Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide - Basics of EM&V

1. Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide - Basics of EM&V Steve Schiller. Schiller Consulting steve@schiller.com www.schiller.com NARUC Workshop February 2008

2. Topics • Evaluation objectives • Categories of programs and evaluations • Some more on the Action Plan Guide • Calculating energy savings and avoided emissions • Issues to think about when designing evaluation efforts and issues for discussion today • Resources - references

3. Why Evaluate Energy Efficiency Programs? • Accountability. Document and measure the effects of a program in order to determine how well it has met its intended outcomes (goals). • Improvement. Understand why those effects occurred and identify ways to improve current and future programs

4. Efficiency Program Categories - by their primary objectives • Resource acquisition. Directly achieve energy savings, and possibly avoid emissions, through specific actions. • Market transformation. Change the way in which energy efficiency markets operate and achieve either naturally occurring efficiency or incremental codes/standards. Can also include support for emerging technologies. • Codes and standards. primary objective is to define and enforce mandated levels of efficiency in buildings and products. • Education and training. primary objective is to inform consumers and providers about energy efficiency and encourage them to act on that information.

5. Efficiency Evaluation Categories • Impact evaluations.Determine the impacts (usually energy savings) and co-benefits that directly result from a program. • Process evaluations.Assess how efficiently a program was or is being implemented. • Market effects evaluations.Estimate a program’s influence on encouraging future energy efficiency projects because of changes in the marketplace. • Cost-effectiveness analyses.Typically seen as an extension of impact evaluations, but may also take into account market evaluation results considering market penetration over the expected lifetime of the measures.

6. Back to the NAPEE Guide - Why a Program Guide? • Programs are different from projects • There are widely recognized protocols for the measurement and verification (M&V) of energy savings from single projects • e.g., International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP at www.evo-world.org) • Policy neutral guides for determining savings from programs must be interpreted from existing specific program protocols

7. Guide Scope: Programs Addressed • Primary focus (i.e., includes detailed guidance): • Resource acquisition, downstream energy efficiency programs - directly achieve energy and/or demand savings, and possibly avoid emissions, through specific actions • Secondary focus (i.e., addressed, but no detailed guidance): • Other demand-side programs: Market transformation, codes and standards, demand response, and upstream efficiency programs • Supply-side programs: renewable energy and combined heat and power (CHP) program

8. Guide Scope: Evaluation Focus • Primary focus: • Impact evaluation, including: kWh, kW, therm savings and avoided emissions • Three basic gross savings analysis approaches • Four basic net savings analysis approaches • Two basic avoided emission analysis approaches • “Very” Secondary focus: • Process and market evaluations • Potential studies • Cost-effectiveness evaluation

9. Guide ContentsAlso includes about 40 “sidebars” of examples/clarifications and 25 figures and tables

10. Guide Audience • Policy-makers: • Information about the basic principles of efficiency evaluation • Program evaluation managers: • Resources and background on evaluation and statistical analyses • Guidance, or a roadmap, on process and key issues relating to documenting energy/demand savings and avoided emissions • Program designers: • Understanding of how their programs will be evaluated • Energy efficiency community: • Common terminology definitions • A central reference document • References for publicly available best practices resources • Understanding of efficiency’s potential value as an emissions control strategy

11. Impact Evaluation Results Reported • Estimates of gross savings. Gross energy (or demand) savings are the change in energy consumption and/or demand that results directly from program-promoted actions taken by program participants regardless of the extent or nature of program influence on their actions. • Estimates of net savings. Net energy savings refer to the portion of gross savings that is attributable to the program. This involves separating out the impacts that are a result of other influences, such as consumer self-motivation. Given the range of influences on consumers’ energy consumption, attributing changes to one cause (i.e., a particular program) or another can be quite complex. • Estimates of co-benefits. A co-benefit commonly documented and reported is avoided air emissions: the air pollution or greenhouse gases that would have been emitted if more energy had been consumed in the absence of the energy efficiency program.

12. Approaches for Determining Gross Energy Savings • One or more measurement and verification (M&V) methods from the IPMVP are used to determine the savings from a sample of projects. These savings are then applied to all of the projects in the program. • Deemed savings, based on historical and verified data, are applied to conventional energy efficiency measures implemented in the program. • Statistical analyses of large volumes of metered energy usage data are conducted.

13. Approaches for Determining Net Energy Savings • The primary, but not exclusive, considerations that account for the difference between net and gross savings are free riders and participant and non-participant spillover. • Approaches (categories): • Self-reporting surveys • Enhanced self-reporting surveys • Statistical models that compare participants’ and non-participants’ energy and demand patterns • Stipulated net-to-gross ratios

14. Approaches for Determining Avoided Emissions • Applying emission factors (e.g., pounds of CO2 per MWh) to net energy savings • Using emissions scenario analyses, e.g., using computer models to estimate the difference in emissions from power plants with and without the reduced electricity consumption associated with an efficiency program.

15. Issues Addressed in NAPEE Guide • Defining evaluation goals and scale and which benefits to evaluate • Setting time frame for evaluation and reporting expectations • Setting spatial boundary for evaluation (i.e. what energy uses, emission sources, etc. will be included in the analyses) • Defining baseline, baseline adjustments, and data collection requirements • Establishing a budget vis-à-vis expectations for quality of reported results • Selecting impact evaluation approaches for gross and net savings calculations and avoided emissions calculations • Selecting who (or which type of organization) will conduct the evaluation

16. Evaluation Issues for Discussion • Context: • Efficiency is the first resource and a critical part of cheap, reliable, clean and stable energy systems • Efficiency is the first mechanism for energy sector climate change mitigation • 50- 80% GHG emissions reduction is required for climate stabilization • EE has a key role according to IPCC, IEA, McKinsey and other studies • Each jurisdiction's resource and climate impact evaluation requirements are not policy-neutral (but the Guide is)

17. Evaluation Issues for Discussion • How will efficiency savings be documented as real? • What is additional? • How does one attribute the savings to a particular activity? • How accurate is accurate enough and how do you balance quality of results and evaluation budgets • Will cross-jurisdictional, post-Kyoto, national or international requirements (standards) be established? Is that a good idea? • How will the data, tools and technology for cost-effective EM&V be developed and supported? • Who should do evaluation, the program administrator, the regulator, and/or third-parties?

18. References - Sample Resources - Program Evaluation • 2007 NAPEE Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide. www.epa.gov/cleanrgy/documents/evaluation_guide.pdf • 2006 California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols: http://www.calmac.org/publications/EvaluatorsProtocols_Final_AdoptedviaRuling_06-19-2006.pdf • 2004 The California Evaluation Framework. http://www.calmac.org/publications/California_Evaluation_Framework_June_2004.pdf • 2007 US DOE Impact Evaluation Framework for Technology Deployment Programs. http://www.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/km_portal/docs/pdf/2007/impact_framework_tech_deploy_2007_main.pdf • 2006 International Energy Agency. Evaluating Energy Efficiency Policy Measures & DSM Programmes.http://dsm.iea.org

19. References - Sample Resources - M&V • 2007 International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP). (www.evo-world.org) • 2000 Federal Energy Management Program M&V Guidelines. (http://ateam.lbl.gov/mv/docs/26265.pdf) • 2002 ASHRAE Guideline 14 Measurement of Energy and Demand Savings. (www.ashrae.org)

20. References - Sample Resources - EM&V Websites • Evaluation reports and guidance documents, they can be found at two web-accessible databases: • CALifornia Measurement Advisory Council (CALMAC):http://www.calmac.org. • The Consortium for Energy Efficiency’s Market Assessment and Program Evaluation (MAPE) Clearinghouse:http://www.cee1.org/eval/clearinghouse.php3. • Other Sites: • Proceedings of the IEPEC Conference (http://www.iepec.org) • ACEEE Summer Studies (http://www.aceee.org) • Efficiency Valuation Organization (EVO) resource pages(www.evo-world.org)

21. Time for questions Reprinted with permission from Don Piraro