1 / 54

Community Pilot ~ Project Overview and Final Outcomes

Community Pilot ~ Project Overview and Final Outcomes. 12-17-13. Agenda. WPS – Project Overview Communications/Branding Rates Tools/Tech discussion – Utility perspective Focus on Energy – Programs Energy Center of WI Tools/Tech discussion – Customer perspective

dagan
Download Presentation

Community Pilot ~ Project Overview and Final Outcomes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Community Pilot~Project Overview and Final Outcomes 12-17-13

  2. Agenda • WPS – Project Overview • Communications/Branding • Rates • Tools/Tech discussion – Utility perspective • Focus on Energy – Programs • Energy Center of WI • Tools/Tech discussion – Customer perspective • DNV GL (KEMA) – Evaluation • Findings • Recommendations

  3. Overview • 2008 - WPS reached an agreement with CUB to provide increased funding to WPS customers participating in energy efficiency programs. The additional funds supported two types of programs: • Territory-Wide programs (mostly bonus incentives on top of existing Focus programs) • Community Pilot programs – test the effectiveness of new tools, technologies, program and rate approaches. • Key requirement: WPS jointly develop and implement at least three community-based pilot projects. WPS worked collaboratively with CUB, PSCW staff, and Focus on Energy.

  4. Community Pilot Key Messages • iCanConserve was a bold, new community energy conservation pilot project • Participation was voluntary • Encouraged customers to conserve energy and change energy behaviors • Lowered energy bills • Helped the environment • Be part of the community

  5. Community PilotGoals & Objectives • Evaluate customer response to current and new innovative rates • Better understand the communication and education methods to encourage customer participation in energy efficiency • Create awareness of energy usage via feedback devices and web-based tools • Create scalable models incorporating lessons learned from each pilot community

  6. Community PilotSelection Criteria • Size of community • City or village (1-10,000 customers) • “Green” eco-friendly • Progressive • Diverse community • Active parks and recreation • Active business associations • South of Hwy 64

  7. Scope • Three communities • Brillion - October 2009 • Allouez - September 2010 • Plover - July 2011 (Staggered approach to build on lessons learned) • All communities completed – December 2012 • Residential and small commercial customers included • Large commercial and industrial customers not included

  8. Community Characteristics • Brillion – 1,500 customers • Tend to be older, more conservative, reluctant to change or adopt new technologies • Fewer internet connected customers • Offers are “too good to be true” • Receive information via TV, bill stuffers, news, neighbors • Word of mouth is extremely important – leverage Energy Advocates • Community newspaper • Small businesses with an average of 5 FTE’s

  9. Community Characteristics • Allouez – 6,000 customers • Younger, wealthier, and more connected • Provides opportunity to leverage microsite • No newspaper or schools so marketing channels differed • Community leader support and involvement was high • Small businesses with an average of 12 FTE’s • Plover – 6,000 customers • Similar to Allouez except • More renters • Slightly younger population – more families • Plover newspaper and schools

  10. Community PilotKey Program Elements

  11. Community PilotProgram Offerings

  12. Community PilotProgram Offerings

  13. Community PilotCommunity Reward Outcome

  14. Final Report • Final Report available on Public Service Commission of Wisconsin website: http://psc.wi.gov/ • Search Electronic Requirement Filing (ERF) System • Docket #: 6690-UR-119

  15. Key Findings

  16. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Marketing & Communications • Successes: • iCanConserve Microsite • iCanConserve Brand & WPS Logo • Involvement of Local Officials • Email Newsletter • Challenges: • Difficult to get customers to stop at pilot specific events (Brillion and Plover). • Various channels were used to deliver messages • Challenge to get customers interested/motivated to take action • Media channel selection limited due to “spillover” effect (Allouez & Plover). • Plover Success Kits • Community Involvement • Pilot-ending messages • Referral Rewards • WPS/Focus Collaboration

  17. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Marketing & Communications • Lessons Learned: • Reduce communications after second year in first community. • Started to “tune out” pilot messaging (higher-than-normal frequency). • Individual messaging helped clarify each offer vs. multiple pilot offerings in one communication. • Customer’s preference for face-to-face interaction with the Energy Advocates. • Using testimonials to push the peer-to-peer participation in communications. • Tying actual energy savings (dollars) to the programs and rate offerings in communications to give customers a sense of the payback for such efforts.

  18. Overview of Communications Topics: Program Offerings Rate Options/Education Energy-Saving Tips Community Reward Testimonials Channels: • Bill Inserts • Targeted Web Banners • Direct Mail • Emails • Microsite (variety of information) • Newspaper Ads/Editorials • Free Standing Inserts • Social Media • Yard Signs

  19. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Rates • Successes: • Rate Videos • http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/home/response_rewards.aspx • Outreach • Success Kits • Understanding Opt-out impacts • Load Shifting behavior change • Conservation behavior change • Google PowerMeter and WPS Usage Graphs • Plover Opt Out Evaluation • Simple is better

  20. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Rates • Challenges • Engaging/Educating Customers • Major appliances – Natural Gas/propane or electricity? • Reviewing Rate Options • Provided tables showing appliance consumption for small and large appliances • Impact of appliances to overall bill • What to run off-peak • Cell Phone Bill vs. Electric Bill Options

  21. Community PilotEPRI Demonstration Projects 152 W Each, LED 311W Each, High Pressure Sodium

  22. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • EPRI Initiatives – Hyper-Efficient Appliances • Refrigerators • Design options to increase the energy efficiency of refrigerators include: • Variable-speed compressors • Adaptive defrost technologies • Improved insulation • Better-sealing doors and gaskets • Alternative refrigerants

  23. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned EPRI - Refrigerators • Savings based on manufacturer/model • Range: -5% to 45% • Barrier to market adoption • Cost • 1980 – avg. refrigerator • 19 cubic feet • used 1275 kWh/yr. • 2010 – avg. refrigerator • 22 cubic feet • uses 500 kWh/yr. • Average energy savings of about 50% (all host sites) 23

  24. Average energy savings of 8 - 15% per washer-dryer load • Average hot water savings (gallons) of about 42% per load • ~90% of the energy used for washers is for heating water • Water extraction in the water spin cycle reduces dryer energy use Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned EPRI-Washer/Dryer 24

  25. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • EPRI Initiatives – LED Lighting • Successes: • Customer Perspective • Informal feedback - LED lights were favorable. • Collaborative project made it possible for this technology to be used in Brillion; otherwise cost prohibitive. • Operating Perspective • Cold weather in NE WI did not hamper operation. • Energy savings ranged from 20% to 70% • Challenges: • The collection of photometric data was a challenge. • Circuit was controlled by a remote photo eye. Resulted in turn on and turn off times that would not be considered normal. • Location of the test site was a parking lot at a mini mall, which was not a high traffic area.

  26. LED Street & Area Lighting Brillion Data Research Objective: Assess light emitting diode (LED) technology by measuring performance and user satisfaction of the technology when installed in street and area lighting locations.

  27. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • EPRI Initiatives – Plug-In Electric Vehicles • Successes: • First-ever, North America-based scale demonstration of first production Plug-in Electric Vehicles. • Thirty (30) utilities, sixty-one (61) 2011 Chevrolet Volt vehicles, Texas to Manitoba, Maine to Hawaii footprint. • Focus on utility industry perspective – infrastructure impact, energy use, effect of various parameters on energy consumption and consumer preferences around infrastructure and charging. • Comprehensive data analysis spanning over 750,000 miles of driving and several thousand charge events over 2 years.

  28. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • EPRI Initiatives – Plug-In Electric Vehicles • Challenges • Logistical challenges focused around structuring the program terms that balancedrisk(liability) of the new technology, ownershipof the vehicles, confidentiality of information and technical objectives. Total negotiations > a year to complete. • Enterprise risk management – with an advanced technology class of vehicle being driven by regular drivers, liability and risk exposure were major concerns. To resolve this, EPRI carried a fleet-wide insurance policy for any unforeseen events. • Technical challenges focused around getting data to flow regularly from GM (OnStar) and analyzing it for meaningful results, as well as getting the EPRI-designed data acquisition platform running smoothly.

  29. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • EPRI Initiatives – PEVs • As of Jan 31, 2013 the fleet totaled 738,000 miles; 359,000 miles on electric. • As of Jan 31, 2013 the fleet totaled 128 AC megawatt-hours.

  30. Tools & Technology

  31. (EPRI) Feedback Type Categorization

  32. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Home Energy Report • Designed based on industry research and customer feedback • Incorporated key data and information • Kept data consistent with online and on-bill data • Mailings in spring and fall

  33. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Home Energy Report • Successes: • Two focus groups: • Customers perceived the HER as a value added service • Value in viewing their personal historical usage data, even if they aren’t taking energy saving efforts • Paper format was well accepted - mental trigger to think about energy usage • Customers trust the data and the utility • While viewing the entire report, customers found the most value from the usage graphs • The design was very appropriate, from the packaging to the overall layout of the report • Report spurred discussions within the household • Energy savings tips were of value • Comparison to average home (terminology) was preferred vs. providing a comparison to their neighbor

  34. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Home Energy Report • Challenges: • Defining requirements and layout brought complexity : • Average home comparison and if it should be regional, etc. • Variables in customer data • Bill adjustments and exceptions • Multiple electric or gas meters at one location • Weather normalization

  35. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Home Energy Report • Lessons Learned: • Focus Group Feedback: • Implementation options – potential opt-out process for those not interested • Customers would like to see more information about incentives, other programs and rate options • Comparison process must be done carefully - customers stated that the term “neighbor” was problematic, however the “average home” terminology was preferred • Customers requested a checklist of items to complete prior to the next heating/cooling season • Report is required to be a 1st class mailing

  36. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Google Powermeter

  37. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Google PowerMeter • Successes: • ~67% of participants continued to use it at least once per week. • Customer linked the PowerMeter to their iGoogle account • Customers became more conscious of energy consumption • Challenges: • Initial enrollment labor intensive, customers were manually entered in batches • Data was 24 hours old once viewed by customers • Comparison to other WPS tools, looks, etc.

  38. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Google PowerMeter • Lessons Learned: • Customer Perspective • Inability to make translation from energy usage to bill savings • Customers did not know what contributed to hourly energy load “spikes” • Would like to see information on natural gas usage • Would like to see calculated dollars saved on current plan vs. other rate plans • Believability and accuracy of energy usage and calculations

  39. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Web Tools

  40. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Web Tools • Successes: • Customers felt they were user friendly and easy to interpret • Customers were able to measure historical changes • Interview respondents used the graphs to understand usage patterns • Challenges: • Color-coding of TOU rates were initially misleading • Throughout design of the graphs, actual cost data was considered, but too costly

  41. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Web Tools • Lessons Learned: • Receipt of bill triggered review of usage graphs • Generally accessed every two weeks to once a month. • Customers became accustomed to the 1-2 day lag • Customers want to see usage along with cost • Customer wanted to see energy usage as a whole for their community • average usage per day, • household comparisons. • Some suggested providing quarter-hour intervals in an effort to identify appliance usage

  42. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Smart Thermostat • Successes: • Provided the customer with remote access • User friendly control settings • Created awareness of temperature settings and schedules • Created awareness of energy usage and cost • Minimal installation issues • Challenges: • Internet connectivity issues caused lack of control • Warranty returns and exchanges • Some users thought display was problematic

  43. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Smart Thermostat • Customers also received: • Live weather feeds and weather forecasts • Temperature alerts • Helpful conservation reminders

  44. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Smart Thermostat • Lessons Learned: • Additional critical-peak pricing notification options: • Customers were not always home to see the messages on the thermostat. • Email notification received after had started • Customers were not aware of all thermostat features: • Most controlled the thermostat locally, and not remotely • Customers did not review home energy reports via the customer portal. • Easier enrollment and un-enrollment processes needed for expansion • A customer notification, via email, to resolve their Internet connectivity issues.

  45. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Smart Thermostat • Customers preferred use of touch screen versus for changes • Most customers used the default control scheme for critical-peak price events. • Control summary: • 43 customers – altered set point 4 degrees higher (relative adjustment-default) • 1 customer – altered set point 5 degrees higher (relative adjustment) • 1 customer – altered set point 7 degrees higher (relative adjustment) • 1 customer – altered set point to 80 degrees (absolute adjustment) • 4 customers – Turned system off • Training the customer call center related to expanding territory wide

  46. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Home Energy Management System (HEMS) • Setups • CT based Installations • In-home current transformers installations • Zigbee based communications • Additional meter installed on home with communication capabilities

  47. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Home Energy Management System (HEMS) • Successes: • In-home device communication was solid and reliable • Smart meter-based HEMS reported no delays in real-time information • Nearly all households, used the Home Base to understand appliance impacts • Challenges: • Customer’s home router caused reliability issues • Proximity issues between the Home Base and the smart meter • Installation of the current transformer (CT) could be difficult • Dual socket adaptors were needed to keep the billing meter in tack • Customer was not able to select program billing dates • WPS managed rates on device, holidays, TOU periods • Blocks were not supported.

  48. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Home Energy Management System (HEMS) • Lessons Learned: • Immaturity of advanced meter technology used caused delays • Package disbursement goals limited selection for some customers • Over a 6 month period the frequency of use decreased • The energy usage data updates needs to be as real-time as possible • Sockets and strips and time management were often reported to be unused • Preferred method of access was via the Home Base directly • Mobile application was not highly adopted due to limited functionality.

  49. Community PilotWPSKey Findings • Direct Load Control • Successes: • Appearance of the DRU is similar to the legacy DLC devices. • Indication lights on the DRU give status to customers • DRU’s can perform shed and cycle functions in a similar manner as legacy DLCs • Challenges: • 50% cycling capabilities required manual recording of daily heat indexes • To expand this weighting signal would be sent as part of an automated process • Installation challenges which could result in additional contractor installation costs: • Less space in DRU unit to connect A/C and Water Heater wires • Extra compartment with 4 additional screws covering the high voltage side access • Protective barriers around relays

  50. Community PilotWPSKey Lessons Learned • Direct Load Control • Lessons Learned: • Randomization differences in the DRU vs. legacy DLC: • Still small percentage of area not covered , 3% • Customer cycling program requires more attention to daily heat and humidity metrics than the existing DLC system

More Related