minutes.

Some items of particular interest to NU that were discussed at the kickoff meeting were also included in the interview guide:

Why do daylighting controls frequently get dropped from building specifications? Why don’t engineers specify daylighting controls more often?

Does the work that NU performs with engineers and architects in comprehensive sites influence the prescriptive market?

Does the market understand the incentive structure of the new construction program, in which 100% of the incremental cost resulting from the approved selection of an energy efficient alternative is covered by the utility?


9.2.1. AnalysisThe following results are based upon the detailed analysis of the market actor data presented in Appendix C of this report. We have laid out the analysis of these results to focus on the four primary purposes of these interviews, as mentioned above.

Decision-Making ProcessThe report showed that there are a number of key decision-makers. Architects have been shown to have an almost exclusive role in the initial building design and building envelope specifications. Their level of influence diffuses as the design portion of a project moves to HVAC and lighting. Architects reported that owners have a key role in the final decisions on energy efficient designs and equipment, it was noted that often times the owner reported not knowing exactly what was done through the program or considered before the program. This suggests that architects do have more decision making weight than they reported. HVAC, mechanical, and lighting engineers are seen to have influence on the design process, but there is evidence of collaboration or concurrence on a wide scale with the architect and/or owner on projects.

Form, function, and cost are shown to be the primary constraints in the design process. It was seen that building design and envelope gained lower scores in the integration of energy efficient designs/measures than did HVAC and lighting. Lighting garnered the most responses in terms of energy efficient measures. It may be becoming apparent that energy efficient lighting has matured in the industry conscious as an effective prescriptive means of cost-effective building design. Overall, these results imply that a holistic or “whole building” approach appears low on the market adoption cycle.

Quality control appears to have varying strength depending on the project team. It was seen that the responsibility differed widely for ensuring designs or measures were installed as specified. Those who did the follow-ups conducted them in a number of manners: meetings, reviews, physical presence during installations, or inspections after completions. Roughly half of the engineers seem to have been involved in a formal review or inspection. The other half seems to have simply acted within a smaller scope of work; i.e., they probably were subcontracted for the design and specification work alone.

A final and important aspect of energy efficient installations is the post-construction commissioning task. Half of the respondents did not identify anyone who performed commissioning for the project. It is important to note that in interviews performed with program participants, it appeared that more participants reported having commissioning performed than A/E’s, perhaps due to confusion over the term. This appears to be an energy efficiency activity that is least attended to by the market actors interviewed.


Barriers to Considering and Incorporating Energy Efficient SpecificationsFrom the results, it was shown that cost, use of unproven technologies, lack of understanding by customers, and a diffusion of the decision making process were perceived as barriers for the selection and use of energy efficient designs and measures.

Cost was a prevalent issue in almost all of the issues and areas explored in the interviews. As discussed earlier, cost was cited as a block in drawing in or retaining specs for daylighting measures. In questions on perceptions, those who considered themselves “mild” proponents of energy efficiency called cost a prime reason for their reluctance to fully utilize energy efficient design/equipment. For recommendations, a significant portion of all respondents (13) asked for new or continuing rebates as one of the ways the utilities can assist them in taking advantage of energy efficient opportunities.

Responses in the daylighting questions and the respondents’ self-rating on supporting energy efficiency initiatives pointed out a lack of understanding about how certain measures work and reduce lifecycle costs. To further illustrate the need, a significant majority of the respondents recommended informational and educational support by the utilities. As shown in Table 41, many respondents suggested training on building design elements, training and certification programs, and regular updates through the mail on efficient technologies and program incentives.

A diffusion in the decision making process creates challenges in moving energy efficient designs and technologies from concept to final installation. A steady diffusion occurs in project decision making as a project moves along from design to installation to commissioning. Table 33 in this section depicts how even in the early design stage the responsibility for design portions also diffuses as a project moves from overall building design down to HVAC and lighting design.

Opportunities for Energy Efficiency Concepts/ServicesAs mentioned earlier, training opportunities registered the highest vol-ume of responses and there were several respondents who mentioned frequent updates on program offerings. Since these are very busy pro-fessionals, the mailed updates must be short, concise pieces that in-corporate real-use testimonials and data that the reader can quickly absorb. The respondents may be reflecting on the kind of short, infor-mational pieces that some manufacturers regularly mail as product up-dates.

Another recommendation given by a number of respondents was for the utilities to provide personnel or consultants to give design work assistance or advice, as well as, a few more who thought site-specific analysis or assistance would be useful. Specific mentions in this regard included mailings on new technologies, seminars on technologies eligible for continuing education credits, seminars on programs and incentives, and training software. One respondent also suggested having multi-tiered rebate levels.


The three recommendations of training, informational support, and hands on expert support suggest that the respondents understand the value of energy efficiency designs/equipment but recognize the lack of enough experience and knowledge to successfully and fully integrate these measures into their practices.

As a general reflection, it appears that there is further work to promote NU and other utility programs. The fact that 31 of the respondents said that they rarely or never used the New Construction Program incentives strongly suggests that there are opportunities not being captured through the program. In a follow-up correlation analysis, it was noted that among engineers, there was a correlation between familiarity and usage of program incentives and number of projects completed each year.

Recent Changes in Codes or Other Standards That May Have Been Influenced by the New Construction Program/Other Utility Sponsored ProgramsAs shown in Table 27, the respondents who had direct experience with NU account representatives were roughly split in their perceptions of how much influence the NU program has made on local building codes and standards. A minority of the respondents saw some semblance of influence or movement in the level of standards that builders are considering in their projects, but no one seemed to feel that any code changes were reflective of the NU program requirements.

9.2.2. Questions of Interest to Northeast UtilitiesThis section addresses those questions specifically posed by Northeast Utilities as part of the evaluation study at the kickoff meeting and work plan.

Why do daylighting controls frequently get dropped from building specifications? Why don’t engineers specify daylighting controls more often?

The results imply that architects are the driving source for design integration of daylighting, as the engineers in this study lag greatly behind. The architect group was split into those that either used daylighting systems often or all the time, or else little to never. Of those who said they frequently use daylighting plans, almost all rejected the assumption that customers will later drop them. In the standard market adoption curve, this group can be considered “early adopters” who already believe and use this innovation.

The two reasons given most for not using daylighting all the time are limitations in application and cost. Cost is also the most frequently cited reason used by respondents to explain why customers drop daylighting specs. A few respondents also feel that specs are dropped because customers do not see the advantages or benefits.

It appears that a segment of architects are early leaders, while others in their profession and all engineers from this study sample could be labeled late adopters, who have yet to embrace daylighting as a regular construction application. As mentioned earlier, owners play a significant role in the decision-making process so increasing the awareness and


education level of property owners is equally important in moving the use of daylighting into higher levels of acceptance.

Does the work that NU performs with engineers and architects in comprehensive site work influence the prescriptive market?

The results show that direct contact with NU account representatives improved the levels of familiarity and usage with respondents, particularly, with architects.

Nine architects and four engineers felt that the program incentives moved them to use more energy efficient alternatives than the standard designs or equipment. Of these, seven specified lighting, two specified HVAC, and one cited daylighting.

As discussed earlier, lighting has matured along the adoption curve ahead of all other types of energy efficient measures so it is not surprising to see that those who are most influenced by incentives, specified lighting as the subsidized measure.

Overall, there are more positive impact results from architects than from engineers. The following bullets provide some potential reasons why this is the case:

Architects may have a broader range of acceptability with new ideas and inputs with building design, while engineers tend to be more conservative and stick to the “tried and true.”

Architects may be more open and to working with NU representatives than are engineers.

NU representatives may have found easier access to architects than to engineers, and therefore have had better opportunities to share information about the New Construction program.

Property owners and developers may hold architects’ opinions in higher regard than those of engineers. This would mean that there is a greater chance that an architect would design an energy efficient building than would an engineer. Conversely, an architect would be less likely to anticipate an owner’s objection to a system or design than an engineer would.

Does the market understand the incentive structure of the new construction program, in which 100% of the incremental cost resulting from the approved selection of an energy efficient alternative is covered by the utility?

The results suggest that this is not the case, as about a third of architects and a quarter of engineers understood and took advantage of the program. The fact that cost concerns were prominent in the analysis of results of daylighting and in the utilization of energy efficient designs and equipment, strongly suggests that there is not a clear, broad knowledge of the opportunities that NU offers through its program.

Conversely, the large amount of cost-related responses reported as factors that drove the decision to install a particular efficiency level (Figure 6), lends credence to the


assumption that the incremental subsidization of efficiency measures will reduce the first cost barrier.

9.2.3. SummaryThe New Construction program has influenced some market actors, particularly, architects. There does not yet seem to be any noticeable change in local codes or standards because of the program. Engineers appear to lag behind architects in familiarity and use of the New Construction program. Decision-making in the early stages rests primarily with owners and architects, and then tends to be dispersed into various combinations of owners, architects, and engineers. Daylighting appears to be embraced by a segment of architectural firms, but others have not done much with it.

Those who have understood and taken advantage of the New Construction program have generally reacted favorably to it. However, there appears to be a lack of knowledge and awareness of the program. This could be said for most of the engineers and about half of the architects that were interviewed in this survey. It may be beneficial for NU to consider new or increased marketing activities to move the program to capture more opportunities that can be leveraged through getting word of the program to architects and engineers.


10.Summary of Major Impact Findings

10.1. 2000 Annual SavingsTable 17 presents a summary of the major findings at the end-use level. The table presents the 2000 net results by operating company, market segment, and end-use. For CL&P the total 2000 energy savings are estimated to be approximately 37,934 MWh with an achieved relative precision of ±14.1%. For WMECo, the 2000 energy savings are estimated to be 4,081 MWh with an achieved relative precision of ±9.9%. This yields an overall annual energy savings for the 2000 program of 42,015 MWh and an achieved relative precision of ±13.7%.



Total 37,934,095 5,556,695 1,038,266 22,943,938 6,357,726 7,281 258,120 1,772,06999.0% 96.6% 118.7% 94.4% 154.8% 68.3% 60.7% 62.5%



88.7% 128.9% 84.8% 87.4% 78.8% N/A 96.0% 61.2%±9.9% ±5.0% ±1.0% ±11.2% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%


Total 42,015,398 5,959,147 1,086,879 26,207,807 6,459,979 7,281 366,711 1,927,59497.9% 98.2% 116.6% 93.5% 152.5% 68.3% 68.1% 62.4%

±13.7% ±12.8% ±32.8% ±19.6% ±20.9% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%



Realization Rate


Relative Precision


Table 17: 2000 End-Use Savings Summary: Net Annual Energy (kWh)

Table 18 presents a summary of the 2000 net realization rates by operating company, market segment, and end-use. The net realization rate for CL&P is calculated to be 99%. For WMECO the realization rate is calculated to be 88.7% yielding an overall net realization for the NU System of 97.9%. The net realization rate for the commercial class is estimated to be 98.1% and the industrial net realization rate is estimated to be 97.1%. Again, this yields an overall net realization rate of 97.9% at the system level.

The net realization rate by end-use for the NU system ranged from a low of 62.4% for the “Refrigeration” end-use to a high of 152.5% for “Other” measures. For the NU System, the free ridership rates as presented in Table 19 is estimated to range from no free ridership for “Cooling, Other, and Other Motors” to a high of 17.9% for “Lighting” measures. Overall, the free ridership rate is estimated to be 12.4%. The overall free drivership rate was less than a tenth of a percent.



CL&P ±14.1% 99.0% 96.6% 118.7% 94.4% 154.8% 68.3% 60.7% 62.5%WMECo ±9.9% 88.7% 128.9% 84.8% 87.4% 78.8% N/A 96.0% 61.2%


NU System ±13.7% 97.9% 98.2% 116.6% 93.5% 152.5% 68.3% 68.1% 62.4%


By Major Segment

Overall


Table 18: 2000 Savings Summary: Net Realization Rates (%)

AnalysisDimension Total Cooling Heating Lighting Other Process Other Motors Refrigeration

CL&P 12.7% 3.5% 0.0% 18.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%WMECo 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 10.6% 0.0% N/A 0.0% 24.0%

Commercial 14.4% 3.8% 0.0% 20.9% 0.0% N/A 0.0% 6.8%Industrial 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

NU System 12.4% 3.3% 0.0% 17.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%Overall

2000 New Construction ProgramAnnual Free Ridership Rates


By Major Segment

Table 19: 2000 Summary of Free Ridership Rates

10.2. 2000 Lifetime SavingsTable 20 presents a summary of the lifetime energy savings associated with 2000 measure installations. The total lifetime savings are estimated to be 765,700 MWh. This yields a net realization rate for lifetime savings of 97.9%. The average lifetime calculated by dividing the lifetime savings by the annual savings is approximately 18.2 years.



Total 687,855,382 88,435,932 15,362,492 450,635,582 95,930,557 36,405 4,369,464 33,084,95098.8% 94.5% 119.3% 96.7% 154.3% 68.3% 61.4% 60.8%

±14.3% ±10.6% ±35.1% ±20.2% ±21.1% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%WMECo Commercial 54,355,738 5,818,645 615,491 41,597,698 1,773,372 0 2,508,240 2,042,292

Industrial 23,488,584 85,554 0 23,403,030 0 0 0 0Total 77,844,322 5,904,199 615,491 65,000,728 1,773,372 0 2,508,240 2,042,292

90.4% 129.5% 80.7% 88.6% 78.8% N/A 144.6% 59.0%±9.5% ±5.3% ±1.1% ±10.7% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%


Total 765,699,704 94,340,131 15,977,983 515,636,310 97,703,929 36,405 6,877,704 35,127,24297.9% 96.1% 117.1% 95.6% 151.6% 68.3% 77.7% 60.7%

±13.8% ±10.3% ±33.8% ±19.0% ±20.8% ±0.0% ±0.0% ±0.0%


Relative Precision



Realization Rate

Net Estimates of Lifetime Savings (kWh)

Table 20: 2000 Summary of Lifetime Energy Savings


11.Lessons LearnedThis section provides an assessment of the challenges encountered in the various stages of the verification process of the 2000 New Construction Program. Included here are several recommendations designed to assist NU in overcoming these issues. Implementing these recommendations will expedite information flow through the evaluation process and permit an even more focused analysis product.

11.1. RecommendationsThis evaluation is concurrent with ongoing program implementation and refinement; therefore, these recommendations may be underway or completed by NU before this study's publication.

11.1.1. Establish Definitive Base Case Scenarios for DOE2 SimulationsProject files were reviewed for all sites, prescriptive as well as comprehensive, in the initial part of the analysis process. These files contained entire histories of each project and it was even possible to identify the evolution of the measures by reviewing this paper trail. While the folders were not always complete, the information necessary was attainable for most measures and locations with only minor exceptions. The single largest information gap is associated with the DOE2 simulations.

The DOE2 analysis is an ongoing and highly interactive process with respect to the development of the customer specific baseline assumptions and the development of the final design specifications and as built plans. It begins at an inception or design stage and progresses to a point where the design project is finalized. Measures are added and dropped during this phase and an analysis can include different options of the same measure type; comparing the cost effectiveness of chillers with different efficiencies is an example of this. A DOE2 simulation is generated once the project has been finalized and all the measures are listed in the hierarchy required for interactive calculations. This documentation is included in the project files and becomes the base case. However, the process does not end there.

Changes often occur after the design process. Building usage, equipment type, physical layout, and other changes are made as construction proceeds. Additional DOE2 simulations are run to estimate the impact of these changes. It is this documentation, the changes to the initial base case, which are not totally quantified or identifiable in the file reviews. Three of the four DOE2 simulations had significant changes in facility usage and building loads. The DOE2 data files for these sites were obtained from the engineering firms. Both firms were extremely helpful in providing the information and answering our questions on the base case remediation. But, in those three instances, subsequent re-simulations were made by the engineering firms in response to contemplated or intended changes and impacts to the original base case scenarios were not noted or quantified. The impact of change on a measure level is documented. What is missing is a new “final” base case and new “final” project DOE2 simulation with the


installed measures. The less the base case files represent the final facility profile, the greater the variances between the tracking and calculated savings will be.

11.1.2. Alternate Program Evaluation Periods With End Use AnalysisMonitoring and field measurements for the 2000 New Construction Program began in September and continued through December. Much of the monitoring period occurred during the fall season when there were little or no cooling loads. The entire program population included measures with 14,873,187 kWh with non-lighting end usage. Cooling measures accounted for slightly over six million kWh, or 40.8% of all non-lighting usage. Heating measures made up only 6.3% of total non-lighting load. However, the monitoring period coincided more with the heating season and heating loads.

Most cooling equipment was secured and taken off-line. The exceptions to this were the two “free cooling” measures. Cooling savings from not utilizing mechanical compressors were based upon data trended at the sites. The remaining cooling analyses were based upon nameplate data, design information, discussions with facility personnel, vendor information, and hard copies of control documentation strategies. Fortunately, larger facilities had well maintained facility management systems, which provided historical data on cooling season operation. This data were incorporated into the savings calculations. While we are confident that the savings calculations in the report are accurate, the cost and effort of the monitoring part of the process would have been better utilized on the end use representing 40.8% of the non-lighting savings. Subsequent year programs should be staggered to alternate between heating and cooling monitoring efforts.

11.1.3. Standardize Savings Estimates Using Ratios To Previous StudiesThis practice was limited to the refrigeration sites included in the 2000 New Construction Program. Although the use of ratios to estimate the savings of similar measures is a valid practice, great care should be taken to make sure that the variable being used to develop the ratio has a direct impact on the measure savings. Additionally great care should be taken to ensure that the original savings estimate was valid and is applicable to the current measure. One of the major problems with the use of ratio estimators, from an evaluator’s point of view, is that the files tend to be incomplete with regard to the original assumptions used to generate the savings estimate. The variance in program savings to tracking saving is due, in part, to relying on the ratios.

For example, refrigeration savings were calculated for shutting off evaporator fans when the cooler and freezer doors are opened. Savings were calculated using a similar measure from another location and developing a ratio to apply to the current measure. Unfortunately, the past project calculated savings from fan operation reduction in a walk-in freezer. Only two of the seven doors in the current measure were freezer related. The remaining five doors were associated with much warmer temperature walk-in coolers. Potential savings were reduced accordingly.

This does not mean that using ratios is not a viable calculation strategy. These savings are based upon previously proven calculations and technologies. However, a template should


be made with standards and conditions that the measure savings are predicated upon. This should be similar to the methodology and standardization currently used with lighting, variable speed drives, and premium efficiency motors. This template should include all the key variables required for calculation: box temperature, number of doors, and type of refrigerant for example. The input for the new location should also include these variables to minimize mismatching system types and variables.

11.1.4. Extend Utility Bill Review To All Prescriptive SitesIt was noted this year that there was a considerable turnover of the decision makers at the sites. Many of the new people had either no knowledge of the project, or had limited input during the process. Having a billing history for those locations would provide one more tool to determine what actually occurred in those facilities. It would supply information on seasonal operations that may not be known or easily identified and could point to major changes in operation that occurred prior to the arrival of the contact person.

11.1.5. Modify Occupancy Sensor Savings CalculationsOccupancy sensors were recommended at a dozen locations in the sample population to control lighting operation. Most of these savings were incorporated into the lighting saving and not generated as a stand-alone measure. This is due in part to the lighting calculation spreadsheet. A list of eligible fixtures is entered into the spreadsheet. Comparing the new proposed connected load with the base load generates lighting savings. An average annual hourly operation is used to calculate both the pre and post lighting consumption values. Occupancy sensor quantities are linked with the fixture list and the same annual operating hours are applied to the occupancy sensors operation along with a standard 30% reduction in operation.

The savings generated in the site analysis from the occupancy sensor operation was less than the base calculations in 11 of the 12 locations. Most of the variances were considerable and the calculated savings was 37.5% less as a whole when compared with base estimates. This is due to two major factors. The 30.0% reduction was not achieved in most locations. The average value was approximately 22.6%. The greatest impact came from utilizing the average annual operating hour value to establish base operation. The average annual operating hour value consists of all locations. In schools, for example, it includes hallways, night and security circuits, the gymnasium, and other locations with long operation that raise the total annual value. Sensors are located in other areas, such as classrooms and offices that collectively have an annual operation less than the total facility average. At one school, monitored sensor operation was only 1.0% less than projected, but the annual operation for just the classrooms was nearly 18.0% less than the value used. The lighting spreadsheets should be modified to include a separate cell with an estimated annual operation for just the sensor locations.

Northeast UtilitiesNew Construction Program 2000 Impact Evaluation – Draft Report _____________________Page A-0

12.

Appendix A: On-Site Measure Evaluations

Northeast UtilitiesNew Construction Program 2000 Impact Evaluation – Draft Report _____________________Page B-1

Appendix B: Survey Forms and Scoring Methods

__________________________________________________________________________________________________RLW Analytics, Inc. December, 2002

Northeast UtilitiesNew Construction Program 2000 Impact Evaluation – Draft Report _________________Page B-2

Onsite Survey Form2000 New Construction Program

Site Number:___________________________________________________________Contact Name:__________________________________________________________Title:_________________________________________________________________Role/Responsibility:_____________________________________________________Phone Number:_________________________________________________________

Q01) Your company received an incentive from your local utility to provide energy efficient improvements as part of the New Construction Program (NCP). Were you responsible for making the financial decisions associated with this project?

No Yes

If No, please identify a contact person who was involved with these financial decisions.Name:________________________________________________________________Title:_________________________________________________________________Role/Responsibility:_____________________________________________________Phone:________________________________________________________________

If No, terminate interview at this point and begin interview with new contact person.

Introduction and Program AwarenessQ02) What factors motivated your firm to participate in the New Construction

program? (Do not prompt – check off all that apply.) To reduce maintenance costs To reduce initial purchase costs The program incentive To reduce energy bills/save money To improve efficiency/save energy Took the advice of my installer/designer/contractor Other_______________________ Don't know Refuse Past Program Participation

Do you recall the approximate amount of the incentive?__________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________RLW Analytics, Inc. December, 2002


Q03) What criteria are used to select energy efficient equipment and/or strategies at your facility? (Don’t Prompt) First Cost Simple Payback Reduced Maintenance/Longer Life Increased Comfort Improved Performance/Productivity Don’t Know Other

___________________________________________________________

Q04) What is the payback period typically applied at your facility for investments for the following categories?01 Lighting _______________years02 HVAC _______________years03 Process Related _______________years04 Refrigeration _______________years05 Don’t Consider Payback98 Don’t Know

Q05) Has the payback period you apply changed for any of these measures since you first began participating in the New Construction Program?

Yes No Skip to Q06

Q05A If so, what was the old payback period that was applied? Why was it changed?01 Lighting _____years Why did it change?_____________02 HVAC _____years Why did it change?_____________03 Process Related _____years Why did it change?_____________04 Refrigeration _____years Why did it change?_____________

The Following Question only applies to Comprehensive Program Area Sites.



Q06) As part of New Construction Program (NCP), there was a Brainstorming session that was conducted to generate a list of possible Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM’s). Did you participate in the Brainstorming session?

Yes No

[Interviewer: Please hand measure print-out to interviewee.]

Here is a list of measures installed as part of the program. Do you recall if there were any other measures that were discussed, but were screened out because they did not meet the economic requirements of the program?

Yes No

If yes, were any of these measures installed anyway without the program financial incentive?

Yes No

If yes, what were the installed measures?________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why were these measures installed?_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

This series of questions is used to identify the customer’s knowledge of the specific measures installed under the 2000 New Construction Program prior to any utility involvement regarding the energy-efficiency measures. In responding to the following questions, instruct the respondent to think back to their plans before participating in the Brainstorming session (Comprehensive area) or signing the Letter of Agreement (Prescriptive area).

FR01) Did plans exist to install any part of the EEMs prior to participation in NCP?

Yes

Yes, but don’t remember specifics

No, ….Skip to FR04

Don’t Know

If yes, what installation plans already existed?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________



FR02) Would you have acted on these plans without the NCP financial incentive?

Yes No, ….Skip to FR04 Don’t Know

FR03) Was it necessary to change the design or layout of these measures in order to qualify for the NCP financial incentive?

Yes

Yes, but don’t remember

No

Don’t Know

If yes, what changes were necessary?_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FR04) Was there a value engineering assessment performed on the EEMs installed through the New Construction Program?

Yes


No, …..skip to FR06

Don’t Know

FR05) As a result of the value engineering assessment, would you have installed any or all of the measures without the NCP financial incentive?

Yes, all of the measures

Yes, some of the measures

None

Don’t Know

Which measures would have been installed?________________________________________

When answering the next question please consult the measure list, which contains the baseline assumptions used to calculate the program energy savings estimate. Please answer the following questions concerning your baseline construction practices as you would if you had not participated in the New Construction Program. It is important to note that the measures recommended through the program not only recommend the use of efficient technologies, but also require the proper design, layout and control strategies so that the installation of the measures actually result in energy savings.



FR06) The following baseline construction practices (surveyor please read the measure and the baseline assumption) were used to determine the NCP energy savings at your site. Without having the benefit of the Program incentive or energy analysis, what level of efficiency (relative to the NCP baseline) would have been installed anyway?

same as installed efficiency..............................................FR06 higher than baseline efficiency[Quantify efficiency on matrix.] baseline efficiency lower than baseline efficiency don’t know

If efficiency is different from installed efficiency or baseline efficiency please specify on the matrix the level of efficiency that would have been installed by measure.__________________________________________________________________________________

FR07) Have you previously participated in any CL&P/WMECo programs?

Yes No, ….Skip to FR08

Don’t Know

If yes, how influential was previous experience with CL&P/WMECo programs in making your decision to install [Equipment/Measures]? (Do not prompt, accept only one response)

Very Influential Somewhat influential Slightly influential Not influential at all Had no prior program experience Don’t Know

FR08) Did a CL&P/WMECo representative recommend that you install the [Equipment/ Measure]?

Yes No

If Yes: If the CL&P/WMECo representative had not recommended installing the previously described EEM’s, how likely is it that you would have installed the measures to this level of efficiency anyway? (Do not prompt, accept only one response)

Definitely would have installed Probably would have installed Probably would not have installed Definitely would not have installed Don’t know

FR09) How influential was the architect’s/designer’s recommendations in encouraging you to build to this project’s current level of energy efficiency? (Do not prompt, accept only one response)



Very influential Somewhat influential Only Slightly Influential Not Influential at all Don’t know

Q07) To your knowledge, had the architect or any other member on the design team participated in a CL&P/WMECo program previously?

Yes Who had participated?_______________________ No Skip to Q08

Q07A) Did that individual’s experience with the program seem to provide any influence over what equipment they felt was appropriate to install?

Q08) For the measures installed at this facility, were there ever any alternative designs or efficiencies considered for installation? __ Yes __ No. skip to 13

Q09) If so, who was responsible for providing these alternative designs? ______________

Q10) At what point in the design or construction process were these alternative designs presented? Was it in the ….. (Circle response)

Planning/Design/Building

Q11) Was the installed design the most efficient available design and equipment? __ Yes __ No. If not, why was the most efficient design and equipment not installed?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q12) Who made the final decision on which design to install? __________ Why do you think he/she made the decision to install that particular design or efficiency of equipment?

Q13) What factor(s) do you think ultimately drove the decision to install that particular level of efficiency in this building?



Q14) In your mind, what do you think are the most important issues in determining whether high, or standard efficiency equipment ultimately gets installed in new construction buildings in Connecticut and Massachusetts?

Q15) Has your participation in the New Construction Program changed the way in which you specify equipment when performing new construction or major renovation?

Yes In what way?______________________________ No

Q16) Have you checked your electric bills to confirm the energy consumption predicted by the program energy analysis?

Yes No

If yes, was the analysis accurate?________________________________________

Q17) Considering your experience with the New Construction Program, would you approach CL&P/WMECO for professional advice and/or engineering proposals regarding your energy needs in the future?

Yes No Don’t Know

Please explain why or why not?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q18) Were all of the measures installed through the New Construction program Commissioned? I.e. did the VAV HVAC system undergo air and water balancing after installation of the equipment was completed?

Yes No Don’t Know

Please explain why or why not?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q19) If the measures were commissioned do you recall the cost of the commissioning procedure, relative to the total cost of the installed equipment?

Yes _% of the total Cost No



Q20) Do you believe that commissioning is a necessary part of the completion of this project?

Yes No, Why not?___________________________________________

Q21) Are there any additional services that you are currently seeking or could envision needing in the future from CL&P/WMECO?

Yes, What kind of services? RECORD EXACT RESPONSE, DO NOT PROMPT, THEN CODE BELOW___________________________________________________

No Don’t Know

Researcher, please code using following:___Nothing___Site specific analysis or assistance by experts and recommendations for efficiency

improvements___Training on specific building design elements to make construction more energy

efficient___Provide rebates to encourage more efficient building practices___Provide personnel/consultant to work on-site on a temporary basis___Offer shared savings/performance contracting programs___Provide approved contractor lists to building design teams___Provide consulting advice as requested___Help resolve specific technical problems, SPECIFY__________________________Offer training and certification programs to assist in learning how to construct

and maintain systems in a way that is energy-efficient ___Develop a standardized high efficiency new construction building practices

agreement for contractors endorsed by contractor groups and utilities___Other, SPECIFY _____________________________________

Q22) On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “Very Satisfied” and 5 is “Very Dissatisfied”, please rate your facility’s overall satisfaction with CL&P/WMECO. Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Don’t Know

Why did you give this rating? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Northeast UtilitiesNew Construction Program 2000 Impact Evaluation – Draft Report ________________Page B-10

Q23) On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is “Very Satisfied” and 5 is “Very Dissatisfied”, please rate your facility’s overall satisfaction with the New Construction Program.

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Don’t Know

Why did you give this rating? ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Free-Drivership AssessmentFD1) Since participating in NCP, has this facility purchased and installed any

additional energy efficient measures/equipment without a utility subsidy? Yes........................................................................................FD1_No Skip to FD4_Don’t Know

If Yes, what equipment has been installed?______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FD2) Did participation in NCP influence the decision to install these measures? Yes........................................................................................FD2_No_Don’t Know

If No, what prompted you to install them?___________________________________________________________________

FD3) Do you think your Company would have purchased and installed these measures were it not for participation in the NCP program?

_Yes No.........................................................................................FD3_Don’t Know

[Note: All three responses FD1, FD2, and FD3 must be selected in order to indicate free-drivership. This measure must be identified, inspected, and all associated savings quantified.]

Measure Description and Location:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FD4) As a result of what you have learned through your participation in the New Construction Program would you install similar measures to those contracted for at this facility, in other projects not participating in a utility rebate program?

Yes........................................................................................FD4_No_Don’t Know

If Yes, what equipment would be installed?___________________________________________________________________

FD5) Have you installed these types of efficiency measures in other projects not participating in the NC Program within the CL&P, WMECo and PSNH service territories since working on this project?

Yes........................................................................................FD5_No_Don’t Know

If Yes, what projects were theyName of Project_____________________________________________________Location___________________________________________________________Status______________________________________________________________



Market Actor Survey Form2000 New Construction Program

Receptionist Introduction:(Please introduce yourself by name and that you’re calling on behalf of Northeast Utilities)Northeast Utilities is performing research to see what high-value new construction design elements they could support for your company and others in the state. We’ve been interviewing a number of experienced architects and engineers knowledgeable about energy efficiency design in new construction within Connecticut and Massachusetts. I’m looking to make a visit appointment, or by phone if necessary, with the person at your firm who would be knowledgeable about design trends in the industry.

Respondent Introduction:(Same as above). Northeast Utilities has directed us to visit with businesses like yours to research energy use in new construction. We’re interested in scheduling an appointment with you in your office, or by phone if necessary, to gather your opinion and knowledge about some of the trends in the new construction industry and where opportunities for energy savings may exist. It would take approximately 25 to 30 minutes.

Could we set up a time that would be convenient to meet at your office?1. Yes: Schedule Date___________and range of time: From

_______To_______2. No Are you able to spend some time right now discussing some of

these issues on the phone with me? If yes, go to Interview Guide3. Not sure if legitimate and wants to confirm kindly offer: Kate Evans,

Program Manager, Northeast Utilities, 860-832-49234. Needs other input for joint decision (If so, please schedule a call-back)

Could I please verify that I have your contact info correct? (enter corrections as needed)

ENTER CORRECT NAME: ______________________________________ENTER CORRECT STREET:_____________________________________ENTER CORRECT CITY:_______________________________________ENTER CORRECT ZIP:________________________________________

Is there a better number or a particular extension than the main number?ENTER PHONE NUMBER (AREA CODE & NUMBER): _______________________

Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. Just to confirm, we will interview you by phone/on-site on (date)_______________ at (time) _______________.



(The boldface below is for later use – it just indicates the data entry titles)

NAME_______________________________Agency or Company: FIRMNAME___________________________________________TITLE_______________________________________________Years in Current Position: YEARSJOB ___________Telephone Number: ( ) PHONE _____________________________FAX _____________________Number of Employees in Firm: EMPLOYEES _________________

Type of Firm: FIRMTYPE A. ArchitectB. General ContractorC. Mechanical EngineerD. Mechanical/Electrical Contractor

OVERALL PROJECT INVOLVEMENTFirst, we just want to get an idea of the types of construction projects you/your company handles in Connecticut and Massachusetts. In this interview, we’ll be referring to three terms of construction: residential, commercial, and industrial. For sake of clarity, “residential” refers to detached single family homes; “commercial” refers to any commercial or institutional building that would typically be under the utility commercial rate; and “industrial” refers to any large manufacturing firm that would be under the utility industrial rate. Other types refer to anything outside of those descriptions.1. In 2001, what percentage of your projects in these states are commercial buildings, what

percentage are industrial buildings and what percentage are residential buildings? [Note: May Be < 100% Due To Other Types Of Construction]

Commercial Construction: %Industrial Construction: %Residential Construction: %OTHER TYPES %

2. In 2001, What percentage of commercial projects are new construction and what percentage are renovations? How about Industrial? (Renovations are major changes to existing buildings, including additions)

CommercialNew Construction: %Renovation: %TOTAL 100%

IndustrialNew Construction: %Renovation: %TOTAL 100%



3. What percentage of your commercial projects are speculative, built-to-suit, or design-bid (EXPLAIN IF NECESSARY)?

Speculative: %Built-to-Suit: %Design-Bid: %TOTAL 100%

4. What types of commercial buildings do you specialize in? (CIRCLE ALL MENTIONS)1 Office buildings2 Healthcare 3 Primary/Secondary Education4 Retail5 Hotel/Motel6 (Other:________________)

5. How many commercial construction projects does you company work on in a typical year?

________ Number of projects.

6. A. What has been your recent annual volume in SF of commercial new construction and renovation projects in Connecticut?

______ Probe with ranges if necessary: Less than 500,000 SF ___500,000 to 1 million SF ___1 to 3 million SF ___3 to 5 million SF ___

More than 5 million SF ___B. …and in Massachusetts?

______ Probe with ranges if necessary: Less than 500,000 SF ___500,000 to 1 million SF ___1 to 3 million SF ___3 to 5 million SF ___

More than 5 million SF ___

7. Does a larger company own your company? ___ Yes What is the name of your parent company?___________________________ No skip to Question 9

8. In your day-to-day contracting activities, to what extent is your equipment selection and promotion driven by your parent company? ________________________________________________________________________


Definitions:Design-Bid: Designed to a bid submittal; bid package usually has minimum requirementsSpeculative: Built to attract a tenant(s) when finished; no one signed to buy or move in during constructionBuilt-to-Suit: Built directly to tenant/owner


Industry QuestionsThese questions relate to your knowledge and experience in the industry with regards to some particular energy efficiency issues.

9. Have you had experience working directly with NU account representatives on past projects?

a. NO ___ (skip to Question )b. YES ___

In regards to the work that NU does with industry professionals like yourself:

10. in your view, how much impact has NU’s programs had on energy efficient designs made or equipment installed in renovations throughout Connecticut and Massachusetts?

11. In your view, exactly how might NU’s New Construction program have influenced local building codes and other professional standards (e.g., ASHRAE)?

12. How familiar are you with the incentive structure of NU’s new construction program?

(FIT ANSWER TO ONE OF THE FIVE BELOW FOR FAMILIARITY AND USAGE)a. FAMILIARITY (check next to

response)b. INCENTIVE USAGE (check next

to response)1. Very familiar 1. Use it all the time2. Mostly familiar 2. Use it frequently3. A little familiar 3. Use it once in a while4. Vaguely familiar 4. Have used it only once or twice5. Do not know about it at all 5. Have never used it

13. (SKIP IF NOT FAMILIAR AT ALL) Have you ever participated in NU’s new construction program?

14. (SKIP IF NOT FAMILIAR AT ALL) Can you please give me a brief description of what you know how the incentive structure works?

15. THIS QUESTION FOR ENGINEERS ONLY a. What sort of system or building modeling do you use when

specifying equipment?

b. Do you typically offer equipment alternatives to the client using such analysis?

__ Yes __ No

16. I have three particular questions for lighting design:a. How often does your firm specify daylighting controls? 1.__All the time

2.__Often 3.__Occasionally 4.__Once in a while 5.__Never



b. If not all the time, why doesn’t your firm specify them?

c. (IF ANSWER TO “a” IS 1 to 4), if and when the client drops daylighting control specifications from the final prints or during installation, what do you perceive the reasons to be?

GENERAL DECISION-MAKINGThe next series of questions are about a specific recent project. We’re in-terested in understanding the decision making process for equipment specifications. Please think back to the last recent major project in either construction or renovation. These questions refer to that particular project only.

Can you describe to me the building type, size, location, type of project, and the approximate valuation of this project?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________17. Where did the project begin: with a developer, owner, architect, or someone else?

18. What was the overall decision making process for the building design and the equipment specification?

19. Please indicate who was involved in the development team at each stage of the process described below for this project: (be sure to ask about all players involved in the project.)

Designing: ArchitectMechanical EngineerElectrical EngineerGeneral contractorLighting contractorHVAC contractorMaintenance staffOther mentioned:_______________________

Renovating/Installation: ArchitectMechanical EngineerElectrical EngineerGeneral contractorLighting contractorHVAC contractorMaintenance staffOther mentioned:_______________________



Commissioning: ArchitectMechanical EngineerElectrical EngineerGeneral contractorLighting contractorHVAC contractorMaintenance staffOther mentioned:________________

20. Who had primary responsibility for design and specifying. . . . ? a. Overall building design_______________________________________________ b. Building envelope____________________________________________________ c. HVAC and mechanical systems_________________________________________

d. Lighting design ___________________________________________

21. A. What design considerations were most important in this particular project for each of these?

a. Overall building design_______________________________________________ b. Building envelope____________________________________________________ c. HVAC and mechanical systems_________________________________________


B. How important did energy efficiency play in any of these? a. Overall building design_______________________________________________ b. Building envelope____________________________________________________ c. HVAC and mechanical systems_________________________________________


22. Was there a specific point in the new construction process when alternative energy efficiencies were presented to the client for consideration? __ Yes how were alternatives evaluated? ______________________________ No Why were efficient alternatives not considered for this project?_____________

23. Was the installed efficiency the most efficient available? __ Yes __ No Why was the highest efficiency not installed?

24. Who made the final decision on which efficiency to install? Why do you think he/she made the decision to install that particular level of efficiency?

25. What factor(s) do you think ultimately drove the decision to install that particular level of efficiency?

26. What was your client’s level of awareness or interest in energy efficiency features or options?



27. Did the client express negative reactions or biases against specific energy efficient measures or alternatives?

a. NO ____b. YES ___ Detail

______________________________________________

28. Whose opinion carried the most weight in the decisions and discussions about building specs and equipment?

29. Did local codes have a specific influence on these decisions? If so, in what way?

30. Were there utility program incentives available that moved you to consider more energy-efficient alternatives to building design and equipment choices? What were they? Did such incentives influence your decisions?

31. Once specifications had been decided, what procedures were used to ensure that these had been met? What steps were taken to ensure that equipment operated as intended?

32. Were there steps to assure that equipment ultimately specified for the design was actually installed?a. ___ NOb. ___YES

BARRIERS TO CONSIDERING AND INCORPORATING ENERGY EFFICIENCIES33. Some public policy makers believe that the most energy efficient materials and systems

should be used in new construction. What opportunities or problems are there to this approach?

34. What do you feel NU and other electric utilities could do to assist you in taking advantage of these opportunities or overcoming these problems to specify the most energy efficient materials and systems in your new construction practices? RECORD EXACT RESPONSE AND DO NOT PROMPT; THEN CODE DURING INTERVIEW OR AFTER COMPLETION

Mr./Mrs./Ms. Researcher, please code using following:___Nothing___Site specific analysis or assistance by experts and recommendations for efficiency

improvements___Training on specific building design elements to make construction more energy

efficient___Provide rebates to encourage more efficient building practices___Provide personnel/consultant to work on-site on a temporary basis___Offer shared savings/performance contracting programs___Provide approved contractor lists to building design teams___Provide consulting advice as requested___Help resolve specific technical problems, SPECIFY__________________________Offer training and certification programs to assist in learning how to construct

and maintain systems in a way that is energy-efficient



___Develop a standardized high efficiency new construction building practices agreement for contractors endorsed by contractor groups and utilities

___Other, specify_____________________________________

35. What are the largest barriers keeping customers from purchasing high efficiency equipment in commercial and industrial new construction projects in Connecticut and Massachusetts? (do not prompt, check all that apply)Limited customer information about choicesLimited availability of in-stock (or readily available) equipment choices Inability to separate high efficiency features from other higher cost model features“High (first) cost” of high efficiency equipment Other___________________________________________________________

___ No market barriers

36. Does your company have brand preferences?a. ___Yes why do you say this?

a.1.________________________________________________________________

Do you feel this influences sales in any way? a.2.________________________________________________________________

b. ___ No

37. Does your source for the following building equipment typically have efficient units in stock? a. Lighting __Yes __No b. HVAC __ Yes __No c. Motors __Yes

__No

38. Do you have any difficulties acquiring efficient unitary HVAC units from this source? __Yes __No

39. Does your equipment source have different turnaround times for standard versus efficient products that you purchase from them? ___No ___Yes how much longer does it take to acquire more efficient units?

____________Days Why do you think that is?____________________________________________

40. Compared to others in your profession, how would you characterize yourself in terms of responsiveness to energy efficiency? Would you say you are a strong proponent of, mild proponent of, do not consider, or oppose energy efficiency measures?

1 Strong proponent2 Mild proponent3 Do not consider4 Oppose energy efficiencies

ASK STRONG PROPONENTS: What do you do that makes you a strong proponent?



ASK ALL OTHERS: What prevents you from being more of a proponent?



Survey Scoring for On-Site Surveys2000 New Construction Program

Free Ridership Scoring

[If not already done, interviewer please hand measure print-out to interviewee.]This series of questions is used to identify the customer’s knowledge of the specific measures installed under the 2000 New Construction Program prior to any utility involvement regarding the energy-efficiency measures. In responding to the following questions, instruct the respondent to think back to their plans before participating in the Brainstorming session (Comprehensive area) or signing the Letter of Agreement (Prescriptive area).

FR01) Did plans exist to install any part of the EEMs prior to participation in NCP?

Yes


No, ….Skip to FR04

Don’t Know

If yes, what installation plans already existed?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This question does not in and of itself indicate any level of free ridership. An affirmative response only indicates a possible predilection towards free ridership. The question is worded to try to capture any potential partial free ridership that may exist. As an example, the customer may have planned to install Variable Frequency Drives (VFD’s) on only the largest Air Handler Units (AHU’s) at the site. As a result of the program analysis the customer may have been convinced to install VFD’s on smaller AHU’s as well. Although at this point in the survey it is too early to tell if the VFD’s in the large AHU’s are free riders. It seems that the VFD’s on the small AHU’s would not be free riders, because the respondent was not considering their installation prior to their involvement in the program. Clearly, it is important to probe and to question the respondent on each of the EEMs installed as part of the program. A negative response seems to indicate that the respondent was unaware the measures that were ultimately installed at the facility, and was truly guided by the New Construction Program.

FR02) Would you have acted on these plans without the NCP financial incentive?


Don’t Know

An affirmative answer to this question indicates some level of free ridership although the exact amount cannot be determined until the answer to the next question has been



obtained. There still could be an additional opportunity for partial free ridership if the program analysis lead to a redesign of the measure.

FR03) Was it necessary to change the design or layout of these measures in order to qualify for the NCP financial incentive?

Yes

Yes, but don’t remember

No

Don’t Know

If yes, what changes were necessary?______________________________________________

A Negative response to this question would indicate that the measure or portion of the measure in question was a free rider. Using the previous air handler example, the expected response here would be that the layout was changed to include VFD’s on the small AHU’s. In this case the measure entitled install VFD’s on AHU’s would be a partial free rider. The installation of the VFD’s on the large AHU’s would be a free rider, and the VFD’s on the small AHU’s would be non free riders.

If the response were positive it would be necessary to analyze the response to see how the design change impacted the measure. For example, if the respondent indicates that they would have utilized energy efficient lighting (i.e. T8 lamps and electronic ballasts) but the Lighting Power Density (LPD) had to be decreased from 1.75 W/ft2

to 1.50 W/ft2 in order to qualify for the program incentive, then the respondent would be a partial free rider for the lighting system by the amount that the program baseline LPD exceeded 1.75 W/ft2. The net savings estimate would be determined by rerunning the DOE model using 1.75 W/ft2 as the baseline efficiency. If the program baseline for this measure was less than or equal to 1.75 W/ft2 then there would be no free ridership for this measure even though the respondent indicated that they would have used efficient lighting technology without the financial incentive. Free ridership will be determined based on a comparison of overall system performance efficiencies not simply on the respondent’s use of efficient technologies.

FR04) Was there a value engineering assessment performed on the EEMs installed through the New Construction Program?

Yes


No, …..skip to FR06

Don’t Know

This question is used to investigate the prevalence of value engineering and does not impact free ridership. The frequency of value engineering assessments will be reported in the findings and will be examined with the results of the following question to evaluate the impact of these studies on the installation of energy efficient measures.



FR05) As a result of the value engineering assessment, would you have installed any or all of the measures without the NCP financial incentive?

Yes, all of the measures

Yes, some of the measures

None, check FR02 for conflict

Don’t Know

Which measures would have been installed?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

An affirmative answer to this question would indicate that the value engineering assessment had no impact on the customers’ behavior and they still could be considered a free rider for that measure. If the respondent indicates that none of the measures would have been installed without the financial incentive, as a result of the assessment, then the measures would not be considered as free riders. Of course, the interviewer must address any conflicting information between the responses given for FR02 and this question at this point. If there is a conflict, it will be pointed out to the respondent and they will be asked to indicate which response is more accurate. The inaccurate response will not be utilized for determining free ridership, and the frequency and resolution of all conflicting responses will be reported in the report findings.

When answering the next question please consult the measure list, which contains the baseline assumptions used to calculate the program energy savings estimate. Please answer the following questions concerning your baseline construction practices as you would if you had not participated in the New Construction Program. It is important to note that the measures recommended through the program not only recommend the use of efficient technologies, but also require the proper design, layout and control strategies so that the installation of the measures actually result in energy savings.

FR06) The following baseline construction practices (surveyor please read the measure and the baseline assumption) were used to determine the NCP energy savings at your site. Without having the benefit of the Program incentive or energy analysis, what level of efficiency (relative to the NCP baseline) would you have been installed?

same as installed efficiency..............................................FR06 higher than baseline efficiency[Quantify efficiency on matrix.] baseline efficiency lower than baseline efficiency don’t know

If efficiency is different from installed efficiency or baseline efficiency please specify on the matrix the level of efficiency that would have been installed by measure.__________________________________________________________________________________



This question goes to the heart of the baseline issue, and allows partial free ridership to be assessed. For example, if the respondent indicates an efficiency level “higher” than the baseline assumption then the “higher” baseline efficiency will be utilized as the baseline efficiency for determining the net savings estimate for the measure. Once again using the air handler example, if the program baseline assumed that constant volume AHU’s would be installed but the customer indicated that inlet guide vanes were planned. Then the simulation would be rerun utilizing the inlet guide vanes as the baseline for the small AHU’s to determine the net savings for this measure. In this example, we would expect the respondent to indicate that the baseline for the large AHU’s were the VFD’s, which is the same as the installed efficiency. Although not explicitly stated in the survey, any logical inconsistencies in the customer’s previous responses must provoke further inquiries by the interviewer to resolve the conflict. Once again the customer will be asked to indicate which response is the most accurate and that response will be utilized to determine the baseline. If the customer is unable to provide baseline information for a measure than the program baseline will be used.

FR07) Have you previously participated in any CL&P/WMECo programs?


Don’t Know

If yes, how influential was previous experience with CL&P/WMECo programs in making your decision to install [Equipment/Measures]? (Do not prompt, accept only one response)

Very Influential Somewhat influential Slightly influential Not influential at all Had no prior program experience Don’t Know

This question considers whether a customer indicates that previous participation in a CL&P/WMECo program was influential in their decision to build their facility to it’s current level of energy efficiency. If a customer answers “Very Important”, then that customer is considered to have been influenced by CL&P/WMECo and is not a free rider. All other responses to this question do not affect the aforementioned free ridership analysis.



FR08) Did a CL&P/WMECo rep. recommend that you install the [Equipment/Measure]?

Yes No

If Yes: If the CL&P/WMECo representative had not recommended installing the previously described EEM’s, how likely is it that you would have installed the measures to this level of efficiency anyway? (Do not prompt, accept only one response)

Definitely would have installed Probably would have installed Probably would not have installed Definitely would not have installed Don’t know

This question examines the level of influence that the CL&P/WMECo representative had on the customers decision to install the EEM’s. If the customer indicates that a measure was recommended by a CL&P/WMECo representative, and that they “Probably would not have installed” or that they “ definitely would not have installed” a particular measure. Then the customer is again considered to be influenced by CL&P/WMECo and will not be considered a free rider for that measure. Any other combination of responses to the above questions would be considered neutral responses and would not impact previously determined levels of free ridership. FR09) How influential was the architect’s/designer’s recommendations in

encouraging you to build to this project’s current level of energy efficiency? (Do not prompt, accept only one response)

Very influential Somewhat influential Only Slightly Influential Not Influential at all Don’t know

If a customer responds “Very Influential” to this question and they indicated that they had attended the brainstorming session (Q06), then a follow-up survey to the architect/designer would be administered. If a customer had not attended the brainstorming question, then a follow-up survey would be administered automatically. The responses to the architect/designer survey then would be used as a final determination of this customer’s level of free ridership.

The New Construction program was designed to increase the elec-tric energy efficiency when buildings are constructed by offering customers financial incentives, and by working directly with archi-tects and designers through brainstorming sessions. There are times when the architects/designers, who are familiar with the Com-



pany’s New Construction program, present designs to customers that integrate energy efficient designs without the customer being aware of what influence the Company’s program had on the specifics of what equipment was installed. Or in the case of free rid-ership, having the customer know what equipment would have been recommended by the architect/designer if the incentives from the program were not available. If the customer decision to install the equipment was influenced by architect/designer’s recommendation, but the customer was unaware that the architect’s/designer’s was advice was affected by the program, the customer may inadver-tently indicate they would have installed energy efficient equipment without the program. This would be an incorrect assessment of their free ridership. However, if the customer indicates they were influenced by the architect/designer, and the architect/designer is questioned, they might indicate that the program was in fact af-fected the design, so the customer should not be considered a free rider.

The first five free rider questions verify whether or not all or part of a measure would have been installed without the benefit of the programs financial incentive. The sixth free rider question verifies accuracy of the program baseline assumption. The adjustment to the measure baseline assumption allows for another partial adjustment to the net savings for the measures in question. The net savings for each measure will be calculated by directly adjusting the DOE input file to reflect the results of the survey. The seventh and eighth question will override all previous free rider determinations if either of the first two responses (“Any prior NU program experience”, “Account executive recommendation”) are identified by the survey respondent. Any other response to question seven will not affect the free rider determination. The final free rider question attempts to determine the level of influence exerted by the architect or design engineer on the level of energy efficiency that was ultimately incorporated in the facility. If the response indicates that the Architect was “Extremely influential “ than

Since this is a new construction program the issue of measure timing is not addressed. If a measure is not installed during the initial construction of the building it is highly unlikely that the building would be retrofit until after the initial equipment had reach the end of its useful life. The issue of partial free ridership is addressed by allowing for partial measure inclusion as previously illustrated in the air handler example and through adjustments to the baseline assumptions.



Free Drivership Assessment

Participant free driver estimates will be incorporated into the gross estimates of savings by simulating the actual as-built facility. For example, if the actual installed lighting was lower than the contract then the actual as-built estimate is simulated and used to develop the total gross estimated savings. Incorporating the direct participant free drivers into the gross savings is necessary since some of the facilities deviated from their original design in terms of both equipment and square footage. In past instances like these, it was unclear whether or not the program was directly or indirectly responsible for the modification. Therefore, due to the approach used to quantify gross savings, no separate quantification of free driver savings will be developed for the measures that were installed through the program.

The following three questions are designed to identify any additional energy efficiency measures that have been installed because of the program’s influence but without the program incentive. Since these measures are not related to the program measures it should be possible to quantify the savings associated with these measures. Although, the researchers believe that due to the comprehensive nature of the program, the free driver savings associated with the additional measures will be minimal.

FD1) Since participating in NCP, has this facility purchased and installed any additional energy efficient measures/equipment without a utility subsidy?

Yes……………………………………………………………..FD1

No Skip to FD4 Don’t Know

If Yes, what equipment has been installed? ____________________________________

This question is designed to identify whether any additional energy efficiency measures have been installed at the facility. An affirmative response will trigger an additional question designed to obtain a measure description and location so that the surveyor can verify the existence and efficiency of the equipment.

FD2) Did participation in NCP influence the decision to install these measures? Yes

…………………………………………………………………...FD2 No Don’t Know

If No, what prompted you to install them? _____________________________________



This question is designed to determine whether the measures were installed as a result of participation in the program. If an affirmative response is given then the response to the next question will determine whether the measure qualifies as a free driver. If a negative response is given then the measure will not be classified as a free driver, because participation in the New Construction Program did not influence the decision to install the measure.

FD3) Do you think your Company would have purchased and installed these measures were it not for participation in the NCP program?

Yes No……………………………………………………….FD3 Don’t Know

[Note: All three responses FD1, FD2, and FD3 indicate free drivership. This measure must be identified, inspected, and all associated savings quantified.]

Measure Description and Location:___________________________________________

In addition to accounting for the actual as-built facility, the participant survey included two “spillover” questions aimed at identifying additional projects being built by the program participants, or the potential for future projects that may be built incorporating the NCP measures without the support of utility funding.

FD4) As a result of what you have learned through your participation in the New Construction Program would you install similar measures to those contracted for at this facility, in other projects not participating in a utility rebate program?

Yes No Don’t Know

If Yes, what equipment would be installed? ____________________________________

This question is designed to measure the potential effects that the New Construction Program may have on the customers’ new con-struction baseline practices. There will be no attempt to quantify free drivership based on this purely hypothetical question.

FD5) Have you installed these types of efficiency measures in other projects not participating in the NC Program within the CL&P, WMECo and PSNH service territories since working on this project?

Yes No Don’t Know

If Yes, what projects were they?______________________________________________________________________________________________RLW Analytics, Inc. December, 2002


Name of Project_____________________________________________________Location___________________________________________________________Status______________________________________________________________

This question is designed to illicit evidence of the program’s influence over the customers’ new construction practices. However, no attempt will be made to quantify free drivership at these sites, because it is beyond the scope of the current study.


Northeast UtilitiesNew Construction Program 2000 Impact Evaluation – Draft Report _____________________Page C-1

Appendix C: Survey and Interview Marginals



2000 Market Actor Interview Response Summary This section of the appendix presents a detailed discussion of the responses provided as part of the market actor interview data collection activity. Table 21 shows the demographic breakdown of the firms and the respondents to the interview5:

Respondent position19 Owner/Principals 5 Senior Managers12 Architects/Engineers 3 Staff

Number of years in business:

Range from 2 to 46 years17.4 average - Architects12.0 average - Engineers

Number of employees:Range from 1 to 280 employees5.3 average - Architects34.1 average - Engineers

Table 21: Market Actor Firm and Respondent Demographics

Table 22 and Table 23 show the project types and frequencies for this segment:

Project Metric Frequency Segment # Firms

Number of commercial projects a year 1 – 8 projects:10-35 projects:40 – 100 projects:None specified:

191092

Types of construction projects None specified: All kinds: Churches/religious: Restaurant: Institutional: R & D buildings:

15163321

Annual SF volume of commercial projects – CT:

None: 100,000 SF and under: 500,000 SF and under: 750,000 SF and over:N/A:

1661152

Annual SF volume of commercial projects – MA:

None: 100,000 SF and under: 500,000 SF and under: 750,000 SF and over:Does MA work, doesn’t know SF: N/A:

15611512

Project work within CT or MA: Solely CT: Solely MA: Both states:

141511

Table 22: Market Actor Project Frequencies by Type, SF, and Geography

5 One engineering group interview was conducted with the Executive Director of an industry trade association. In this case, this person’s answers were recorded as “N/A” for any questions pertaining to project histories and counts.



Distribution (n = 20)% of Projects:

COMMERCIAL% of Projects: INDUSTRIAL

% of Projects: RESIDENTIAL

0 – 5% 6 32 1210 – 25% 8 6 730 – 50% 8 2 560 – 80% 8 - 10

85 – 100% 10 - 6Average – Architects: 51% 5% 42%Average – Engineers: 60% 30% 11%

Table 23: Market Actor Project Frequencies by Sector

The tables above show that the random distribution of respondents is evenly distributed be-tween small and large firms, Connecticut and Massachusetts, building size, geographic lo-cation, and industries served.

Respondents were asked if their project work was done as speculative, built-to-suit, or design-bid.6 Table 24 shows the frequencies of these three types with the respondents:

Distribution (n = 38)

N u m b e r o f R e s p o n d e n t sSpeculative Build to Suit Design-Bid

None 37 14 1410 – 35% - 5 250 – 75% - 5 790 – 100% 1 14 15

Table 24: Project Distribution by Nature of Design

This table provides some insight on the outside pressures architects and engineers face before blueprints are completed. Out of 38 respondents, only one said they do speculative work, which is the most open-ended work. The firms interviewed were evenly split between doing a bulk of their work as either build to suit or design-bid.

Thirteen of the forty respondents said they have had experience working with NU representatives. In turn, those thirteen were asked about the level of impact they believe NU programs have made on energy efficiency designs or equipment in construction. The responses were mixed as shown in Table 25 and Table 26 below:

6 Definitions: Speculative projects are those that are built to attract one or more tenants when finished; no lease or sale has been secured before construction (done usually with commercial office space and outdoor strip malls); build-to-suit projects are those where an owner retains an architect to design a building that meet space-related owner/tenant requirements; design-bid projects are pre-written bid specification packages where the design team has to meet minimum space and operating requirements, although they can add additional or improved features and equipment as separate cost options.



Comment Respondent Background

Q10: What impact has NU’s programs had on EE designs or

equipment in renovations?

State of Firm HQ

JobsPer Yr.

Annual Comm’l SF: CT

Annual Comm’l SF: MA

% of projects that are C&I /

% residential or other

“A substantial impact for those that qualify” CT 60 2M 0 85% / 15%“A good impact” CT 5 1.5M 0 95% / 5%“Rebates help – they have made a large impact on what is installed”

CT 40 750,000 0 70% / 30%“Very effective” MA 50 <500,000 <500,000 100% / 0%“Some effect – wish it would have more added benefit”

CT 6 <500,000 0 10% / 90%“Little value; many high efficiency items increase maintenance. We have not had good luck with some high efficiency projects, and it has left a sour taste in our mouths”

MA 50 <500,000 750,000 100% / 0%

“Very little effect on what we do; we are way ahead of the programs in what we design”

MA 4 0 36,000 50% / 50%

Table 25: Architect Perceptions of Program on Energy Efficiency Design/Equipment


Q10: What impact has NU’s programs had on EE designs or

equipment in renovations?

State of Firm HQ

JobsPer Yr.



% of projects that are C&I / % residential or

other

“Has done a lot” MA 100 0 500,000 100% / 0%“Has been some impact, especially w/schools” CT 20 <500,000 0 100% / 0%

“Some impact; increased energy efficiency in the field” (3 respondents)

MA

CT

CT

100

-

10

0

-

750,000

Dk

-

0

100% / 0%

-

100%/ 0%“Some impact; helps w/chillers and mechanical systems” MA 5 0 750,000 100% / 0%

Table 26: Engineer Perceptions of Program on Energy Efficiency Design/Equipment

Next, these respondents asked how much they perceived the NU Program influenced local building codes and other standards. These results are presented in Table 27.


Positive

Negativee

Less Positive

Positive



Q10:Exactly how might NU’s NC program have influenced local building

codes and standards?

State of Firm HQ

JobsPer Yr.



“Rebates have caused a movement” MA 50 <500,000 <500,000“Influences choices and designs; most clients want to be sure that fixtures are eligible for rebates”

MA 100 0 500,000

“Supports codes; some impacts” CT 5 1.5M 0“Somewhat; [they] could do a better job and provide more influence” CT 10 750,000 0“Has influenced some; could do more” CT 40 750,000 0“People are starting to think about it” [e.g. keeping the NU program in mind when considering what standard to meet]

CT 6 <500,000 0

“Very little local influence” CT - - -“Not much effect” MA 50 <500,000 750,000

“Not sure that it has” MA 100 0 DK

“Has not influenced [codes or standards]” MA 5 0 750,000

“None” (3 respondents) CTCTMA

20604

<500,0002M0

00

36,000

Table 27: Perceptions of Program Influence on Local Codes and Standards

It appears that respondents were more positive about the impact the NU program has made on energy efficient equipment than on codes and standards. In particular, those with more C/I work, who have had direct experience with NU account representatives, were more receptive (with one exception) to the program.

Table 28 illustrates the level of knowledge and frequency of use of the New Construction Program incentives among the surveyed market actors.


Positive

Negative


Response ScaleFrequency -familiarity w/incentives

Architects Engineers1 - Very familiar 3 12 - Mostly familiar 2 23 - A little familiar 1 34 - Vaguely familiar 8 85 - Do not know it at all 6 6

Average 3.6 3.8Frequency - incentive usage

1 - Use it all the time 2 12 - Use it frequently 2 03 - Use it once in a while 2 24 - Used it only once or twice 3 15 - Have never used it 11 16

Average 4.0 4.6

Table 28: Familiarity and Use of Incentives

Next, Table 29 shows the previous table with only the responses from those who said they are familiar with NU account representatives:

Response ScaleFrequency -familiarity w/incentives

Architects Engineers1 - Very familiar 3 12 - Mostly familiar 1 13 - A little familiar 1 14 - Vaguely familiar 2 35 - Do not know it at all 0 0

Average 2.3 3.0Frequency - incentive usage

1 - Use it all the time 2 12 - Use it frequently 1 03 - Use it once in a while 1 14 - Used it only once or twice 2 05 - Have never used it 1 4

Average 2.9 4.0Improvement over all respondents in Table 8

Familiarity 1.3 .8 Usage 1.7 .6

Table 29: Familiarity/Use of Incentives By Those Familiar with Account Reps

The responses from Table 28 show that only a minority of respondents are knowledgeable about the program and use it repeatedly. Table 29 shows that the average response improves nearly twice as much for architects who are familiar with NU account representatives than for engineers. This seems to suggest that the engineering firms that NU has worked with have absorbed or retained less of the message about the New Construction program than those from the architectural firms. Table 30 below then cross-compares the individual responses from Table 27 to the perception responses shown earlier:



Q10: What impact has NU’s programs had on EE designs or equipment in renovations?

Incentive Familiarity and Use Scoring

Responses Familiarity w/incentives (1 = very familiar, 5 = not at all)

Incentive usage (1 = all the time, 5 = never used it)

A: “A substantial impact for those that qualify” 2 4B: “Has done a lot” 1 1C: “A good impact” 3 3D: “Rebates help – they have made a large impact on what is installed” 1 1E: “Very effective” 1 2F: “Some effect – wish it would have more added benefit” 4 5G: “Has been some impact, especially w/schools” 4 5H: “Some impact; increased energy efficiency in the field” (3 responses)

243

355

I: “Some impact; helps w/chillers and mechanical systems” 4 5J: “Little value; many high efficiency items increase maintenance. We have not had good luck with some high efficiency projects, and it has left a sour taste in our mouths”

4 4

K: “Very little effect on what we do; we are way ahead of the programs in what we design” 1 1

Table 30: Perception of Program Impact vs. Incentive Familiarity/Use

It would be naturally intuitive to assume that those who are most familiar with the program and use it the most often would have the most positive comments. Table 30 shows that this is not necessarily so. Two possibilities may exist, then, to explain the asymmetry:

1. Some firms either have design work that doesn’t fit the program or else they are not fully aware of all the program offerings. Comments A, B, and E could be explained either way.

2. There probably is some degree of free ridership, although it may be low and therefore quite acceptable. This seems evident in comment K.

As mentioned earlier, three questions specific to daylighting control were asked:


Negativ

Positive


How often does your firm specify daylighting controls? If not all the time, why not? If/when the client drops daylighting control specifications, what is the reason that you

perceive it to be?

Table 31 below shows the aggregated results of these three questions:

Daylighting Survey Question

Market Actors

ResponsesNo. of Arch.

No. of Eng.

How often does your firm specify daylighting controls? (Architects: N = 20)(Engineers: N = 20)

5 0 “All the time”3 0 “Often”2 0 “Occasionally”5 4 “Once in a while”4 5 “Never”1 11 N/A or DK

If not all the time, why not? (Architects: N = 20)(Engineers: N = 9)

5 3 Not always applicable3 1 Lighting is designed elsewhere3 2 Cost concerns by customers3 3 It varies by application1 0 [DK/No answer]1 0 Only schools want them0 0 Not desired by customers

If/when your client drops the daylighting specs, what reasons do you perceive to be why? (Architects: N = 18)(Engineers: N = 4)

7 0[Rejected question outright – customers don’t drop it when specified]

8 3 Cost3 1 The customer doesn’t see the advantage or benefit2 0 A combination of cost and lack of knowledge by the owner

Table 31: Daylighting Controls – Questions and Responses

Architects split into those that are familiar and knowledgeable about daylighting controls and specify them often or all the time (8 respondents), and those that rarely or never specify daylighting controls (9 respondents). Those in the first group tended to characterize themselves as frontrunners in the use of leading technology. Their level of sophistication in integrating daylighting controls in design work are reflected in the seven respondents who rejected the assumption that customers sometimes drop daylighting specs during decision making over the final design.

The interviews with engineers revealed that they did not do much with daylighting. Those that even were familiar with it used it rarely in apparently very specific applications.



The interview process included a segment where respondents were asked a series of questions about the design and decision-making process for a recent project. These answers, combined with the answers from the other respondents, provide an understanding of how decisions are made in relation to energy efficient measures.

Table 32 shows breakdown of projects completed by architects and engineers. The following responses in this section are based on these projects.

Project Perimeters Results

Square Feet: ArchitectsRange: 9,000 to 200,000 sfAvg: 69,225 sf

Square Feet: Engineers Range: 2,000 to 650,000 sfAvg: 130,529 sf

Type of Commercial ProjectRenovations: Architects (n = 20) Engineers (n = 17)

Office 4 0Retail 2 1Other 1 4

New construction:Educational buildings 4 4Office buildings 0 4Religious buildings 3 0Retail buildings 2 0Residential buildings 0 2Other 4 2

Project cost: Range: $150K - $45M Range: $50K - $50MAvg: $9.38M Avg: $13.8M

Project Initiator:Owner 13 10Developer 0 2Public sector project 5 4General contractor 2 0Engineer 0 1

Table 32: Recent Project Sample Group – Sample Types, Ranges, and Averages

Table 33 shows the response totals of those involved in the design, installation, and commissioning stages of the building construction. In looking at on-site survey results with participants, it is evident that customers believe commissioning occurs more often than A/E’s report, possibly due to confusion over the definition of commissioning.


Northeast UtilitiesNew Construction Program 2000 Impact Evaluation – Draft Report ____________________Page C-10

ContractorProject Stage (N= 20, multiple answers within each stage)

Designing Installation CommissioningArch. Eng. Arch. Eng. Arch. Eng.

Architect 19 12 15 6 4 1Mechanical Engineer 8 7 15 8 3 2Electrical Engineer 8 5 17 7 4 2General Contractor 5 2 15 7 4 1Lighting contractor 3 2 13 8 2 1HVAC contractor 4 2 14 8 3 1Maintenance staff 0 1 2 0 1 1

Other:Owner 9 3 6 3 3 3Structural engineer 2 0 1 0 0 0Combined owner/engineers 5 5 3 6 0 0Committee 1 1 1 1 0 0Engineer or consultant 4 4 4 1 1 1General contractor 0 0 0 1 0 0[No One] 0 0 0 0 8 12

Table 33: Recent Project – Involvement in Design, Installation, and Commissioning

As expected, architects were involved in the design portion of each project and most respondents noted that installation tasks typically involve HVAC, mechanical, electrical, and related engineers and contractors. Two items of interest, however, do stand out in this cross-tabulation. First, owners or owners with engineers were listed in roughly half of the design (22) and in the installation stages (18). This suggests that building energy efficiency knowledge and awareness with owners plays an important role in market transformation initiatives.

The other noticeable figure is the fact that half of the respondents (20) listed no one for the commissioning stage. A caveat should be made first that perhaps commissioning may have been done without the architect’s knowledge for the project that he/she was recalling. Bearing that in mind, this amount, however, does suggest that this important O&M practice may be neglected in a significant portion of completed projects.

Table 34 creates a more specific focus. It shows who was named as having primary authority for each stage of the respondent’s project:



ContractorDesign Portion

(Architects = 20, Engineers = 17)

Solo Responsibility:Overall

Bldg. DesignBuilding Envelope

HVAC and Mechanical

Lighting Design

Arch. Eng. Arch. Eng. Arch. Eng. Arch. Eng.Architect 17 13 11 11 4 2 4 1General Contractor 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0Design/Build Firm 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0Engineer or Consultant 1 1 0 0 3 6 3 5HVAC or mechanical engineer 0 0 0 0 2 6 1 1Lighting consultant or engineer 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5Owner 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0“N/A” 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2Shared Responsibility:Architect AND lighting engineers 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0Architect AND electrical engineer 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0Architect AND mechanical/HVAC engineer 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1Trade engineers 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0Committee 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Lighting consultant AND engineer 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1Respondent said “not applicable here” 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0

Table 34: Those With Primary Responsibility for Specific Design Portions

As with Table 33, it would be expected that architects, as the sample population interviewed in this segment, would be the majority named as responsible for overall design and envelope. In contrast, the table clearly shows that primary responsibility for HVAC and lighting design is scattered among a wide variety of decision-makers. This suggests that a challenge of specifying and retaining energy efficient designs/equipment stems from the fact that there are many different potential decision-makers.

The next series of questions in the survey queried about the level of desire and use of energy efficient measures in the project that was discussed by each respondent.

Table 35 shows a tabulation of responses on what design considerations were most important to the particular project discussed in the interview, and how important did energy efficiency play in each of these:



ResponsesDesign Portion

(Architects = 20, Engineers = 17)What design considerations were most important in this particular project for each of these? (Generalized responses)

Overall Bldg. Design

Building Envelope

HVAC and Mechanical

Lighting Design

Arch. Eng. Arch. Eng. Arch. Eng. Arch. Eng.

Physical aspects and usage 12 8 0 0 5 2 5 0General cost and efficiency 7 4 4 0 5 2 2 2Energy efficiency 0 0 4 1 4 2 10 3Minor, specific needs 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0Meet code 0 0 4 6 3 7 2 8Nothing special 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 0Not applicable/don’t know 0 4 1 8 1 4 0 4How important was energy efficiency? Very much or large impact 6 0 3 0 6 4 7 4Fairly important 1 0 1 0 2 0 3 0Some influence 7 9 6 7 6 7 7 6Not very much/minimal 6 3 7 3 5 2 3 2None/not applicable/just follow code 0 5 3 3 1 3 0 5

Table 35: Importance of Energy Efficiency and Other Factors in the Project

To further analyze the responses on the importance of energy efficiency for each design portion, the responses were ranked on a sliding score (“very much” = 5, “none” = 0) and then multiplied against the number of responses. The sum for each segment was then added up (Table 36):

Market ActorsBuilding Design

Building envelope

HVAC and mechanical

Lighting design

Architects Weighted Score Sum: 67 54 67 74

Engineers Weighted Score Sum: 38 30 48 47

Table 36: Weighted Scoring –Importance of Energy Efficiency in the Project Design

We see by the results of the design responses and the low weighted scores that the building envelope design is still driven by traditional elements of comfort, form, and function. On the other hand, the influence of energy efficiency shows up well in lighting design, which had the highest score for architects and near highest for engineers. It is also interesting to note that architects perceive a higher level of impact with energy efficiency on every design element than the engineers had. The next sequence of questions probed into how final decisions are made on energy efficient designs and equipment. Figure 4 depicts the answers to Q28, “Whose opinion carried the most weight in the decisions and discussions about building specs and equipment?” and Figure 5 depicts the answers on who made the final decisions on efficiency levels (“N/A” and missing answers are not shown). The responses suggest that the owner, either alone or in conjunction with other professionals, weighs the heaviest in influencing choices and making final decisions on building designs and measures. However, it should be noted that in the analysis of other data in the on-site survey, the owner often was not aware of the efficiency of measures considered in the absence of the



program nor the efficiency of measures installed through the program – suggesting a higher level of reliance on others to help make decisions than these figures illustrate.

Figure 4: Opinions That Carried the Most Weight

Figure 5: Final Decision Maker on Efficiency Level

Figure 6 shows the distribution of answers to Q25, “What factors drove the decision to install that particular efficiency level?"

Figure 6: Factors Influencing Efficiency


Owners 15 w/ architects 6 w/ mechanical engineers 1 w/ construction mgr. 1 w/architect and eng. 1

Architects 2

Mechanical Engineer 4

Other 3

Engineers or consultants 4

Architects 3 w/ engineers 3

w/ developer 1Other 2

Owners 19 w/ mechanical engineers 1 w/ committee 1 w/ architect 1 w/ architect and eng. 1


Cost clearly shows up as a driving factor in most decisions, whether alone or in conjunction with form and/or function. One respondent cited the rebate itself as a leading influence.

Respondents were asked if there were available utility program incentives that moved them to consider more energy efficient alternatives to building designs and choices (Table 37):

Response Architects (N = 20) Engineers (N = 16)

Yes

9 (5 specified lighting,

1 specified daylighting)

4 (2 specified lighting, 2 specified HVAC)

Not aware of any 6 1No 3 1

Handled by others/not sure 2 2Don’t know 0 8

Table 37: Incentive Influence on Energy Efficiency Selection

Consistent with results shown earlier, lighting is the most common prescriptive measure and almost half of the architect respondents considered incentives for lighting. In contrast, more than half of the engineer respondents were unsure, didn’t know, or weren’t aware of utility incentives. This implies that the message about utility incentive programs have either not reached or have not been embraced by engineers as fully as architects.

Respondents were asked on how follow through was handled. For architects, an overwhelming majority (16) said that steps were taken to ensure that equipment specified for the design was actually installed. Only one said no, and two others did not know. Engineers also showed the same kind of ratio (9 yes, 1 no) but a significant number did not know (6).

Architect responses on who did the follow up varied widely, as shown on Table 38:

Firm/Person Named Architects (N = 20)Mechanical engineer 4Lead engineer 2Owner 2Architect and general contractor 2General contractor/const. Manager 3Architect and engineer 1Design team 1

OTHER:“Constant presence on-site” 3“Not aware” 2

Table 38: Firms/People Identified As Doing Follow Up On Specs

This table shows that follow up on plan specs are properly done, but the ultimate responsibility for that follow up rests in a wide variety of participants. For comparison, Table 39 depicts the answers of the engineers who were interviewed when asked the



same question. In this case, they answered in the context of conducting those follow-ups themselves:

Action(s) Mentioned Engineers (N = 17)Submittal reviews 2Meeting and review 1Follow up during installations 2Final inspection/site review after installations 2None 1Don’t know 8N/A 1

Table 39: Actions Identified for Follow-Up on Specs

This table shows that the respondents either performed specific follow ups or did not know at all how the follow up was done on the particular project that was discussed. The impression given by these results appear then to be a dichotomous involvement in the follow up process with these engineering firms: either they were involved intimately enough in the project to conduct proper follow ups, or they simply performed a specific role with no further involvement.

A series of questions were asked of respondents on brand loyalties or preferences to determine what, if any, impact they may make on energy efficient choices. It was found that brand choices alone have little impact on specifications of energy efficient equipment, as shown in Table 40:

Purchasing Questions Architects1 Engineers1

Does your company have brand preferences? 11 yes, 9 no 8 yes, 11 noDo you feel this influences sales in any way? 7 yes, 7 no 1 yes, 13 no, 1 dk

Stocking IssuesDoes your source have energy efficient lighting in stock? 16 yes, 1 no, 3 dk 11 yes, 0 no, 4 dk…energy efficient HVAC in stock? 15 yes, 1 no, 4 dk 12 yes, 0 no, 3 dk…energy efficient motors in stock? 14 yes, 1 no, 5 dk 11 yes, 0 no, 3 dkAny difficulties acquiring energy efficient unitary HVAC units? 1 yes, 14 no, 5 dk 1 yes, 11 no, 3 dkDoes your source have different purchase turnaround times for standard vs. high efficiency products? 2 yes, 13 no, 5 dk 2 yes, 10 no, 3 dk1”N/A” and missing answers not shown

Table 40: Purchasing and Stocking Issues

Nearly half (19 of 40) respondents said that their company had brand preferences. Reasons given were typical of the building industry: familiarity, comfort, quality, service, and past track record. On top of that, the engineers also had more personal reasons. Six of them mentioned that the direct relationship and the quality of the account representatives were important factors.

There was an interesting divergence in opinion about preferences influencing sales. Architectural respondents felt that these preferences influenced sales in positive ways, such as reduction of callbacks (i.e. return trips to fix/adjust installed equipment), cost effectiveness, and assurance of meeting customer expectations. Thirteen of fifteen



engineers who responded, however, felt their choices didn’t necessarily influence sales. This may indicate that these respondents were more pragmatic about the choices that the key decision-makers may have upon the final design or purchases.

All the respondents said, with a sole exception in the architect group, that their equipment sources normally have energy efficient lighting, HVAC, and motors in stock.7 Only two from each group felt that there were different turnaround times in ordering energy efficient versus standard products, while twenty-three did not see a difference. Those who perceived a difference said it was typically a 2- to 4-week wait for these products.

Respondents were asked a series of questions that probed their perceptions about energy efficiency policies and program initiatives.

When specifically asked what barriers were perceived, respondents overwhelmingly cited first cost as the largest barrier that keeps customers from purchasing energy efficiency equipment in commercial/industrial new construction projects (34 of 39 respondents). Limited customer information (2 respondents), limited availability of equipment, inability to separate high efficiency features, and limited selection rounded off the remaining responses.

An open-ended query asked what opportunities or problems do they perceive in the belief some policy makers have that the most energy efficient materials/systems should be used in new construction. On the whole, most respondents were concerned that mandatory use of high efficiency design would lead to high first costs, higher costs of design, and use of unproven technologies. A significant segment of respondents had a more mixed neutral tone where they recognized the value of these kinds of equipment and designs provided that they were understood and accepted by clients, had a proven track record, and the cost of the equipment was either in line with standard equipment or reduced by continuing incentives. Three architects saw no problem with that policy, which implies that they already incorporate these kinds of measures into their designs anyway.

When asked to characterize themselves in their level of responsiveness to energy efficiency, both actor groups split right down the middle: each group had ten who considered themselves strong proponents, nine who characterized themselves as mild supporters, and only one who said he did not consider energy efficiency in his design work.

Four respondents who expressed being strong proponents made comments relating to the fact that they specify high efficiency designs or equipment whenever possible. Others gave these reasons:

“We always try to do what is best for customers; we…do rebates a lot; the state has mandatory codes so [we may] as well play along”

“We try to educate the client”

7 However, the one respondent who did state that these products were not typically in stock said “no” when asked if he experienced any difficulties in acquiring efficient unitary HVAC units.



“We respect efficiencies and energy awareness”

Those who considered themselves “mild” proponents saw some challenges that affected their perceptions. “Cost” and “lack of knowledge” were mentioned as factors four times, as well as these comments:

“There’s many unproven technologies”

“It’s a tough battle; [we find it] hard to sell efficiency to most customers”

“Current interest level is not as high as it could be”

“Sometimes aesthetics are more important than energy; it can be hard to balance the two at times”

“[There are] problems [that] some efficiency measures present for construction”

“A tough sell to most clients”

In addition, three of the engineer respondents honestly admitted not being much involved currently in energy efficiency work or design.

Finally, respondents were asked about what NU and other utilities could do to assist them in taking advantage of opportunities or overcoming problems in specifying energy efficient designs and equipment. The answers were not prompted, and it is informative to see what potential choices were not mentioned at all as well as those that were mentioned the most (Table 41 below). Specific training and certification programs suggested included seminars on high efficiency technologies and sample lighting projects, with the further suggestion that all seminars be eligible for continuing education credits. Some engineers also suggested seminars that review the NU Programs and incentive structures. Industry updates and training software were also specifically cited as services that NU could provide.

Actual or Potential Responses: “What do you feel NU and other utilities could do to assist you in taking advantage of opportunities or overcoming problems

to specify energy efficient materials and systems?”

Mentions (multiple

responses)Training on specific building design elements 17Training & certification programs in energy efficient construction & maintenance systems 16Provide rebates 13Regular updates through mailings 9Provide personnel or consultants to give design work assistance or advice 9Create utility rate changes as economic motivations 4Provide site specific analysis or assistance by experts 4Develop a standardized high efficiency new construction building practices agreement for contractors endorsed by contractor groups and utilities 3Nothing 3Offer shared savings/performance contracting programs 0Provide approved contractor lists to building design teams 0Provide utility assistance to resolve specific technical problems 0

Table 41: Recommendations for Utility Support



The top choice (33 mentions) was given as education, training, or seminars on energy efficient equipment or designs for themselves, related market actors, and building owners. In particular, this reflects well on the opportunities that lay in waiting for seminars that NU is currently offering, including seminars on chillers and controls, among others.

Interestingly, four offered on their own volition that a direct economic motivation in the form of utility rate adjustments (either increased rates for all or reduced rates as incentives) would provide support for use of energy efficient technologies and designs.



2000 On-Site Survey Marginals

Factors that motivated you to participate Pct of Pct ofCategory label Code Count Responses CasesTo reduce maintenance costs 1 5 2.8 7.1To reduce initial purchase costs 2 24 13.5 34.3The program incentive 3 41 23.0 58.6To reduce energy bills/save money 4 61 34.3 87.1To improve efficiency/save energy 5 25 14.0 35.7Took advice of installer/designer/contra 6 5 2.8 7.1Other 7 8 4.5 11.4Past Program Participation 10 9 5.1 12.9 ------- ----- ----- Total responses 178 100.0 254.3

7 missing cases; 70 valid cases

Factors that motivated you to participate - other:1 Our Safety Offices2 Upgrade Existing3 Always Do4 Offered by WMECO5 Offered by WMECO6 Offered by WMECO7 Group Lamp8 Needed New Lights

Do you recall the approximate amount of the incentive?1. $6502. No3. No4. No5. No6. No7. No8. $15,0009. $7,00010. $200,00011. $200,00012. $370,00013. $370,00014. $370,00015. $70,00016. $70,00017. $70,00018. $1,20019. No20. No21. No22. No23. No24. No25. No26. $2,50027. $2,50028. $6,00029. $3,00030. $51031. No32. $10,00033. $10,00034. $56,56535. $15,00036. $15,00037. $6,400



Descriptive Statistics

23 $510 $370,000 $81,361.96

23

Approximate amountof the incentive:Valid N (listwise)

N Minimum Maximum Mean

What criteria are used to select EE equipment and/or strategies at your facility? Pct of Pct ofCategory label Code Count Responses CasesFirst cost 1 30 25.6 39.0Simple payback 2 16 13.7 20.8Reduced maintenance/longer life 3 12 10.3 15.6Increased Comfort

4 2 1.7 2.6Improved performance 5 20 17.1 26.0Don't know 6 9 7.7 11.7Other 7 28 23.9 36.4 ------- ----- ----- Total responses 117 100.0 151.9

0 missing cases; 77 valid cases

What criteria are used to select EE equipment – other:1 Reliability2 Wants more efficient piece in the slot3 Wants more efficient piece in the slot4 Wants more efficient piece in the slot5 Prefer quality components-generally less problematic6 Prefer quality components-generally less problematic7 Prefer quality components-generally less problematic8 Prefer quality components-generally less problematic9 Save energy & rebate10 Energy overridden by other factors11 Premium equipment12 Energy design committee13 Energy design committee14 Energy design committee15 Fit to program & company recommended lighting16 Comprehensive analysis17 Comprehensive analysis18 Engineering expertise & experience19 Engineering expertise & experience20 Through architect21 Through architect22 Relied on electrician & to comply with the program23 Relied on electrician & to comply with the program24 Cost/benefit25 Cost/benefit26 Cost/benefit27 More concerned with energy use of manufacturing equipment than lighting &

HVAC28 More concerned with energy use of manufacturing equipment than lighting &

HVAC

Number of cases read: 28 Number of cases listed: 28


(in years) N Minimum Maximum MeanLighting 32 1 7 3.03HVAC 31 1 7 3.35

Process 15 1 7 3.27Refrigeration 18 1 7 3.67

What is the typical payback period for…..


Do you recall any measures that were screened out?

23 29.9 48.9 48.924 31.2 51.1 100.047 61.0 100.030 39.077 100.0

YesNoTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative

Percent

Where any of those measures installed without the incentive?

6 7.8 46.2 46.27 9.1 53.8 100.0

13 16.9 100.064 83.177 100.0

YesNoTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Did plans exist to install any part of the EEMs prior to participation?

23 29.9 29.9 29.9

10 13.0 13.0 42.9

35 45.5 45.5 88.39 11.7 11.7 100.0

77 100.0 100.0

YesYes, but don'tremember specificsNoDon't knowTotal

ValidFrequency Percent Valid Percent

CumulativePercent

What installation plans already existed?1 Have installed VFDs before but not a practice-some units have,

some don’t2 Probably T8s, not sensors3 VFD's on larger motors proven in other installations & some form

of free cooling, PEMs4 VFD's on larger motors proven in other installations & some form

of free cooling, PEMs5 Lighting & lighting controls6 Lighting & lighting controls7 Lighting & lighting controls8 Lighting needed replacement; old ballasts; poor condition; NOTE-

this was retrofit not new construction9 Would have done lighting & some VFDs, more efficient

refrigeration, chillers a maybe; not clear10 Would have done lighting & some VFDs, more efficient



refrigeration, chillers a maybe; not clear



13 This project is an extension of a previous NCP project. The low-e ceiling & MH lighting was expanded with the rink

14 This project is an extension of a previous NCP project. The low-e ceiling & MH lighting was expanded with the rink

15 Install some T8s & HID-recommended by electrician16 Each claimed the other had responsibility17 Metal Halide18 HID & T8s19 The T8 lamps & ballasts-from experience from previous program20 Efficient T8 systems21 Lighting & HVAC22 Lighting & HVAC23 Lighting24 Design standard for the past 6 years25 Design standard for the past 6 years26 Lighting as designed

Would you have acted on these plans without the financial incentive?

24 31.2 64.9 64.93 3.9 8.1 73.0

10 13.0 27.0 100.037 48.1 100.040 51.977 100.0

YesNoDon't knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Was it necessary to change the design of the measures in order to qualify for the incentive?

1 1.3 2.8 2.82 2.6 5.6 8.3

33 42.9 91.7 100.036 46.8 100.041 53.277 100.0

YesYes, but don't rememberNoTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Was there a value engineering assessment performed?

32 41.6 41.6 41.6

7 9.1 9.1 50.6

33 42.9 42.9 93.55 6.5 6.5 100.0

77 100.0 100.0

YesYes, but don'tremember specificsNoDon't knowTotal


CumulativePercent



As a result of the assessment, would you have installed the measures without the incentive?

3 3.9 6.3 6.3

16 20.8 33.3 39.6

10 13.0 20.8 60.419 24.7 39.6 100.048 62.3 100.029 37.777 100.0

Yes, all of the measuresYes, some of themeasuresNoneDon't knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Which measures would have been installed?

1 VFDs on larger motors, free cooling, quantity & types not clear, PEMs2 VFDs on larger motors, free cooling, quantity & types not clear, PEMs

3 Refrigeration

Number of cases read: 3 Number of cases listed: 3

What level of efficiency would have been installed anyway?

24 31.2 31.2 31.2

14 18.2 18.2 49.411 14.3 14.3 63.628 36.4 36.4 100.077 100.0 100.0

Same as installedefficiencyHigher than baselineBaseline efficiencyDon't knowTotal


CumulativePercent

What level of efficiency would have been installed?1 Cost may have determined some of the fixtures to be less than

optimum2 Depending on budget3 Each claimed the other had final input4 Hard to compare5 Lighting-now pulse start; would not have been6 Lighting higher than baseline but others at baseline7 Not have done VFDs8 Would've done lighting but probably not pulse9 Would not have gone with level of efficiency in chillers &

refrigeration



Have you previously participated in any NU programs?

47 61.0 61.0 61.025 32.5 32.5 93.55 6.5 6.5 100.0

77 100.0 100.0



CumulativePercent

How influential was previous experience in making your decision to install the EEMs?

31 40.3 66.0 66.011 14.3 23.4 89.43 3.9 6.4 95.72 2.6 4.3 100.0

47 61.0 100.030 39.077 100.0

Very influentialSomewhat influentialNot at all influentialDon't knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Did a utility rep recommend that you install the EEMs?

48 62.3 63.2 63.228 36.4 36.8 100.076 98.7 100.01 1.3

77 100.0

YesNoTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent



If the recommendation had not been made, how likely is it that you would haveinstalled the EEMs?

4 5.2 8.3 8.3

12 15.6 25.0 33.3

23 29.9 47.9 81.3

3 3.9 6.3 87.5

6 7.8 12.5 100.048 62.3 100.029 37.777 100.0

Definately wouldhave installedProbably wouldhave installedProbably wouldnot have installedDefinately wouldnot have installedDon't knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

How influential was the architect/designer's recommendations?

9 11.7 12.9 12.913 16.9 18.6 31.412 15.6 17.1 48.635 45.5 50.0 98.61 1.3 1.4 100.0

70 90.9 100.07 9.1

77 100.0

Very influentialSomewhat influentialSlightly influentialNot at all influentialDon't knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Have you checked your electric bills to confirm the energy consumptionpredicted by the energy analysis?

34 44.2 44.7 44.742 54.5 55.3 100.076 98.7 100.01 1.3

77 100.0

YesNoTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Was the analysis accurate?1 Informally, but difficult; pleased where bills are at2 Hasn't been able to verify savings3 Always reviewing; building & TAB not complete- still TBD4 Always reviewing; building & TAB not complete- still TBD5 Bills have not increased substantially6 Bills have not increased substantially



7 Bills have not increased substantially8 Probably not9 Probably not10 Probably not11 Probably not12 10% less than DOE2 estimate13 10% less than DOE2 estimate14 10% less than DOE2 estimate15 Half the demand of the previous company16 Half the demand of the previous company17 Half the demand of the previous company18 Half the demand of the previous company19 Half the demand of the previous company20 Half the demand of the previous company21 Half the demand of the previous company22 But difficult to determine23 But difficult to determine24 Not sure yet - RLW will tell25 Not sure yet - RLW will tell26 Not sure yet - RLW will tell27 But, electric heat was also removed; hard to determine28 If not as expected, changes will be made29 If not as expected, changes will be made30 Proprietary/energy31 Proprietary/energy32 Proprietary/energy33 Yes & through past experience34 Yes & through past experience

Would you approach NU for advice in the future?

68 88.3 89.5 89.57 9.1 9.2 98.71 1.3 1.3 100.0

76 98.7 100.01 1.3

77 100.0


Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Please explain why.1 Interactions positive; impressed with quality of people; customer focused2 Seems to be an objective information source3 Seems to be an objective information source4 Seems to be an objective information source5 Seems to be an objective information source6 NU are the experts-proven results7 Excellent working partnership & good people8 Excellent working partnership & good people9 Excellent technical & financial resource10 Excellent technical & financial resource11 Excellent technical & financial resource12 Knowledgeable & helpful13 Provide a different perspective from contractors/vendors14 Provide a different perspective from contractors/vendors15 Provide a different perspective from contractors/vendors16 Provide a different perspective from contractors/vendors17 Provided good service & info in past18 Provided good service & info in past



19 Provided good service & info in past20 He is extremely pleased with his utility rep-David; he has been very helpful with the process21 He is extremely pleased with his utility rep-David; he has been very helpful with the process22 He is extremely pleased with his utility rep-David; he has been very helpful with the process23 He is extremely pleased with his utility rep-David; he has been very helpful with the process24 He is extremely pleased with his utility rep-David; he has been very helpful with the process25 He is extremely pleased with his utility rep-David; he has been very helpful with the process26 He is extremely pleased with his utility rep-David; he has been very helpful with the process27 Make sure to do it efficiently the first time28 Experts in the field; did not know this service existed prior to involvement29 Most knowledgeable30 Most knowledgeable31 To get optimum efficiency; source of information when others are not aware32 Excellent source of information & services33 Knowledgeable source34 Pretty good-incentive plans; some programs fit our needs35 Great experiences36 Great experiences37 Great experiences38 Good program & experience39 They are a solid resource - objective information40 Walter has been exceptional-great to work with41 Standard company procedure42 Standard company procedure43 Standard company procedure44 Corporate policy to participate in programs45 Corporate policy to participate in programs46 Rebates & information on new offerings47 State requirement48 State requirement49 CL&P suggestions are good; confidence in program50 CL&P suggestions are good; confidence in program51 Joe Flynn-A+52 Joe Flynn-A+53 Joe Flynn-A+54 Standard policy of hospital55 Standard policy of hospital56 To get current information on energy efficiency offerings57 To get current information on energy efficiency offerings58 John was outstanding59 John was outstanding60 Utility knows what leading edge products are61 Experts in field62 Experts in field63 Experts in field64 Good experience65 Streamlined process66 Streamlined process

Please explain why not.1 Probably not - need to be motivated to do so - not part of routine2 Have been aware of energy costs & needs & tries to implement latest3 Have been aware of energy costs & needs & tries to implement latest4 Have been aware of energy costs & needs & tries to implement latest5 Not a lot of effort6 Not a lot of effort7 Not a lot of effort



Were the measures commissioned?

46 59.7 63.0 63.027 35.1 37.0 100.073 94.8 100.04 5.2

77 100.0

YesNoTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Why were they commissioned?1 HVAC to meet performance; not lights/VFDs2 Essential for complex HVAC & control systems still ongoing3 Essential for complex HVAC & control systems still ongoing4 Part of the job5 Part of the job6 Part of the job7 Essential to get operating flaws out of HVAC & refrigeration systems8 Essential to get operating flaws out of HVAC & refrigeration systems9 Essential to get operating flaws out of HVAC & refrigeration systems10 Essential to get operating flaws out of HVAC & refrigeration systems11 Modified commissioning - consists of reviewing TAB & engineering follow-up documents12 Modified commissioning - consists of reviewing TAB & engineering follow-up documents13 Modified commissioning - consists of reviewing TAB & engineering follow-up documents14 Full commissioning program15 Full commissioning program16 Full commissioning program17 Full commissioning program18 Full commissioning program19 Full commissioning program20 Full commissioning program21 Knows it is a good thing22 Knows it is a good thing23 Knows it is a good thing24 Operation for energy consumption as expected25 Operation for energy consumption as expected26 Independent commissioning verifies right equipment installed & running properly27 Independent commissioning verifies right equipment installed & running properly28 To make sure they worked properly29 To make sure they worked properly30 To assure proper operation31 To assure proper operation32 Assure success33 Assure success34 Assure success35 Assure that systems work properly36 Assure that systems work properly37 Not successful if not commissioned38 Not successful if not commissioned39 To assure proper operation40 To assure proper operation41 To assure proper operation42 Part of operating program43 Part of operating program44 Part of operating program45 To assure proper operation46 To assure proper operation

Why weren’t they commissioned?1 Lighting project - no commissioning necessary2 Not part of procedure; not sophisticated measures



3 Not part of procedure; not sophisticated measures4 Not part of procedure; not sophisticated measures5 Not part of procedure; not sophisticated measures6 Not part of this process7 Systems not conducive to test/commissioning low-e ceiling/lighting8 Systems not conducive to test/commissioning low-e ceiling/lighting9 Just started by in-house electrician10 Just started by in-house electrician

Do you recall the cost of the commissioning procedure, relative to the totalcost of the equipment?

7 9.1 15.6 15.638 49.4 84.4 100.045 58.4 100.032 41.677 100.0

YesNoTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Do you believe that commissioning is a necessary part?"

42 54.5 93.3 93.33 3.9 6.7 100.0

45 58.4 100.032 41.677 100.0

YesNoTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Are there any additional services you are seeking from NU?

38 49.4 50.7 50.730 39.0 40.0 90.77 9.1 9.3 100.0

75 97.4 100.02 2.6

77 100.0


Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

What kind of services?

Mention #1:



What kind of services 1?

23 29.9 37.7 37.73 3.9 4.9 42.67 9.1 11.5 54.1

1 1.3 1.6 55.7

27 35.1 44.3 100.061 79.2 100.016 20.877 100.0

NothingSite specific analysisRebatesResolve technicalproblemsOtherTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Mention #1 Other:

Specify "other" 1.

59 76.6 76.6 76.6

3 3.9 3.9 80.5

1 1.3 1.3 81.8

1 1.3 1.3 83.1

1 1.3 1.3 84.4

2 2.6 2.6 87.0

2 2.6 2.6 89.6

3 3.9 3.9 93.5

2 2.6 2.6 96.1

2 2.6 2.6 98.7

1 1.3 1.3 100.0

77 100.0 100.0

A single point of contact forconstruction & conse

Additional engineeringservices; potential coopera

Current periodicinformation on programs &service

Currently involved withlighting at elementary sch

Financial & technicalassistance

O&M type measures

Pasturizer upgrades; directammonia; replace or up

Process chiller

Replaced T8s

Site lighting & movingtransformers

Total


CumulativePercent

Mention #2:




3 3.9 21.4 21.4

2 2.6 14.3 35.74 5.2 28.6 64.3

4 5.2 28.6 92.9

1 1.3 7.1 100.014 18.2 100.063 81.877 100.0

Training onbuilding designRebatesConsulting adviceResolve technicalproblemsOtherTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Mention #2 Other:

Specify "other" 2.

76 98.7 98.7 98.7

1 1.3 1.3 100.0

77 100.0 100.0

Grant for workproposed-needshelp so grant moneyTotal


CumulativePercent

Mention #3:


3 3.9 100.0 100.074 96.177 100.0

RebatesValidSystemMissing

Total


Percent

Please rate your satisfaction with NU.

47 61.0 62.7 62.716 20.8 21.3 84.012 15.6 16.0 100.075 97.4 100.02 2.6

77 100.0

Very satisfiedSomewhat satisfiedNeutralTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent



Why did you give this rating? – Very satisfied:1 Value their expertise2 Strong working relationship3 Strong working relationship4 Value & performance in this & past projects5 Value & performance in this & past projects6 Value & performance in this & past projects7 Meets university's long-term outlook issues8 Meets university's long-term outlook issues9 Meets university's long-term outlook issues10 Good working relationship11 Good working relationship12 Good working relationship13 Good working relationship14 Everybody's been very helpful - prompt response15 The account executive was very knowledgeable & fair (George Hope)16 Good relationships17 Good relationships18 No complaints in relation to electric bills & incentive was satisfying19 Nothing but good experiences20 Nothing but good experiences21 Nothing but good experiences22 Good relationship23 They provide good service with no hassle24 Good resource to work with; good relationship25 Joe Flynn very helpful; process easy26 Joe Flynn very helpful; process easy27 Good relationship28 Responsive & easy to work with29 Responsive & easy to work with30 No complaints31 No complaints32 Expertise in energy matters33 Expertise in energy matters34 Personal attention35 Personal attention36 Good job with new construction projects; good partnership37 Good job with new construction projects; good partnership38 Good job with new construction projects; good partnership39 No problems40 No problems41 Personal interaction-Jeff Losamgic highly regarded

Why did you give this rating? – Somewhat satisfied:1 Brown-outs an occasional problem - have to reset system after occurrences2 No major problems3 No major problems4 No major problems5 No major problems6 Is there when needed & responsive7 No problems with NU or service8 Hoped to have expanded program offerings9 Hoped to have expanded program offerings10 Brown-outs are a problem11 Brown-outs are a problem12 Rebate check processing took too long13 Rebate check processing took too long14 Rebate check processing took too long15 Don't hear from WMECo often-now occasionally16 WMECo schedule had to be followed-not customer's desire

Why did you give this rating? – Neutral:1 Midway - hasn't had interface long enough to see if problems exist



2 Having premature motor failures on new equipment - have to resolve if NU power or new motors are to blame. Need additional support




6 Service pretty good-voltage problems; need to up the voltage7 Multiple contacts; unencumbered rebate program8 Multiple contacts; unencumbered rebate program9 Multiple contacts; unencumbered rebate program10 Not much contact with company11 Not much contact with company12 Not much contact with company

Since participating, have you purchased/installed any EEMs without asubsidy?

12 15.6 16.4 16.461 79.2 83.6 100.073 94.8 100.04 5.2

77 100.0

YesNoTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Did participation influence your decision to install these measures?

3 3.9 25.0 25.09 11.7 75.0 100.0

12 15.6 100.065 84.477 100.0

YesNoTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

Would you have purchased/installed these measures if you had notparticipated?

8 10.4 66.7 66.73 3.9 25.0 91.71 1.3 8.3 100.0

12 15.6 100.065 84.477 100.0

NoYesDon't knowTotal

Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent



Would you install similar measures in other projects without a rebate?

42 54.5 64.6 64.64 5.2 6.2 70.8

19 24.7 29.2 100.065 84.4 100.012 15.677 100.0


Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent

What equipment would be installed?1 VFDs2 Lighting-but not all at once-would have been incremental3 Large VFDs & free cooling option4 Large VFDs & free cooling option5 Refrigeration, lighting6 Refrigeration, lighting7 Refrigeration, lighting8 Lights, motors, & VFDs9 Lights, motors, & VFDs10 Lights, motors, & VFDs11 If lighting was needed than yes; if not than no; energy savings alone are not enough12 Lighting, some VFDs, ice temperature sensors, ammonia refrigeration13 Lighting, some VFDs, ice temperature sensors, ammonia refrigeration14 Lighting, some VFDs, ice temperature sensors, ammonia refrigeration15 Lighting, some VFDs, ice temperature sensors, ammonia refrigeration16 Repair leaks - should be done anyway17 Lighting systems, HID, T818 Low-e ceiling, MH, lower wattage fixtures19 Low-e ceiling, MH, lower wattage fixtures20 Same lighting21 T8s & CFLs22 HID pulse start-efficient lights23 All T8s, HIDs, & CFLs; except occupancy sensors24 Not sure - installation decisions are done on a store-by-store basis25 Not sure - installation decisions are done on a store-by-store basis26 Not sure - installation decisions are done on a store-by-store basis27 Efficient lighting28 T8 systems29 Lights, motors, & controls30 Lighting & HVAC31 Lighting & HVAC32 Lighting & HVAC33 Lighting & HVAC34 Lighting & HVAC35 Lighting & A/C36 Lighting & A/C37 Lighting 38 Lighting 39 Occupancy sensors40 Lighting & HVAC41 Lighting 42 Lighting



Have you installed these types of measures in other projects sinceparticipating?

3 3.9 7.7 7.734 44.2 87.2 94.92 2.6 5.1 100.0

39 50.6 100.038 49.477 100.0


Valid

SystemMissingTotal


Percent


Documents

Northeast Utilities - Energy Efficiency Program Library · Web viewNortheast Utilities is performing research to see what high-value new construction design elements they could