IMPACT AND PROCESS EVALUATION OF 2011
(PY4) AMEREN ILLINOIS COMPANY EFFICIENT PRODUCTS PROGRAM
Final
Prepared for:
AMEREN ILLINOIS COMPANY
Prepared by:
THE CADMUS GROUP
Under Contract to
OPINION DYNAMICS
1999 Harrison Street
Suite 1420
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 444-5050
www.opiniondynamics.com
Contact: Mary Sutter, Vice President of Energy Evaluation
December 2012
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................. 4
2. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 9
3. EVALUATION METHODS ............................................................................. 11
3.1 Data Sources and Analytical Methods ....................................................................................... 11
3.1.1 Process Analysis................................................................................................................ 11
3.1.2 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Sampling and Survey Completes ................................................................................................ 14
3.2.1 Telephone Surveys ............................................................................................................ 15
4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................... 18
4.1 Program Insights ........................................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Process Findings............................................................................................................................ 18
4.2.1 Marketing and Outreach .................................................................................................. 18
4.2.2 Program Satisfaction ....................................................................................................... 21
4.2.3 Purchase Motivation ......................................................................................................... 24
4.3 Impact Results ............................................................................................................................... 29
4.3.1 Participant verification/installation rate ....................................................................... 29
4.3.2 Gross Impacts .................................................................................................................... 31
4.3.3 Net Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 32
A. APPENDIX: DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS................................................ 40
B. APPENDIX: NTG ALGORITHM ..................................................................... 60
C. APPENDIX: REEP IMPLEMENTATION MODEL ................................................. 66
D. APPENDIX: PRODUCT PRICE AND PURCHASING TRENDS FROM PROGRAM TRACKING
DATABASE .............................................................................................. 69
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page ii
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Program Verification Results .................................................................................... 5
Table 2. REEP Program Ex Ante and Ex Post Savings ................................................................................. 6
Table 3. Efficient Products Available in Program Year 4 (PY4) ................................................................. 9
Table 4. Summary of Evaluation Methods .................................................................................................. 11
Table 5. Completed Standard Program Survey Points ............................................................................. 15
Table 6. REEP Survey Dispositions ............................................................................................................... 17
Table 7. REEP Survey Response and Cooperation Rates ......................................................................... 17
Table 8. Main Reason for Product Purchase .............................................................................................. 27
Table 9. Programmable Thermostat Analysis ............................................................................................ 30
Table 10. REEP Verification and Installation Rate .................................................................................... 31
Table 11. PY4 Program Gross Impacts ....................................................................................................... 32
Table 12. REEP Free Ridership Results ....................................................................................................... 33
Table 13. REEP Program NTG ....................................................................................................................... 33
Table 14. Free Ridership Scores by Product ............................................................................................... 34
Table 15. Spillover Measures ........................................................................................................................ 34
Table 16. Residential Efficient Products NTGR Program Benchmarking .............................................. 35
Table 17. Incentives and Free Ridership by Measure ............................................................................... 36
Table 18. PY4 Ex Ante And Ex Post Net Program Impacts ...................................................................... 37
Table 19. Frequency of Free Ridership Scoring Combinations—Residential Efficient Products ........ 60
Table 20. Spillover Measures ........................................................................................................................ 65
Table 21. Product Price Statistics ................................................................................................................ 69
Table 22. Top-Selling Brands by Product Category .................................................................................... 73
Table 23. Top Retailers by Product Category ............................................................................................. 74
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page iii
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Rebate Questionnaire: How Respondents Learned about REEP Program ........................... 20
Figure 2. Participant Survey: How Respondents Learned about REEP Program Through Retailers . 21
Figure 3. Satisfaction with the Rebate Amount and Timing .................................................................... 22
Figure 4. Satisfaction with the Product ....................................................................................................... 22
Figure 5. Program Satisfaction Benchmarking .......................................................................................... 23
Figure 6. Suggestions for Program Improvement ..................................................................................... 24
Figure 7. Product Replacement vs. Additional ........................................................................................... 25
Figure 8. Participant Survey Rebate Influence on Purchase ................................................................... 26
Figure 9. Noticed Label Before Purchase Decision ................................................................................... 26
Figure 10. Other Program Participation By Product .................................................................................. 27
Figure 11. Likelihood of Further AIC Program Participation .................................................................... 28
Figure 12. Incentives As A Share of Purchase Price vs. Free Ridership ................................................. 36
Figure 13. Distribution of Residential Appliance Free Ridership Scores ............................................... 64
Figure 14. Thermostat Price Distribution .................................................................................................... 69
Figure 15. Gas Water Heater Price Distributions ....................................................................................... 70
Figure 16. Heat Pump Water Heater Price Distributions ......................................................................... 70
Figure 17. Air Purifier Price Distributions ................................................................................................... 71
Figure 18. Dehumidifier Price Distributions ............................................................................................... 72
Figure 19. Room Air Conditioner Price Distributions ................................................................................ 72
Figure 20. Smart Power Strip Price Distributions ...................................................................................... 73
Figure 21. Number of Rebates Processed by Product Category and Month ......................................... 74
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 4
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ameren Illinois Company’s (AIC’s) Energy Residential Efficient Products Program (REEP), which has
historically offered energy-efficient product rebates through the upstream lighting program,
became its own program in Program Year 4 (PY4), which covered the period of June 1, 2011 to
May 31, 2012. Through retailers in AIC’s service territory, the program offers customers the
following types of efficient products:
Programmable thermostats
Heat pump or efficient gas water heaters
Air purifiers
Dehumidifiers
Room air conditioners
Smart power strips
Customers apply for rebates at the time of purchase, with the rebate application attached to the
product, making the process easier for customers to submit paperwork. The expected savings from
this program were 1% of the overall PY4 portfolio of electric savings and 2% of PY4 portfolio therm
savings.
The evaluation team verified REEP participation and measure installation by contacting
190 randomly selected customers. We computed gross impacts by multiplying the fixed values
from the Order for Docket 10-0568. This program is new as a separate program, as AIC
implemented it for three years, combined with residential lighting. While the basic program design
is similar, AIC added a number of measures not previously incented. As per the evaluation plan, the
net-to-gross-ratio (NTGR) was determined by analyzing self-reported data from a participant survey
and applying these retrospectively to PY4.
Impact Results
Table 1 outlines PY4 program participation levels. Verification rates were high for most measures
in this program. Survey results indicate only a small percentage of programmable thermostats and
dehumidifiers were not installed. The survey also indicated a significant percentage of both
programmable thermostats and smart power strips are not being used to save energy. Ex post
realized savings only count the proportion of thermostats and smart power strips estimated to be
used in an energy-efficient manner.
Executive Summary
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 5
Table 1. Summary of Program Verification Results
Measure Unit
Program
Participation*
(N)
Installed
Products
Products In
Use For
Energy
Savings
Verification
Rate
Programmable
Thermostat Each 3,730 3,655 1,977 53%
Heat Pump Water
Heater Each 73 73 73 100%
0.67 Water Heater Each 243 243 243 100%
0.70 Water Heater Each 27 27 27 100%
Air Purifier Each 907 907 907 100%
Dehumidifier Each 120 112 112 93%
Room Air Conditioner Each 5,554 5,554 5,554 100%
Smart Power Strip Each 1,482 1,482 682 46%
*Number of rebates.
Table 2 shows the PY4 program ex ante and ex post net impacts. We calculated ex ante impacts
for all products using the fixed unit savings values and NTGRs from Commission Order for Docket
10-0568. These ex ante savings all assumed a 100% verification rate, except for programmable
thermostats, which assumed an 86% verification rate to account for those not programming the
thermostats. For ex post results, we applied verification rates outlined in Table 1 and NTGRs
outlined in Table 13, determined through our estimates of free ridership and spillover from the
participant surveys.
Executive Summary
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 6
Table 2. REEP Program Ex Ante and Ex Post Net Savings
Measure Savings
Type
Ex Ante
Gross
Savings
Ex
Ante
NTGR
Ex Ante
Net
Savings
Verifi-
cation
Rate
Verified
Gross
Savings
NTGR
Ex Post
Net
Savings
Net
Reali-
zation
Rate
Programmabl
e Thermostat
AC and Gas
Heat
Therms 205,958 0.87 179,183 53% 109,158 0.90 98,634 55%
MWh 361 0.87 314 53% 192 0.86 165 52%
kW 184 0.87 160 53% 98 0.86 84 52%
Programmabl
e Thermostat
Electric Heat
MWh 509 0.87 443 53% 270 0.86 232 52%
kW 0 0.87 0 53% - 0.86 - N/A
Heat Pump
Water Heater
MWh 132 0.76 100 100% 132 0.86 113 113%
kW 6 0.76 5 100% 6 0.86 5 113%
0.67 Water
Heater Therms 5,589 0.58 3,242 100% 5,589
0.90 5,050 156%
0.70 Water
Heater Therms 837 0.58 485 100% 837
0.90 756 156%
Air Purifier MWh 519 0.76 394 100% 243 0.78 190 103%
kW 326 0.76 247 100% 28 0.78 22 103%
Dehumidifier MWh 28 0.76 21 93% 26 0.78 20 96%
kW 6 0.76 5 93% 6 0.78 5 96%
Room Air
Conditioner
MWh 578 0.76 439 100% 578 0.78 451 103%
kW 183 0.76 139 100% 183 0.78 143 103%
Smart Power
Strip
MWh 262 0.76 199 46% 121 0.86 104 52%
kW 29 0.76 22 46% 14 0.86 12 52%
Total
Programc
Therms
212,384 0.86 182,911
115,584
0.90
104,44
57%
MWh 2,113 0.81 1701 1560 0.82 1275 75%
kW 437 0.81 352 334 0.80 270 77%
a Ex ante results are calculated using the same fixed unit values as the ex post results, without adjustment for
verified purchase or installation rates.
b Ex post results are calculated using verified purchase, installation, and usage rates and new NTGR
estimates.
c Total program results may not exactly match the sum of the program results due to rounding.
Process Evaluation Results
Overall, the Residential Energy Efficient Products Program has worked as intended. Retailers play
an important role in the program, as the majority of customers learned of the program through
Executive Summary
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 7
visits to retail establishments. Customers are overwhelmingly satisfied with the available products,
rebate process, and the overall program. The primary improvement area customers identified was
increased program advertising. Customer surveys revealed many products served as replacements
for products still in good condition. The program’s NTGR is relatively high, compared to other utility
programs, though this may be due in part to the product mix, which includes smart power strips,
programmable thermostats, and heat pumps, waters heaters, which have a low free ridership rate
(and are not included in many appliance rebate programs). Another factor affecting free ridership is
these measures also have higher incentives relative to purchase costs. Surveyed participants also
reported significant spillover (21% on the gas measures and 8% on the electric measures).
Executive Summary
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 8
Key recommendations include the following:
Contractors should be included in the program. AIC should consider expanding its reach to
contractors as another advertising channel for the program, particularly regarding water heaters.
Established trade ally programs can greatly benefit utilities through harnessing knowledgeable
contractors, and through leveraging their resources in a way benefitting utilities, customers, and
contractors.
AIC should focus on explaining benefits from the programmable thermostat and power strip.
Survey results suggest customers express interest in these products, but many use them as they
used their older products, rather than in the intended (and more efficient) manner. Leveraging
education and outreach efforts already in use for lighting products could also address proper use of
these products to help customers use them correctly.
Introduction
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 9
2. INTRODUCTION
The Residential Efficient Products Program (REEP), which historically has offered energy-efficient
product rebates through the upstream lighting program, expanded its offerings in PY4 (covering the
period June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2012).
Through retailers in AIC’s service territory, the program offers customers an array of ENERGY STAR®
and other efficient products, as listed in Table 3. Retailers include larger retail stores (such as
Walmart) and some smaller hardware store chains (such as Ace and Rural King).
Customers apply for rebates at the time of purchase, with the rebate application attached to the
product, making the process easier for customers to submit paperwork. To qualify for rebates,
customers must also submit their AIC utility bills.
The program primarily seeks to create a stronger market for efficient products by exposing them to
a wide variety of customers. The current suite of measures ranges from simple and easy-to-install
items to more complex products, requiring professional installation. Products address electric or
gas customers,1 with a wide range of rebate amounts offered; both gas and electric customers
qualify for programmable thermostats.
Table 3. Efficient Products Available in Program Year 4 (PY4)
Product Rebate Amount
Programmable Thermostat $25
Heat Pump Water Heater $300
0.67 Water Heater $50
0.70 Water Heater $75
Air Purifier $20
Dehumidifier $25
Room Air Conditioner $35
Smart Power Strip $10
Conservation Services Group (CSG) serves as the program’s primary implementation contractor,
playing an oversight role and managing the program. Applied Proactive Technologies (APT) serves
as the day-to-day operations contractor and subcontractor to CSG, with its responsibilities including
all program fieldwork, along with the following:
Negotiating memoranda of understanding (MOU’s) with retailers and manufacturers;
Training retail store employees to effectively stock products and speak with interested
customers;
Developing point-of-purchase (POP) materials and ensuring proper placement in retail stores;
1 Customers purchasing gas products must be AIC gas customers; customers purchasing electric products
must be AIC electric customers.
Introduction
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 10
Monitoring and adjusting MOUs; and
Conducting educational clinics for retail store customers.
Energy Federation Incorporated (EFI), another subcontractor for the program, manages a Compact
Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) catalog and an Internet order fulfillment process, along with reviewing and
paying qualified rebates and tracking and paying incentives to manufacturers on CSG’s behalf.
Retail stores offering the products largely market the program, using POP signs and rebate
applications placed near products offered. APT staff trains retail employees on methods for
effectively stocking products and speaking with interested customers.
The “Energy Efficient Products Retailer Manual” (prepared by APT and incorporating input from AIC
and CSG) provides training information on the ENERGY STAR program and the products it covers.
The manual contains specific “modules,” geared towards retail staff and customers. It also
contains rebate applications for each product, allowing retailers to become familiar with
applications before working with customers.
In PY4, APT trained 15,695 individuals and visited 7,535 locations specifically for the REEP
program. During PY4, 365 stores participated in the program. Products at retail stores incorporated
POP marketing materials. In most stores, training for REEP occurred concurrently with lighting
training.
In addition to the Retailer Manual and in-store advertising, program implementation staff hosts
events to advertise program and appliance benefits. Interviews with CSG staff indicated speaking
with groups of potential customers offered an effective way to convey efficiency messages as well
as ways to provide customers with important program information.
The Cadmus Group, Inc., as part of the evaluation team with Opinion Dynamics Corporation,
Navigant Consulting, and Michael’s Engineering, performed the PY4 evaluation of the REEP
program. This report includes the methodology, analysis, and results of this evaluation.
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 11
3. EVALUATION METHODS
3.1 DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
The evaluation team’s review of the PY4 REEP program sought to address the following research
objectives:
Calculate gross energy and demand savings.
Identify possible program market effects and progress towards market transformation.
Assess customer satisfaction and motivations for participating.
Assess the program NTGR.
Table 4 summarizes research activities informing this evaluation. This chapter describes each
major task and data source.
Table 4. Summary of Evaluation Methods
Task PY4
Impact
PY4
Process
Forward
Looking Details
Program Staff
In-Depth
Interviews
√ Interview program and implementation staff to
gain insights into design and delivery.
Materials Review √ Review APT progress reports, rebate application
forms, program manuals, and POP signs.
Participant Survey √ √ √ Develop NTG estimates to be used in PY4 and
future evaluations.
Database Analysis √ √
Summarize database information to determine
participation and key statistics about the
program.
A summary of the methodology employed for each activity follows.
3.1.1 PROCESS ANALYSIS
For the process evaluation, the evaluation team used program database information to analyze
product price and purchasing trends by product category. We also reviewed program materials and
used information gathered from stakeholder interviews to understand processes and to identify
improvement opportunities. The REEP Implementation Model (shown in Appendix C) documents
program implementation. Data gathered from the participant survey aided in assessing: how
customers heard about the program; how they used smart power strips and programmable
thermostats; and their satisfaction with the program. We also analyzed data collected by AIC on the
rebate form applications to help understand how customers heard about the program, their
motivations for purchasing, and their participation in other programs prior to this one.
Evaluation Methods
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 12
Stakeholder Interviews
To assess the program's effectiveness and implementation, the evaluation team conducted
interviews with AIC’s program manager, CSG’s implementation manager, and key representatives
from APT and EFI. The evaluation team interviewed stakeholders regarding: program design,
implementation and delivery, marketing, implementation barriers, and communications.
The evaluation team used information obtained from stakeholders to inform the following
evaluation elements:
Determining program progress;
Identifying improvement opportunities; and
Describing how the program operates.
Materials Review
The evaluation team reviewed materials provided by AIC, CSG, and APT, assessing monthly
program progress, and reviewing the clarity of marketing materials and program manuals.
Participant Survey
In August and September 2012, the evaluation team conducted 190 telephone surveys with rebate
program participants purchasing products offered through REEP during PY4. In addition to
informing the impact analysis, as discussed below, the survey gathered information about
customer satisfaction and use of the new products.
Rebate Application Survey
AIC includes several survey questions on the rebate form for each product. The evaluation team
summarized this information, which includes the following:
Main reason for the purchase;
Whether or not the participant saw the rebate label before deciding to purchase;
Whether the rebate form was helpful in deciding to purchase the product;
How they heard about the program; and
Whether they had participated in other AIC programs.
3.1.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The evaluation team assessed free ridership and spillover through the 190 telephone surveys of
participants. We also used the survey to verify program participation and product installation. We
analyzed the customer tracking data to assess gross program impacts, and performed an
independent engineering analysis to estimate per-unit gross impacts for future programs.
Evaluation Methods
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 13
Database Analysis
CSG tracks retail sales of efficient products using a database, tying payment requests to identified
transactions, and tracking the following:
Program activity by product or product type;
Program activity, on an aggregated basis of products rebated and dollars spent; and
Program activity by various identified components (e.g., by product, store chain, manufacturer,
and month).
The evaluation team reviewed energy savings assumptions in the database; we then summarized
and analyzed the transactions to compute relevant totals for PY4.
Gross Impacts
For the PY4 evaluation, the evaluation team calculated ex post gross savings for each measure by
multiplying fixed per-unit values from the Illinois Commerce Commission Order for Docket 10-
0568, dated December 21, 2010, with the number of rebates and the product verification rate.
The evaluation team calculated the product-specific verification rate using the participant survey,
which asked respondents to confirm whether they purchased the product recorded in the database
and verified whether the product had been installed.
Net Impacts
The evaluation team calculated PY4 net impacts using self-reported results from the participant
surveys. The program was not previously evaluated to obtain an NTGR, and provides a small
proportion of portfolio savings. According to commission guidelines, therefore, NTGR is applied
retrospectively to PY4. The following formula provided NTGR:
NTGR=1-free ridership + spillover
Free Ridership
The evaluation team applied a spreadsheet-based matrix approach, assigning a free ridership score
to participants, based on the responses to six survey questions. Question response patterns were
assigned free ridership scores, and confidence and precision estimates were calculated on
distributions of these scores.2 In addition, our approach included the following important features:
Derivation of a partial free ridership score, based on the likelihood of a respondent taking
similar actions in the incentive’s absence.
Use of a rules-based approach for consistency among multiple respondents.
Use of consistency checks and open-ended questions to ensure quantitative scores matched
respondents’ more detailed explanations regarding program attribution.
2 The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency's Model Energy Efficiency Program Impact Evaluation Guide
(2007 edition, page 5-1). http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/suca/evaluation_guide.pdf
Evaluation Methods
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 14
This method offered a key advantage by allowing the partial free ridership concept. Experience
showed program participants do not fall neatly into free rider and non-free rider categories. For
example, partial free ridership scores were assigned to participants with plans to install the
measure. Although the program exerted some influence over these participants’ decisions, other
market characteristics beyond the program also proved influential. Partial free ridership also
allowed use of “don’t know” and “refused” responses by classifying them as partial credits, rather
than removing the entire set of responses from a particular participant from the analysis. We also
compared free ridership to other utility programs and among measures relative to the incentive
payment.
Appendix C provides details on the free ridership methodology.
Participant Spillover
The evaluation team also asked participating customers to list additional, energy-efficient items for
which they did not receive an incentive from AIC, but had installed in their home since participating
in the program. Surveys asked them to rate whether the experience in the REEP program proved
very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not at all important in the purchase
process. Only measures where program participation was rated as very important3 on subsequent
purchases were counted. For each type of measure, the evaluation team estimated energy savings,
either in comparison to federal standard efficiency using the ENERGY STAR calculator, or by using
savings estimates from other AIC programs, as appropriate.
The evaluation team estimated spillover by asking a sample of program participants what
additional energy-saving measures they installed that were highly influenced by their participation
in the REEP program. We estimated savings for these spillover measures using savings estimates
from other AIC programs, if available, and if not, the ENERGY STAR calculator. We then summed all
gas and electric spillover measure savings, and compared these to the sum of corresponding gas
and electric REEP verified program savings for the sampled participants.
Corresponding electric and gas spillover was then added to electric and gas NTGR.
Given the evaluation team did not conduct surveys with non-participants, we did not provide an
estimate of nonparticipant spillover. Appendix B provides details on the spillover methodology.
3.2 SAMPLING AND SURVEY COMPLETES
3 Customers were asked: “How important was your participation in the Ameren Illinois Efficient Products
Program in your decision to install [MEASURE], was it very important, somewhat important, not too important
or not at all important?” The report only uses “very important” to compensate for possible “social desirability
bias,” where respondents indicate they found the program important because they believe this is what
researchers want to hear.
Evaluation Methods
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 15
3.2.1 TELEPHONE SURVEYS
Table 5 compares program participation levels, survey targets, and completed surveys for the
participant survey. The initial sample size drawn equaled approximately five times the desired
completes; however, the highest-efficiency (0.70) gas water heaters, heat pump water heaters, and
dehumidifiers had participation levels too small to provide sufficiently large samples. Sample
targets were contacted five to eight times over a period of two weeks. A large percentage (over
32%) answered the phone, but refused to complete the survey. To analyze survey responses to
process evaluation questions, we weighted each product response by the ratio of product
population and number of samples. These weights are also included in Table 5.
Table 5. Completed Standard Program Survey Points
Project Type
Database
Population Sample Frame
Process
Questions
Survey
Weights Projects Contacts Goal Completed
Programmable
Thermostats 3,730 304 70 48 77.7
0.67 Water Heater 243 151 30 27 9.0
0.70 Water Heater 27 27 * 1 27.0
Heat Pump Water
Heater 73 73 30 21 3.5
Room Air Conditioner 5,552 149 30 21 264.4
Air Purifier 907 150 30 30 30.2
Dehumidifier 120 117 30 14 8.6
Smart Power Strip 1,482 153 30 28 52.9
Total 12,117 1,124 280 190 N/A
*Since the population was less than 30, the sample goal was to achieve as many
as possible.
Survey Dispositions and Response Rate
The survey response rate is the number of completed interviews divided by the total number of
potentially eligible respondents in the sample. We calculated the response rate using standards
and formulas set forth by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR).4 For
various reasons, we were unable to determine the eligibility of all sample units through the survey
process, and chose to use AAPOR Response Rate 3 (RR3). RR3 includes an estimate of eligibility
for these unknown sample units. The formulas used to calculate RR3 are presented below. The
definitions of the letters used in the formulas are displayed in the Survey Disposition tables, below.
E = (I + R + NC) / (I + R + NC + e)
4 Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, AAPOR, 2011.
http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Standard_Definitions2&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cf
m&ContentID=3156
Evaluation Methods
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 16
RR3 = I / ((I + R + NC) + (E*U))
We also calculated a cooperation rate, which is the number of completed interviews divided by the
total number of eligible sample units actually contacted. In essence, the cooperation rate gives the
percentage of participants who completed an interview out of all participants with whom we
actually spoke. We used AAPOR Cooperation Rate 1 (COOP1), which is calculated as:
COOP1 = I / (I + R)
The approach to calculating response rates differs slightly for Internet-based surveys. In these
instances, the survey response rate is the number of completed surveys divided by the total
number of potentially eligible respondents in the sample. The quality of the e-mail list is a key
factor in determining the eligibility of participants who do not respond to the e-mail, but also do not
bounce back. This calculation assumes a high-quality list, in which all respondents are eligible,
except those who reply with an accepted reason why they are not eligible (e.g., employee of client).
We fielded the survey with REEP participants from August 21–September 6, 2012. Table 6 shows
the final survey dispositions.
Evaluation Methods
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 17
Table 6. REEP Survey Dispositions
Disposition N
Completed Interviews (I) 190
Eligible Non-Interviews 451
Refusals (R) 356
Mid-Interview terminate (R) 26
Respondent never available (NC) 67
Language Problem (NC) 2
Not Eligible (e) 144
Fax/Data Line 9
Non-Working 75
Wrong Number 34
Business/Government 15
Cell Phone 6
No Eligible Respondent 4
Quota Filled 1
Unknown Eligibility Non-Interview (U) 309
No Answer 126
Answering Machine 177
Busy 3
Call Blocking 3
Total Participants in Sample 1,094
The following table provides the response and cooperation rates.
Table 7. REEP Survey Response and Cooperation Rates
AAPOR Rate Percentage
Response Rate (RR3) 21%
Cooperation Rate 33%
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 18
4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS
4.1 PROGRAM INSIGHTS
Overall, the Efficient Products Program has worked as intended. Retailers play an important role in
the program, as the majority of customers learned of the offerings through visits to retail
establishments. Customers expressed high levels of satisfaction with the available products, rebate
process, and overall program.
The primary improvement area customers identified was increased program advertising. The
program encouraged customers to replace products still in good condition. Two specific products,
the smart power strip and programmable thermostat, were not always being used as intended, as a
significant portion of customers indicated they used them similarly to their regular power strips and
manual thermostats. The program had an NTGR higher than other utility programs, though this
may be partly due to: the product mix, which includes smart power strips, programmable
thermostats, and heat pump water heaters with a low free ridership rate (and are not included in
many other appliance programs); and from a significant level of program spillover.
The evaluation team offers the following recommendations:
Contractors should be included in the program. AIC should consider expanding its reach to
contractors as another advertising channel for the program, particularly regarding water
heaters. Established trade ally programs can benefit utilities greatly through harnessing
knowledgeable contractors, and leveraging their resources in a way that benefits utilities,
customers, and contractors.
AIC should focus on explaining benefits from the programmable thermostat and power
strip. Survey results suggest customers express interest in these products, but use them the
same way they used their older products, rather than in the intended (and more efficient)
manner. Education and outreach efforts already in place for the lighting program can also
addressing proper usage of thermostats and power strips.
Develop sales tools and effective training. Interactive displays could also be developed so
consumers can see different scenarios regarding configurations of smart power strips with
home electronics (i.e., a smart power strip connected to a television, game console, or DVD
player; the consumer who has all three will realize the benefits of its application). POP can
be useful, but emphasis should be placed on hands-on displays that fully explain benefits to
consumers. The smart power strip requires effective training for sales associates to
understand how to: (1) introduce the technology and explain how it works; and (2) explain
the customer’s audiovisual setup, and how the optimal smart power strip can be set up,
and convince the customer to purchase and set up units correctly. These education events
could be combined with existing lighting clinics.
4.2 PROCESS FINDINGS
4.2.1 MARKETING AND OUTREACH
The REEP program relies heavily on retailers to promote and sell its products via the POS rebates
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 19
attached to the products. We analyzed information from AIC’s participant rebate form
questionnaire to assess how customers learned about the program. As shown in Figure 1, more
than one-half of participants learned about the program through retailers. About 10% learned of
the program through their utility bills, and another 7% through a friend. Of those learning of the
program through retailers, the majority saw either a display (55%) or the rebate form (46%) at the
store (see
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 20
Figure 2).
Figure 1. Rebate Questionnaire: How Respondents Learned about REEP Program
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
n=9481
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 21
Figure 2. Participant Survey: How Respondents Learned about REEP Program Through Retailers
Stakeholders, who consider retailers to be key program allies, believe marketing the program
through retailers has proven to be an effective means of reaching customers. However 40% (23) of
survey respondents who suggested improvements to the program asked to see AIC do more
advertising outside of stores. Several respondents were surprised they did not know about the
program until they walked into a store and saw it advertised there.
During an interview, a program staff member said the reason AIC does not market more generally
was that “we don’t want to add load” (i.e., concerns about general advertising that might increase
customers’ purchase of products such as air purifiers or dehumidifiers, which may not replace an
existing product). Given the rebate level compared to the overall product price, this risk appears
small.
Stakeholders also discussed education and outreach they conducted, including in-store information
sessions and speaking at special events, such as a local women’s group meeting. One program
manager noted that, overall, responses to clinics and other education events have been very
positive; in one instance, the response proved particularly encouraging, with attendees volunteering
to share their individual efforts to save energy.
4.2.2 PROGRAM SATISFACTION
Survey respondents expressed satisfaction with rebate and product offerings as well as with the
program overall. When asked about their satisfaction in these areas, majorities (90%, 76%, and
83%, respectively) were very satisfied.
Respondents also stated their support for the products offered and product availability; 87% of
respondents were very satisfied with the product they received, while 76% of respondents were
very satisfied with the variety of products offered. When asked about the features they would have
liked to have seen on the products, several customers (13 of the 58 who suggested additional
features) indicated a preference for a selection of different water heater models as well as for air
purifiers with more targeted uses and accessible filters. A member of the program management
staff stated they looked for different water heater varieties, and continued to look for products to
55%
36%
8% 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Display at Store Rebate Form atStore
Salesperson AIC Logo at Store
n=184
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 22
add to the list. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show respondents’ satisfaction with the incentive and product,
respectively.
Figure 3. Satisfaction with the Rebate Amount and Timing
Figure 4. Satisfaction with the Product
To provide some perspective on the satisfaction results, the evaluation team compared satisfaction
survey results to those for prescriptive rebate programs at other utilities. Figure 5 shows
benchmarking results, comparing AIC’s overall program satisfaction to other utility prescriptive
rebate programs. While measures and incentives may vary between programs, this figure indicates
most utility programs yield similarly high satisfaction rates.
90%
10%
0% 0% 0%
79%
20%
1% 0% 1% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Verysatisfied
Somewhatsatisfied
Neutral Not toosatisfied
Not at allsatisfied
Incentive(n=189)
Incentivearrival time(n=184)
87%
10%
0% 1% 0%
76%
17%
2% 6%
1% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Verysatisfied
Somewhatsatisfied
Neutral Not toosatisfied
Not at allsatisfied
Product Overall
Product Variety
n=190
n=174
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 23
Figure 5. Program Satisfaction Benchmarking
*Very satisfied/satisfied breakdown not available
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
AIC CA 09-10 WY 09-10 UT 09-10 ID 09-10 WA 09-10 NW Utility1*
NW Utility2*
MidwestUtility*
Very Satisfied Satisfied
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 24
As shown, the program generally operated smoothly and pleased respondents. While all rebate
programs we examined showed high satisfaction rates, AIC’s satisfaction results were consistently
among the highest. This satisfaction is also reflected in the small number of negative responses.
For instance, when asked about their overall satisfaction, only four of 188 respondents (3%)
expressed dissatisfaction. Three offered reasons, including: a lack of knowledge about the
program; the product not working; and incorrect information provided by the retailer. Twenty-two
percent of respondents indicated they would have liked to see a greater rebate for products
offered. Figure 6 categorizes the suggestions respondents offered to the open-ended question
about how the program could be improved. Note that rebate programs nationwide commonly
receive requests for increased rebate amounts.
Figure 6. Suggestions for Program Improvement
4.2.3 PURCHASE MOTIVATION
To understand purchasing motivations, we looked at whether customers replaced existing products
or purchased a new product with the rebate. We also asked directly about how much the rebate
influenced the product purchase.
The majority of respondents stated they replaced working products with the program-rebated
products, and revealed many of the products they replaced were in good condition (71% of
respondents replaced their products; 51% stated the product replaced remained in good condition).
Figure 7 lists responses by individual products sold.
40%
22% 16%
12% 10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Betteradvertising
More products Modify process Higher rebate Nothing
Pe
rce
nta
ge
What suggestions, if any, do you have for improving Ameren Illinois’ Efficient Products Program?
n=58
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 25
Figure 7. Product Replacement vs. Additional
Dehumidifiers, room air conditioners, and air purifiers, participants were more likely to have not
previously owned a similar product. The air purifier, which was added to the efficient product lineup
in PY4, proved very successful, exceeding its planned installation goals. Room air conditioners also
sold well, but these were removed after savings were reduced, per the Illinois statewide TRM (and
therefore will not be offered in PY5).
In examining the rebate’s role in customer purchase decisions, the participant survey and AIC’s
rebate form survey revealed some notable findings. Only 17% of rebate survey respondents knew
about the rebate prior to entering the store, but the rebate proved influential in their purchasing
decisions. Figure 8 shows influence levels rebates had on respondents’ decisions to purchase
efficient products.
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 26
Figure 8. Participant Survey Rebate Influence on Purchase
In examining other approaches to understand the rebate’s influence, AIC’s rebate form
questionnaire asked: whether the customer noticed the rebate label before purchasing the item;
and “what was the main reason you decided to purchase the product?” Figure 9 shows over 60%
did see the label before purchasing; the highest rates occurred with heat pump water heaters, at
close to 80%, and the lowest with gas water heaters, at only 11%. Table 8 shows the majority of
customers (57%) said “Energy Savings”; the next highest reason given was the rebate (20%). Heat
pump water heater purchases had the highest percentage of responses indicating “Energy Savings”
(over 80%). Smart power strip purchasers had the highest percentage of responses indicating
“Rebate” at 27%.
Figure 9. Noticed Label Before Purchase Decision
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Not at all or Not Very
Somewhat or VeryInfluential
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%n=11,723
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 27
Table 8. Main Reason for Product Purchase
Product Energy
Savings Rebate Quieter
Buy the
Best
Surge
Protection Other
All 57% 20% 3% 6% 5% 9%
Dehumidifier 56% 19% 5% 10% 0% 10%
Room AC 58% 20% 4% 7% 0% 11%
Air Purifier 40% 21% 10% 15% 0% 14%
Heat Pump
Water Heater 81% 16% 0% 3% 0% 0%
Smart Power
Strip 24% 11% 0% 2% 61% 2%
Programmable
Thermostat 71% 21% 0% 2% 0% 7%
Gas Water
Heater 71% 12% 0% 7% 0% 10%
Program Influence on Participation in Other AIC Programs
AIC asked rebate participants (on the rebate form) whether they had participated in other AIC
programs prior to this purchase, and 20% answered affirmatively. Figure 10 shows these
participation levels in other programs (prior to REEP participation) for each product and for all
products. Heat pump water heater purchasers had the highest percentage of customers with
previous program experience (28%), while gas water heaters had the least (2%).
Figure 10. Other Program Participation By Product
The evaluation team asked participant survey respondents if they had participated in other AIC
programs after their participation in REEP, and 19% (36 respondents) said they had.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 28
We also asked participants if they would be more likely to participate in other AIC programs in the
future. Figure 11 shows 91% of respondents stated they would be more likely to participate in
another program, based on their experiences with REEP.
Figure 11. Likelihood of Further AIC Program Participation
Product Specific Insights
Customer reactions to three specific products—-smart power strips, programmable thermostats,
and water heaters—indicated areas where AIC could improve its program. We discuss this as well
as concerns about dehumidifiers and air purifiers below.
Smart Power Strips. The majority of customers purchasing power strips replaced old ones (see
Figure 7). However, when asked about how they used the power strip, 15 respondents (53%)
indicated they did not use the product in a manner to save energy, using the product the same way
as they had used the old one. Thirteen (or 46%) reported using it to conserve energy, either by
shutting down all attached accessories when one was turned off, or by turning all accessories off at
night or on a specific schedule.
APT has worked with power strip manufacturers, such as TrickleStar, to better inform retailers for
the PY5 cycle. TrickleStar representatives will speak about their product at events, and the
company will work with independent retailers to distribute its products. Such efforts should
publicize the power strip’s energy-efficient capabilities and its associated savings, and be continued
and expanded.
Programmable Thermostats. Programmable thermostats were the items most commonly
purchased in the survey sample. The majority of customers purchasing the item did so to replace
units with a single temperature setting (82%, or 39 of 47 respondents). Of 47 respondents
purchasing a thermostat, however, just over half (52%) used the product as intended, with the
remainder indicating they adjusted the thermostat manually (11%) or left it at the same
temperature all the time (37%).
The usability of programmable thermostats remains a studied issue, and AIC customers performed
better than in a 2001 study where Meier (et al.) found: “[T]he majority of occupants operated
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Much morelikely
Somewhatmore likely
No more orless likely
Less likely Will notparticipate
n-187
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 29
thermostats manually…and almost 90% of respondents reported that they rarely or never adjusted
the thermostat to set a weekend or weekday program.”5 This study also found 26% of subjects in
one test could not turn their thermostats from the “off” option to the “heat option.”6 While this
study is over 10 years, old, it confirms our participant survey, which indicated customers find
correctly using programmable thermostats challenging. Results and supporting evidence from the
study suggested AIC’s education efforts remain important for achieving effective use of the
product.
Gas Water Heaters. In all instances (28 total), gas water heaters were considered replacements;
heat pump water heaters were replaced 90% of the time. Only two of 21 respondents installing
heat pump water heaters also added units to their HVAC system. In selecting a new water heater,
the customer made the decision 96% of the time; contractors recommended a product in only 2 of
49 instances.
Eighty percent of respondents stated they installed the product themselves. Since this is a role
traditionally filled by contractors, it appears that AIC reached the “do-it-yourself” niche of customers
with this rebate. In PY4, 27 individuals installed the 0.70 gas water heater, 243 installed the 0.67
water heater, and 73 installed the heat pump water heater. Program staff indicated this
participation was lower than their goals. Engaging contractors with the program could increase
participation.
Dehumidifiers and Air Purifiers. For two products—dehumidifiers and air purifiers—more program
participants added units than replaced them in PY4. Although program staff were concerned that
promoting these products could increase load, if the rebate caused people to purchase a unit they
otherwise would not have, we believe this risk is small. The incentive is approximately 15% of the
product cost, and likely will not induce a customer to purchase a product not already planned. As
most program advertising is near the product at the store, a customer would not find out about it
unless they were already shopping. Mass marketing, in addition to POS, might encourage
customers considering replacement of an existing dehumidifier to do so sooner, due to ongoing
cost savings.
4.3 IMPACT RESULTS
4.3.1 PARTICIPANT VERIFICATION/INSTALLATION RATE
The participant telephone survey verified all of the customers surveyed did, indeed, purchase the
subject product, although a small percentage did not have the product installed at the time of the
survey. Further, for programmable thermostats and smart power strips, we asked whether the
product was being used in a manner to result in energy savings. Resulting verification rates were:
93% for dehumidifiers; 53% for programmable thermostats; 46% for smart power strips; and 100%
for the remaining products. To calculate the verification rate for programmable thermostats, we
reviewed responses to the following participant survey questions:
1. Did your new programmable thermostat replace a manual thermostat?
5 Meier, Alan, et al. 2001. “Usability of residential thermostats: Preliminary investigations.” Building and
Environment 46, 1891-1898.
6 Ibid.
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 30
2. Did you regularly adjust/program your previous thermostat to save energy when you were
gone or at night?
3. Do you program this new thermostat for regular temperatures setting changes, do you
manually adjust it, or do you leave it at the same setting always?
4. Do you program this new thermostat for approximately the same temperature settings and
time periods as your previous thermostat or differently?
5. Please describe how you set your previous thermostat.
6. Please describe how you program this new thermostat.
We identified the scenarios described in Table 9 as indicative of product use to save energy. These
respondents totaled 21 out of 47 responding to the questions, or 47%. As the fixed per-unit savings
used to estimate savings already assumed only 86% used the thermostat to save energy, we
divided the 47% by 86%, and then multiplied by the 98% installation rate to compute an estimated
verification rate of 53%.
Table 9. Programmable Thermostat Analysis
Scenario Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 & Q6 Number of
Respondents
#1 Yes XX Program xx xx 19
#2 No Yes Program Different
(Q6 has more
setback
periods than
q5)
2
#3 No No Program xx xx 0
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 31
Table 10. REEP Verification and Installation Rate
Project Type
Database
Population Sample
Verification
Ratea
Projects Completed
Surveys
Product
Purchased
Product
Installed
Product
Used for
Energy
Savings
Programmable
Thermostats 3,730 48 48 47 21 53%
0.67 Water
Heater 243 27 27 27 27 100%
0.70 Water
Heater 27 1 1 1 1 100%
Heat Pump
Water Heater 73 21 21 21 21 100%
Room Air
Conditioner 5,555 21 21 21 21 100%
Air Purifier 907 30 30 30 30 100%
Dehumidifier 120 14 14 13 13 93%
Smart Power
Strip 1,482 28 28 28 13 46%
Total 12,136 190 190 188 147 63%
a Computed by dividing verified installed, and used for energy savings products by completed surveys.
4.3.2 GROSS IMPACTS
Total gross energy and demand savings, based on program participation, were 1,560 MWh, 236
kW, and 115,584 therms. We multiplied per-unit fixed savings values from ICC Order for Docket 10-
0568, by verified participation to estimate gross savings. Table 11 shows the gross
savings results.
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 32
Table 11. PY4 Program Gross Impacts
Measure Participation Verified
Participation
Per Unit Impactc Gross Impacts
kWh kW Therm MWh kW Therm
Programmable Thermostat
Gas Heat 3,074 1,629 0 0 67 0 0 109,158
Electric Heat 656 348 776 0 0 270 0 0
Electric AC 1,863 987 194 0.10 0 192 98 0
Subtotal 3,730 1,977 776 0 67 461 98 109,158
Heat Pump
Water Heater 73 73 1,802 0.0854A 0 132 6 0
.67 Water
Heater 243 243 0 0 23 0 0 5,589
.70 Water
Heater 27 27 0 0 31 0 0 837
Air Purifier 907 907 268 0.0306 0 243 28 0
Dehumidifier 120 112 229 0.0523 0 26 6 0
Room AC 5,554 5,554 104 0.0329D 0 578 183 0
Smart Power
Strip 1,482 682 177 0.0199 0 121 14 0
Total 12,136 9,575 NA 1,560 236 115,584
A Assumes 2,533 full load hours. B 948 full load hours. c Per Unit Impacts were taken from the ICC Order for Docket 10-0568.
4.3.3 NET IMPACTS
Table 12 and Table 13 show REEP free ridership and spillover results. We estimated free ridership
for each measure using responses from the participant survey, and then weighted by verified
program product savings to estimate the total. We estimated spillover by summing estimated
savings for each spillover measure reported by survey participants, and then divided by the sum of
all REEP verified program savings for the surveyed participants. For reporting purposes and
prospective use, we grouped measures into two sets of electric measures and one set of gas
measures, balancing NTGR precision and allowing variety among measures.
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 33
Table 12. REEP Free Ridership Results
Responses (n) FR Score at 90% confidence
Room AC / Dehumidifier /
Air Purifier 65 0.31 (± 0.07)
Thermostat—Elec Heat /
Thermostat—AC / Power Strips /
H.P. Water Heater
97 0.23(± 0.04)
Gas Measures 28 0.32 (± 0.08)
Total 190 0.30 (± 0.04)
Table 13. REEP Program NTG
Responses (n) FR SO NTGR
Room AC / Dehumidifier /
Air Purifier 65 .31 0.09 0.78
Thermostat—Elec Heat /
Thermostat—AC / Power Strips /
H.P. Water Heater
97 0.23 0.09 0.86
Gas Measures 28 0.32 0.21 0.90
Total 190 0.30 0.14 0.84
Table 14 shows free ridership, along with absolute and relative precisions for each individual
measure.7 Due to small individual measure sample sizes, the precision around these estimates is
quite high. However, results show power strips experience considerably lower free ridership than
other measures. This likely results from the product’s relatively unknown status among consumers.
7 Absolute precision means the actual FR score is plus or minus that amount, where relative precision means
the FR score is plus or minus that percentage of the score.
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 34
Table 14. Free Ridership Scores by Product
Product N FR
Score
Absolute
Precision
(90%
confidence)
Relative
Precision
(90%
confidence)
Contribution to
Total Gross
MWh Savings
Contributio
n to Total
Gross
Therms
Savings
Heat Pump Water
Heater 21 0.25 0.132 53% 8%
0%
Gas Water Heater - $50 27 0.54 0.113 21% 0% 5%
Gas Water Heater - $75 1 0.25 n/a n/a 0% 1%
Room AC 21 0.34 0.128 38% 37% 0%
Dehumidifier 14 0.45 0.165 36% 2% 0%
Air Purifier 30 0.30 0.099 34% 16% 0%
Programmable Tstat –
Elec Heat 23 0.26 0.118 45% 17%
0%
Programmable Tstat-
Gas Heat/Elec AC 25 0.29 0.107 37% 12%
94%
Power Strip 28 0.10 0.051 49% 8% 0%
Table 15 shows spillover measures identified by survey participants, along with the quantity in
which the program was very important in influencing the decision to purchase. Per unit savings,
along with the total for both electric and gas measures and spillover percentages are shown for
each measure.
Table 15. Spillover Measures
Product
High
Importance
Quantity
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
per unit
Gas
Savings
(therms)
per unit
Total
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Total
Gas
Savings
%
Electric
Spillovera
% Gas
Spillovera
CFL 127 0 n/a 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
LED Bulb 42 46 n/a 1,932 0 2.9% 0.0%
ES Refrigerator 5 141 n/a 705 0 1.1% 0.0%
ES Freezer 1 49 n/a 49 0 0.1% 0.0%
ES Clothes Washer 7 434 n/a 3,038 0 4.6% 0.0%
ES Dishwasher 4 0 n/a 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
ES Room AC 2 104 n/a 208 0 0.3% 0.0%
Programmable thermostat 1 0 67 0 67 0.0% 2.3%
ENERGY STAR Furnace 1 0 146 0 146 0.0% 9.5%
Installed insulation (sqft) 1,600 0 0 0 144 0.0% 9.4%
Total Spillover n/a n/a n/a 5932 357 9% 21% a Spillover percent calculated as sample spillover divided by sample program savings.
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 35
The evaluation team benchmarked AIC’s NTG results against other similar programs across the
country. AIC’s PY4 Efficient Products Program’s 30% free ridership estimate runs lower than similar
utility programs, and has one of the highest spillover rates, at 14%. This may result from the unique
combination of products AIC offers, as smart power strips purchasers reported lower free ridership
rates (which may be due to it being a newer technology). Table 16 compares AIC results to those
from other recent program evaluations. While measures and incentives may vary between
programs, this provides a perspective on NTGRs seen in other prescriptive rebate programs.
Table 16. Residential Efficient Products NTGR Program Benchmarking
Utility
Survey
respondents
(n)
FR Part SO NTG
AIC – PY4 190 30% 14% 84%
Northwest Utility 1 – 2010 67 48.0% 0.0% 52.0%
Northwest Utility 1 – 2011 94 61.8% 3.6% 41.9%
Northwest Utility 2 - 2011 217 43.4% 0.0% 56.6%
Northwest Utility 2 - 2011 217 33.0% 0.0% 67.0%
California Utility - 2011 154 42.9% 0.0% 57.1%
Southwest Utility - 2011 223 40.4% 0.0% 59.6%
Midwest Utility - 2011 293 45.9% 13.7% 67.8%
Northeast Utility 2010 76 56.6% 2.8% 46.2%
We also compared free ridership to the ratio of incentive and average product purchase prices. In
Figure 12, we plot incentives as a share of the purchase price against free ridership to illustrate the
inverse correlation between the two (the calculated correlation coefficient is -0.6). The only
exception to this is smart power strips, a newer technology, with many customers still unaware of
its benefits (and not included in the figure). This information could be used to inform AIC’s future
program planning to determine appropriate incentives levels that will maximize participation,
minimize free ridership, and balance program budgets. For example, should AIC wish to decrease
the budget by lowering incentives, they should understand free ridership would increase, resulting
in lowered net savings. The data are shown in
Table 17. Appendix D provides more detailed information on pricing and purchasing trends.
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 36
Figure 12. Incentives As A Share of Purchase Price vs. Free Ridership
Table 17. Incentives and Free Ridership by Measure
Category Average
Price
Average
Rebate
% of Purchase
Price Free Ridership
Thermostat $44 $25 57% 27%
Heat Pump Water Heater $1,101 $300 27% 25%
0.70 Gas Water Heater $702 $75 11% 25%a
Air Purifier $142 $20 14% 30%
Room Air Conditioner $259 $20 8% 34%
Dehumidifier $188 $25 16% 45%
.67 Gas Water Heater $698 $50 7% 54%
Smart Power Strip $43 $10 23% 10%
a Value reflects only one survey response.
Table 18 shows ex ante and ex post net impacts and factors, such as NTG, required for their
calculation. The evaluation team calculated ex ante net impacts by multiplying the ex ante NTG
ratio with the ex ante gross impacts, and calculated ex post net impacts by multiplying ex ante
gross impacts with the verification rate and ex post NTG ratio. Resulting total, ex post net impacts
are: 1,275 MWh, 270 kW, and 104,440 therms.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Incentive/purchaseprice
Freeridership
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 37
Table 18. PY4 Ex Ante And Ex Post Net Program Impacts
Measure Savings
Type
Ex Ante
Gross
Savings
Ex
Ante
NTGR
Ex Ante Net
Savings
Verifica
tion
Rate
Verified
Gross
Savings
NTGR
Ex Post
Net
Savings
Net
Realizati
on Rate
Programmable
Thermostat AC
and Gas Heat
Therms 205,958 0.87 179,183 53% 109,158 0.90 98,634 55%
MWh 361 0.87 314 53% 192 0.86 165 52%
kW 184 0.87 160 53% 98 0.86 84 52%
Programmable
Thermostat
Electric Heat
MWh 509 0.87 443 53% 270 0.86 232 52%
kW 0 0.87 0 53% - 0.86 - N/A
Heat Pump
Water Heater
MWh 132 0.76 100 100% 132 0.86 113 113%
kW 6 0.76 5 100% 6 0.86 5 113%
0.67 Water
Heater Therms 5,589 0.58 3,242 100% 5,589 0.90 5,050 156%
0.70 Water
Heater Therms 837 0.58 485 100% 837
0.90 756 156%
Air Purifier MWh 519 0.76 394 100% 243 0.78 190 103%
kW 326 0.76 247 100% 28 0.78 22 103%
Dehumidifier MWh 28 0.76 21 93% 26 0.78 20 96%
kW 6 0.76 5 93% 6 0.78 5 96%
Room Air
Conditioner
MWh 578 0.76 439 100% 578 0.78 451 103%
kW 183 0.76 139 100% 183 0.78 143 103%
Smart Power
Strip
MWh 262 0.76 199 46% 121 0.86 104 52%
kW 29 0.76 22 46% 14 0.86 12 52%
Total Programc
Therms 212,384 0.86 182,911 115,584
0.90
104,44
57%
MWh 2,113 0.81 1701 1560 0.82 1275 75%
kW 437 0.81 352 334 0.81 270 77%
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 38
a Ex ante results are calculated using the same fixed unit values as ex post results, without adjustment for verified purchase or installation rates.
b Ex post results are calculated using verified purchase and installation rates and new NTG estimates.
c Total program results may not exactly match the sum of the program results due to rounding
Results and Findings
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 39
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 40
A. APPENDIX: DATA COLLECTION
INSTRUMENTS
Appliance Participant Survey
Ameren Illinois
Efficient Product Program Participating Residential Survey 2012
Introduction
Hello, my name is _______________ and I am calling from _______ on behalf of Ameren Illinois. We
are calling today because we would like your opinions about your recent experience with the
Ameren Illinois Efficient Products Program. This is not a sales call. Would you have a few minutes
to answer some questions now?
[If needed: This will take about 15 minutes.]
[If needed: Contact at Ameren Illinois to confirm survey legitimacy – Sharon Ruhland, 309-677-5192]
A1. We’d like to talk with the person who made the decision to buy products receiving rebates from Ameren Illinois. Would that be you?
1. Yes 2. No [ASK TO SPEAK WITH PERSON WHO WAS PRIMARY DECISION MAKER. IF NOT
AVAILABLE, THANK AND SET CALLBACK]
D. DON’T KNOW [THANK AND TERMINATE]
R. Refused [THANK AND TERMINATE]
A2. In the last year, our records show that you received a rebate [for each product insert each rebate amount] for [insert count of each product ]. Is that correct? [Mark all confirmed]
1. Room Air Conditioner (Number ___) 2. Air Purifier (Number ___) 3. Dehumidifier (Number ___) 4. Power Strip (Number ___) 5. Heat Pump Water Heater (Number ___) 6. Programmable Thermostat (Number ___) 7. Gas Water Heater (Number ___) 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 41
A3. [IF ANY OF READ PRODUCTS READ FROM A1=NO, DK, REFUSED] Please tell me which products you purchased and received a rebate. [MULTIPLE RESPONSE: INCLUDE COUNTS OF ALL THAT APPLY]
1. Number of Room Air Conditioners ___
2. Number of Air Purifiers ___
3. Number of Dehumidifiers ___
4. Number of Power Strips ____
5. Number of Heat Pump Water Heaters ___
6. Number of Programmable Thermostats ___
7. Number of Gas Water Heaters ____
8. (Don’t know) [TERMINATE]
9. (Refused) [TERMINATE]
A4. [IF A3=7] Did you receive a $50 or $75 rebate for your purchase of the gas water heater?
1. ($50)
2. ($75)
8. (Don’t know)
9 (Refused)
[CALCULATE VERIFIED MEASURES]
Program Awareness
B1. How did you first hear about Ameren Illinois’ rebates for efficient appliances? [DO NOT READ; DO NOT PROMPT - ONE ANSWER ONLY]
1. Saw rebate form at the store 2. Saw sign/display at the store 3. Salesperson or other store staff told me about it 4. Saw store advertising with Ameren logo 5. Ameren Website [SKIP TO B3] 6. Other Website [SPECIFY] 7. Personal Energy Report (PER) 8. E-mail from Ameren Illinois 9. Bill insert/information came in the mail with my bill 10. Friend, family member, co-worker (word of mouth)
00. Other [SPECIFY]
98. DON’T KNOW 99. REFUSED
[ASK IF B1 ≠ 5]
B2. Have you been to the Ameren Illinois Website? 1. Yes 2. No 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 42
[CALCULATE PRODUCT1 AND PRODUCT2 AS WELL AS INCENTIVE1 AND INCENTIVE2 FROM VERIFIED CALCULATION ABOVE]
B3. [IF MORE THAN ONE PRODUCT, REPEAT QUESTION FOR TWO PRODUCTS THAT ARE FURTHEST FROM REACHING QUOTA] Please think back to the time when you were deciding to buy a new [PRODUCT]. What motivated you to purchase a new [PRODUCT]? [DO NOT READ LIST; INDICATE ALL THAT APPLY]
1. Old equipment didn’t work 2. Old equipment working poorly 3. The incentive or rebate 4. The information or technical assistance I got from Ameren Illinois 5. Wanted to save energy 6. Wanted to reduce energy costs 7. Past experience with this program 8. Because of past experience with another Ameren program 9. Recommendation of dealer/retailer 10. Recommendation from friend/family 11. Saw advertisem*nt for rebate program 12. Environmental concerns 13. Global warming 14. Keeping up with the latest technology or trends 15. [IF PRODUCT=POWER STRIP] Needed plug strip
00. Other [SPECIFY] 98. DON’T KNOW 99. REFUSED
Usage/Retention
[IF A2 or A3 = MORE THAN 1 RESPONSE, REPEAT EACH QUESTION FOR SAME TWO PRODUCTS AS ABOVE]
C1. Is the [PRODUCT] for which you received a rebate installed in your home now? [RECORD ONE ANSWER ONLY]
1. Yes, it is currently installed in my home 2. No, it is installed at some other location [Record where it was installed:_____________
Ask: Is this a business?___________]
3. It was installed in my home but is now permanently removed (broke, burned out, don’t fit, don’t like, etc.)
4. It was installed at home, wasn’t working properly, and was replaced with another energy efficient [PRODUCT] through warranty
5. It was sold or given away
6. [IF AC UNIT] It was installed and used over the summer but is currently in storage
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 43
00. Other [SPECIFY] 8. DON’T KNOW 9. Refused
[ASK C1AA AND C1AAA IF C1=2]
C1AA. Where is the <PRODUCT> installed? [OPEN END]
C1AAA. Is this a business? [yes, no, dk, refused]
C2. [IF PRODUCT= POWERSTRIP AND C1=1, or 4] What type of equipment do you have attached
to the power strip?
1. Entertainment (TV, Home Theater)
2. Workspace (computer, home office)
3. Other [specify] _____
4. Not currently using
8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED.
C3. [IF PRODUCT= POWERSTRIP] How do you use your new power strip? [PROBE TO DETERMINE WHICH RESPONSE IS MOST ACCURATE OR READ IF NECESSARY]
1. To shut off all attached equipment at night
2. To shut off all attached equipment when one item is turned off
3. To shut off all attached equipment on a specific schedule
i. What is the schedule? ___________________
4. Just use it like a regular power strip.
5. Other [specify] _____
6. Not currently using
D DON’T KNOW
9. Refused.
C4. [IF PRODUCT= WATER HEATER (product code 1, 2, 8)] Did you choose the water heater you
purchased or did a contractor recommend the specific model you bought?
1. (Customer chose)
2. (Contractor recommendation)
3. (Other [specify] _____)
8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
C5. [IF PRODUCT= WATER HEATER (product code 1, 2, 8)] Who installed the new water heater in your
home, was it….?
1. You or a friend or family member, or
2. A Contractor
3. Other [Specify] _____________
8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 44
C6. [IF PRODUCT=THERMOSTAT] Did your new programmable thermostat replace a manual thermostat? [IF NECESSARY, “a manual thermostat has only one setting for the internal temperature you want and must be manually adjusted]”
7. Yes
8. No
8.DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO D1] 9.REFUSED [SKIP TO D1]
C7. [IF PRODUCT=THERMOSTAT] Did you regularly [IF C6=1 “adjust” IF C6=2 “program”] your previous thermostat to save energy when you were gone or at night?
1. Yes
2. No
8.DON'T KNOW 9.REFUSED
C8. [IF PRODUCT=THERMOSTAT] Do you program this new thermostat for regular temperatures setting changes, do you manually adjust it, or do you leave it at the same setting always? (PROBE TO FIND THE RESPONSE MOST ACCURATE, CHOOSE ONLY ONE)
1. (Program)
2. (Manually adjust) [SKIP TO C12]
3. (Leave at same setting) [SKIP TO C12]
8.DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO C13]
9.Refused [SKIP TO C13]
C9. [IF PRODUCT=THERMOSTAT, C7=a and C8=a] Do you program this new thermostat for approximately the same temperature settings and time periods as your previous thermostat or differently?
1 . Same 2. Differently 8. DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO C11]
9. Refused [SKIP TO C11]
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 45
C10. [IF PRODUCT=THERMOSTAT AND C9=a or b]. Please describe how you set your previous
thermostat. [PROBE TO DETERMINE WHICH RESPONSE BELOW IS MOST ACCURATE OR READ IF DON’T KNOW]
1. (Adjusted for night and daytime work hours both summer and winter 2. (Adjust for night only both summer and winter 3. (Adjust for night and daytime, winter only 4. (Adjust for night and daytime, summer only 5. (Adjust for night only, winter only 6. (Adjust for night only, summer only 7. (Adjust for vacations only 8. (Set at one temperature for summer and one temperature for winter 00. Other [Specify] 8.DON'T KNOW [READ LIST ABOVE TO DETERMINE WHICH IS CLOSEST AND ATTEMPT TO CATEGORIZE]
9.Refused
C11. [IF PRODUCT=THERMOSTAT AND C9=2,8,9 ]. Please describe how you program this new thermostat. [PROBE TO DETERMINE WHICH RESPONSE BELOW IS MOST ACCURATE OR READ IF DON’T KNOW]
1. Programmed to adjusted during night and daytime work hours both summer and winter 2. Adjust for night only both summer and winter 3. Adjust for night and daytime work hours, winter only 4. Adjust for night and daytime work hours, summer only 5. Adjust for night only, winter only 6. Adjust for night only, summer only 7. Adjust for vacations only 8. Set at one temperature for summer and one temperature for winter 00. Other [Specify] ______________________________
98.DON'T KNOW [READ LIST ABOVE TO DETERMINE WHICH IS CLOSEST AND ATTEMPT TO CATEGORIZE]
99.Refused
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 46
C12. [IF PRODUCT=THERMOSTAT]. Approximately how long have you been operating your thermostat this way? Would it be…
1. Less than 3 months 2. 3 to less than 6 months 3. 6 months to less than 9 months 4. 9 months to a year 5. More than a year 8.DON’T KNOW
9.REFUSED
C13. [IF PRODUCT=THERMOSTAT] What temperature is this new thermostat typically set for at night in the winter, would it be…
1. Less than 62
2. 63 to 66°F
3. 66-69°F 4. 70-74°F 5. 75-79°F 6. 80°F or higher D. DON’T KNOW 9.REFUSED
C13. [IF PRODUCT=THERMOSTAT] What temperature is this new thermostat typically set for at mid-afternoon in the summer, would it be…
1. Less than 62
2. 63 to 66°F
3. 66-69°F 4. 70-74°F 5. 75-79°F 6. 80°F or higher 8.DON’T KNOW
9.REFUSED
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 47
C14. [IF PRODUCT=THERMOSTAT]. Approximately what percentage of your home is controlled with this thermostat? Would it be…
1. Less than 10% 2. 11-20% 3. 21-30% 4. 31-40% 5. 41-50% 6. 51-60% 7. 61-70% 8. 71-80% 9. 81-90% 10. More than 90% 98.DON’T KNOW 99.REFUSED
Satisfaction
[[IF A2 or A3 = MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE, REPEAT QUESTIONS D1, D2, D3, D4, D6, D7 FOR EACH PRODUCT]
D1. How satisfied are you with the new [PRODUCT], would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied?
1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Neutral [DO NOT READ] 4. Not too satisfied 5. Not at all satisfied 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
D2. How satisfied were you with the [INSERT REBATE AMOUNT] incentive you received for the new [PRODUCT], would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied?
1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Neutral [DO NOT READ] 4. Not too satisfied 5. Not at all satisfied 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
D3. How satisfied were you with how quickly you received your incentive payment for [PRODUCT]? Would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied?
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 48
1. Very satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Neutral [DO NOT READ] 4. Not too satisfied 5. Not at all satisfied 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
D4. How clear were the program’s requirements and process? Would you say:
1. Very Clear [SKIP TO D6] 2. Somewhat Clear [SKIP TO D6] 3. NEUTRAL [DO NOT READ] [SKIP TO D6] 4. Somewhat Unclear 5. Very Unclear
8. DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO D6] 9. REFUSED [SKIP TO D6]
[SKIP IF D4=1,2,3,8,9]
D5. Why did you say that the program’s requirements and process were [INSERT ANSWER FROM D4]
1. [Record Response] _______________________________________ 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
D6. How satisfied were you with the variety of [INSERT PRODUCT] eligible for rebate? [IF NECESSARY, FOR INSTANCE, DID THE PRODUCT YOU PURCHASED HAVE ALL THE FEATURES YOU WERE LOOKING FOR?]
1. Very Satisfied [SKIP TO D8] 2. Somewhat Satisfied 3. Neutral 4. Not Too satisfied 5. Not at all Satisfied
8. DON’T KNOW [Skip to D8] 9. REFUSED [SKIP TO D8]
D7. What features would you have liked to see offered?
1. [Record Response] _______________________________________
D8. How satisfied are you with the Efficient Products program overall?
1. Very satisfied [SKIP TO D10] 2. Somewhat satisfied [SKIP TO D10] 3. NEUTRAL [SKIP TO D10]
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 49
4. Not too satisfied 5. Not at all satisfied 8. DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO D10]
9. REFUSED [SKIP TO D10]
[SKIP IF D8=1,2,3,8,9]
D9. What about the Program were you dissatisfied with? [DO NOT READ MARK ALL THAT APPLY]
1. Incentive was too small 2. Hard to find products 3. Products were too expensive 4. Products didn’t have features I wanted 5. I couldn’t purchase the product through my contractor 6. Program requirements were too onerous 7. Other [Specify]
8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
D10. What suggestions, if any, do you have for improving Ameren Illinois’ Efficient Products Program?
1. [Specify]______________________________ 2. None 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
D11. [IF PRODUCT= POWERSTRIP] How would you suggest that Ameren Illinois encourage other customers to purchase and use energy efficient power strips?
SPECIFY:_______________________________________
8. DON’T KNOW
9. Refused
Prior Equipment
[IF A2 or A3 = MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE, REPEAT EACH QUESTION FOR EACH PRODUCT]
E1. [IF MORE THAN ONE PRODUCT, REPEAT QUESTION FOR SAME 2 PRODUCTS AS ABOVE] Did the new [PRODUCT] replace an old unit, or were you adding an additional [PRODUCT] to your home?
1. Replacing 2. Adding
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 50
8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
E2. [ASK IF E1 = 1] About how old was the [PRODUCT] you replaced? [READ CATEGORIES IF NEEDED]
1. Less than 5 years old 2. 5 to 9 years old 3. 10 to 19 years old 4. 20 to 29 years old 5. 30 or more years old 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
E3. [IF B3 ≠ 1 or 2 then ASK] Was the old [PRODUCT] in good, fair, or poor working condition?
1. Good 2. Fair 3. Poor 4. Not working 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
E4. [E1= 1] What did you do with the old [PRODUCT]?
1. Sold or gave away 2. Installed in another location 3. Still in home but permanently removed (stored in garage, etc.) 4. Recycled 5. Threw away or took to dump 6. Contractor or retailer took it away 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
Freeridership
[IF A1 or A3 = MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE, REPEAT EACH QUESTION FOR SAME 2 PRODUCTS AS ABOVE]
F1. Did you first learn about the Ameren Illinois rebate before you began shopping for your new [PRODUCT], while you were shopping but before making your decision, or after you decided to purchase the new [PRODUCT].
1. Before shopping 2. While shopping but before making the decision 3. After deciding to purchase 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 51
F2. [IF F1=3] Just to confirm, before you first learned about the Ameren Illinois rebate, had you
already purchased or decided to purchase this specific make and model of the [PRODUCT]?
1. Yes [SKIP TO G1 2. No 8.DON’T KNOW 9.REFUSED
F3. Before you knew about the rebate, were you already planning to purchase a new [PRODUCT]?
1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO F5] 8. DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO F5] 9. REFUSED [SKIP TOF5]
F4. Before entering the store, had you selected the exact make and model of [PRODUCT] you purchased, or did you determine the make and model after you arrived at the store?
1. Yes, same make and model already selected 2. No, determined once I arrived 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
F5. If the rebate of [dollar amount for PRODUCT] had not been available, would you still have purchased the exact same make and model of [PRODUCT]?
1. Yes 2. No 8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
F6. [ASK if F5= 2] Without the rebate of [INSERT REBATE AMOUNT FOR PRODUCT], would you have purchased a [PRODUCT] with the same level of energy efficiency, or would it have been more efficient, or less efficient?
1. More efficient 2. Less efficient 3. Same level of efficiency 4. Would not have bought [PRODUCT ] 8. REFUSED 9. DON’T KNOW
F7. Did the rebate offer cause you to purchase the [PRODUCT] sooner than you would have otherwise?
1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TOF9] D. DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO F9] R. REFUSED [SKIP TO F9]
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 52
F8. [ASK IF F7= 1] Without the rebate, when would you have purchased the [PRODUCT]? [READ LIST]
1. Later in the same year 2. In 1 or 2 years 3. In 3 to 5 years 4. After more than 5 years 5. Not at all D. DON’T KNOW R. REFUSED
F9. How influential was the rebate in your decision to purchase this specific make and model of the [PRODUCT]? Would you say it was:
1. Not at all influential
2. Not very influential
3. Neutral [DO NOT READ]
4. Somewhat influential
5. Very influential
8. DON’T KNOW 9. REFUSED
Spillover
G1. Have you participated in any other energy-efficiency programs offered by Ameren Illinois?
1. Yes 2. No [GO TO G5]
D. DON’T KNOW [Go to G5] R. REFUSED [Go to G5]
G2. Which programs did you participate in?
1. Home Energy Performance (audit program) 2. Lighting Program 3. Heating and Cooling Incentives 4. Home Energy Reports 5. Appliance Recycling 6. Other [Specify]
D. DON’T KNOW [GO TO G5] R. REFUSED [GO TO G5]
G3. [ASK FOR EACH PROGRAM IN G2] Did you participate in [INSERT PROGRAM FROM G2] after
or before this Efficient Products Program?
1. After 2. Before [SKIP TO G5] D. DON’T KNOW [SKIP TO G5]
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 53
R. Refused [SKIP TO G5]
G4. How influential was your experience participating in the Efficient Products program on your decision to participate in another Ameren Illinois energy-efficiency program? Would you say it was:
1. Very Influential 2. Somewhat Influential 3. Neutral [DO NOT READ] 4. Not too Influential 5. Not at all Influential
-99. Don’t know -100. Refused
G5. Based on your experience with the Efficient Products Program, how likely are you to participate in another utility energy efficiency program? Would you say you are… [READ LIST]
1. Much more likely 2. Somewhat more likely
3. Neutral [DO NOT READ]
3. No more or less likely 4. Less likely to participate in another program
5. (DO NOT READ: will not participate)
-98. DON’T KNOW
-99. REFUSED
G6. Now I'd like to ask you about any energy saving actions you may have taken on your own without an incentive or rebate from Ameren Illinois. Since you received the rebates we’ve been talking about, have you purchased any other products or made any other changes to reduce energy use in your home for which you did not receive an Ameren Illinois incentive or rebate?
1. Yes 2. No [SKIP TO H1] 8. DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO H1] 9. REFUSED [SKIP TO H1]
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 54
G7. [IF G6 = 1] Please describe these energy efficient activities or purchases you made.[DO NOT READ, MARK ALL THAT APPLY]
1. Performed a home audit 2. Recycled a refrigerator 3. Recycled a freezer 4. Purchased CFLs? [ASK: How many?] _______________________ 5. Purchased LED light bulbs? [ASK: How many?] ______________________ 6. Purchased Light fixtures or ceiling fan [ASK: How many?] ____________________ 7. Purchased ENERGY STAR refrigerator 8. Purchased ENERGY STAR freezer 9. Purchase ENERGY STAR clothes washer 10. Purchased ENERGY STAR dishwasher 11. Purchased ENERGY STAR room air conditioner [ASK: How many?] ____________________ 12. Purchased ENERGY STAR electronics (e.g. TV, DVD, computer) 13. Purchased ENERGY STAR dehumidifier 14. Purchased ENERGY STAR water heater 15. Installed a low flow showerhead or faucet aerator [ASK: How many?]
___________________ 16. Purchased and programmed a programmable thermostat 17. Installed insulation
a. [ASK: How many sqft] b. [ASK: Location (Attic, Wall, Floor, Ceiling)]
18. Installed solar panels a. [ASK: How many] b. [ASK: Size of system installed]
19. Other [SPECIFY VERBATIM] _______________________________________ 8.DON’T KNOW 9.REFUSED
G8. A. [READ IF G7=1] How important was your participation in the Ameren Illinois Efficient Products Program in your decision to have a home audit? Would you say it was:
1. Very Important
2. Somewhat Important
3. Not to Important
4. Not at all Important
8.DON'T KNOW 9.REFUSED
G8. B. [READ IF G7=2 or 3] How important was your participation in the Ameren Illinois Efficient Products Program in your decision to recycle your refrigerator or freezer? Would you say it was:
1. Very Important
2. Somewhat Important
3. Not too Important
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 55
4. Not at all important
8.DON'T KNOW 9.REFUSED
G8. C [READ IF G7=4 through 19] How important was your participation in the Ameren Illinois Efficient Products Program in your decision to purchase [INSERT PRODUCT FROM G7]? Would you say it was:
1. Very Important
2. Somewhat Important
3. Neutral [DO NOT READ]
4. Not too Important
5. Not at all important
8.DON'T KNOW 9.REFUSED
G8. D [READ IF G7=16] Did the programmable thermostat replace a manual thermostat?
9. Yes
10. No [SKIP TO H1]
8.DON'T KNOW [SKIP TO H1] 9.REFUSED [SKIP TO H1]
G9 [READ IF G7=16 and G8.D=1] Did you regularly adjust your previous thermostat when you were gone or at night?
1. Yes
2. No
8.DON'T KNOW 9.REFUSED
G10 [READ IF G7=16, G8.D=1] How do you use your new programmable thermostat, would you say you…
a. Have it programmed to adjust when you aren’t home or at night
b. Manually adjust it when you are not home or at night
c. Leave it set on one setting
d. Or something else? [SPECIFY] ______________
8.DON'T KNOW
9.Refused
Demographics
“Now I have just a few final questions about your home and energy awareness.”
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 56
H1. How informed do you feel you are about ways to save energy, including buying and using energy efficient appliances and equipment? Would you say:
1. Very Informed 2. Somewhat Informed 3. Neither informed nor uninformed 4. Somewhat Uninformed 5. Very Uninformed
-98. Don’t know -99. Refused
H2. Which one of the following best describes the type of home in which you live? (READ)
1. A single-family detached [no common walls] 2. A single-family attached [at least one common wall with the surrounding swellings,
such as a town home, patio home, or condo] 3. Multi-family home, such as an apartment [requires a different family living above or
below, such as an apartment] 4. A mobile home or trailer 5. Other [SPECIFY] ___________________
-98. Don’t know -99. Refused
H3. About how large is your home in square feet, excluding your garage and patio?
1. Under 1,000 square feet 2. 1,001 – 1,500 square feet 3. 1,501 – 2,000 square feet 4. 2,001 – 2,500 square feet 5. 2,501 – 3,000 square feet 6. More than 3,000 square feet [SPECIFY] _________ square feet
-98. Don’t know -99. Refused
H4. What is the approximate age of your home?
____ [record years]
-98. Don’t know -99. Refused
H5. Is your home…
1. All electric 2. Gas and electric 3. Some other combination of energy sources ........................
-98. Don’t know -99. Refused
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 57
H6. How many people live in your home year round, including yourself?
1. 1 2. 2 3. 3 4. 4 5. 5 6. 6 7. 7+
-98. Don’t know -99. Refused
H7. In 2011, which of the following categories best describes your total annual household income before taxes? [READ LIST] PLEASE STOP ME WHEN I READ YOUR CATEGORY
1. Less than $15,000 2. $15,000 to less than $25,000 3. $25,000 to less than $35,000 4. $35,000 to less than $50,000 5. $50,000 to less than $75,000 6. $75,000 to less than $100,000 7. $100,000 to less than $150,000 8. $150,000 or more
-98. Don’t know -99. Refused
H8. What is your average Ameren Illinois Utilities bill in the summer?
_____ Dollars
Don’t know
Refused
H9. What is your average Ameren Illinois Utilities bill in the winter?
_____ Dollars
Don’t know
Refused
H10. Which of the following best describes your age?
1. Less than 18 years old 2. 18-24 years old 3. 25-34 years old 4. 35-44 years old 5. 45-54 years old
Appendix: Data Collection Instruments
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 58
6. 55-64 years old 7. 65 or older
-98. Don’t know -99. Refused
H11. RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT [DO NOT ASK]
1. Male 2. Female
-98. Don’t know
[THANK & TERMINATE]
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 59
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 60
B. APPENDIX: NTG ALGORITHM
Free Ridership Survey Questions
Six questions were asked in the residential efficient products survey’s free ridership portion. In the
list below, a general description of each question precedes the full text of the question appearing in
the survey. We use the general description in tables throughout the rest of this report when
referring to the residential free ridership questions.
1. Already Purchased. Did you first learn about the Ameren Illinois rebate before you began
shopping for your new [PRODUCT], while you were shopping but before making your decision, or after you decided to purchase the new [PRODUCT].
2. Planning to Purchase. Before you knew about the rebate, were you already planning to purchase a new [PRODUCT]?
3. Same Make/Model. If the rebate of [dollar amount for PRODUCT] had not been available, would you still have purchased the exact same make and model of [PRODUCT]?
4. Same Efficiency. Without the rebate of [INSERT REBATE AMOUNT FOR PRODUCT], would you have purchased a [PRODUCT] with the same level of energy efficiency, or would it have been more efficient, or less efficient?
5. Same Time. Did the rebate offer cause you to purchase the [PRODUCT] sooner than you would have otherwise?
6. Rebate Influence. How influential was the rebate in your decision to purchase this specific
make and model of the [PRODUCT]?
Table 19, below, shows the unique response combinations from the residential efficient products
participant survey, the free ridership score assigned to each combination, and the number of
responses for each combination.
Table 19. Frequency of Free Ridership Scoring Combinations—Residential Efficient Products
Re
sp
on
se
Co
mb
ina
tio
n
Alr
ea
dy
pu
rch
ase
d
Pla
nn
ing
to
pu
rch
ase
Sa
me
ma
ke
/ m
od
el
Sa
me
eff
icie
ncy
Sa
me
tim
e
Re
ba
te
Infl
ue
nti
al
Fre
e R
ide
rsh
ip
Sco
re
Re
sp
on
se
Fre
qu
en
cy
1 Yes . . . . . 100% 16
2 No Yes Don't Know Yes No
Not at all
influential 100% 1
3
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected Yes No
Not at all
influential 100% 2
4
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected Yes No
Not very
influential 100% 2
Appendix: NTG Algorithm
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 61
Re
sp
on
se
Co
mb
ina
tio
n
Alr
ea
dy
pu
rch
ase
d
Pla
nn
ing
to
pu
rch
ase
Sa
me
ma
ke
/ m
od
el
Sa
me
eff
icie
ncy
Sa
me
tim
e
Re
ba
te
Infl
ue
nti
al
Fre
e R
ide
rsh
ip
Sco
re
Re
sp
on
se
Fre
qu
en
cy
5 Don't
Know
Don't
Kno
w . Yes No
Not very
influential 75% 1
6 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived Yes No
Not at all
influential 75% 19
7 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived Yes No
Not very
influential 75% 5
8 No No . Yes No
Not at all
influential 50% 1
9 No No . Yes No
Not very
influential 50% 1
10 No Yes Don't Know Yes No
Somewhat
influential 50% 1
11
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected
Don't
Know No
Not at all
influential 50% 1
12
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected Yes No
Somewhat
influential 50% 5
13
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected Yes No
Very
influential 50% 2
14
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected Yes Yes
Not very
influential 50% 1
15
No
Don't
Kno
w . Yes No
Somewhat
influential 25% 1
16 No No .
Don't
Know No
Not at all
influential 25% 1
17 No Yes Don't Know Yes
Don't
Know
Very
influential 25% 1
18 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived Yes No
Somewhat
influential 25% 24
19 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived Yes No
Very
influential 25% 8
20
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected Yes
Don't
Know
Somewhat
influential 25% 3
21
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected Yes
Don't
Know
Very
influential 25% 2
Appendix: NTG Algorithm
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 62
Re
sp
on
se
Co
mb
ina
tio
n
Alr
ea
dy
pu
rch
ase
d
Pla
nn
ing
to
pu
rch
ase
Sa
me
ma
ke
/ m
od
el
Sa
me
eff
icie
ncy
Sa
me
tim
e
Re
ba
te
Infl
ue
nti
al
Fre
e R
ide
rsh
ip
Sco
re
Re
sp
on
se
Fre
qu
en
cy
22 No No . Yes No
Somewhat
influential 13% 5
23 No No . Yes No
Very
influential 13% 1
24 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived Yes
Don't
Know
Somewhat
influential 13% 6
25 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived Yes
Don't
Know
Very
influential 13% 10
26
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected Yes Yes
Somewhat
influential 13% 2
27
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected Yes Yes
Very
influential 13% 1
28 Don't
Know No .
Don't
Know
Don't
Know
Somewhat
influential 0% 1
29 Don't
Know Yes
No, determined
once I arrived Yes Yes
Somewhat
influential 0% 1
30
No
Don't
Kno
w . No
Don't
Know
Very
influential 0% 1
31
No
Don't
Kno
w . Yes Yes
Very
influential 0% 1
32 No No .
Don't
Know
Don't
Know
Somewhat
influential 0% 1
33 No No .
Don't
Know
Don't
Know
Very
influential 0% 3
34 No No .
Don't
Know No
Somewhat
influential 0% 1
35 No No .
Don't
Know No
Very
influential 0% 1
36 No No .
Don't
Know Yes
Very
influential 0% 2
37 No No . No
Don't
Know
Very
influential 0% 2
38 No No . No No
Somewhat
influential 0% 1
39 No No . No No
Very
influential 0% 3
40 No No . No Yes
Very
influential 0% 5
Appendix: NTG Algorithm
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 63
Re
sp
on
se
Co
mb
ina
tio
n
Alr
ea
dy
pu
rch
ase
d
Pla
nn
ing
to
pu
rch
ase
Sa
me
ma
ke
/ m
od
el
Sa
me
eff
icie
ncy
Sa
me
tim
e
Re
ba
te
Infl
ue
nti
al
Fre
e R
ide
rsh
ip
Sco
re
Re
sp
on
se
Fre
qu
en
cy
41 No No . Yes
Don't
Know
Somewhat
influential 0% 2
42 No No . Yes
Don't
Know
Very
influential 0% 1
43 No No . Yes Yes
Somewhat
influential 0% 1
44 No No . Yes Yes
Very
influential 0% 2
45 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived
Don't
Know
Don't
Know
Somewhat
influential 0% 2
46 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived
Don't
Know
Don't
Know
Very
influential 0% 5
47 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived
Don't
Know No
Somewhat
influential 0% 7
48 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived
Don't
Know No
Very
influential 0% 6
49 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived No
Don't
Know
Not very
influential 0% 1
50 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived No
Don't
Know
Very
influential 0% 1
51 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived No No
Not at all
influential 0% 1
52 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived No No
Very
influential 0% 4
53 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived No Yes
Somewhat
influential 0% 1
54 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived No Yes
Very
influential 0% 4
55 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived Yes Yes
Somewhat
influential 0% 2
56 No Yes
No, determined
once I arrived Yes Yes
Very
influential 0% 2
57
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected No No
Somewhat
influential 0% 1
58
No Yes
Yes, same make
and model already
selected No No
Very
influential 0% 1
Only 16 respondents (8.4% of total) had already purchased the measure before hearing about an
AC rebate; these were all asked a confirmation question to ensure they answered correctly; and are
being scored as 100% free riders. Another four respondents indicated that, while they learned
about the rebate before they purchased, they would have bought the same model at the same time
and the rebate had very little influence on their decision. Other respondents indicated varying
Appendix: NTG Algorithm
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 64
degrees of free ridership through different combinations of responses to the six questions.
Figure 13 shows a distribution of the efficient products survey respondents by the free ridership
score assigned to each. Only 11.1% of residential efficient products survey respondents were 100%
free riders. Another 13.2% were 75% free riders. Moderate levels of free ridership (12.5% to 50%)
were observed for .6% of respondents, while 35.3% had a score of zero.
Figure 13. Distribution of Residential Appliance Free Ridership Scores
Spillover Survey Questions
As noted, the spillover questions sought to determine whether program participants had installed
any other energy-saving measures since participating in the program. Savings that participants
received from additional measures would be considered spillover savings only if they rated their
participation in the REEP program as “Very Important” in their decision to purchase additional
measures, and only if they did not receive rebates or incentives for those measures.
We specifically asked survey respondents whether they had installed the following types of
measures:
Energy-efficient appliances
Efficient HVAC equipment
Windows or insulation
CFLS or LEDs
Recycled a refrigerator or freezer
Low flow showerheads or faucet aerators
Performed a home audit
Purchased and programmed a programmable thermostat
35.3%
13.2%
21.1%
6.3%
13.2% 11.1%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
0 12.50% 25% 50% 75% 100%
Pe
rce
nt
of
Re
spo
nd
en
ts
Free Ridership Score
Appendix: NTG Algorithm
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 65
Installed insulation
Installed solar panels
Other items as specified
Table 20 shows the spillover measures identified by survey participants meeting the criteria of not
already receiving an incentive and responding that their participation in the program was “very
important” in the decision to purchase. The table reports unit savings estimates, total savings, and
percentage spillover. Although we already screened out customers who indicated they received
incentive from AIC for the installed measure, the evaluation team decided that CFLs were likely to
have been discounted through the program (since the program is widespread and customers may
not be aware of the discount when they purchase).To be conservative, we did not include CFL
spillover in the total. We also did not count spillover for ENERGY STAR dishwashers, since almost
all dishwashers made currently receive ENERGY STAR designation.
Table 20. Spillover Measures
Product
High
Importance Elec
Savings
(kWh)
per unit
Gas
Savings
(therms)
per unit
Total
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Total
Gas
Savings
%
Electric
Spillover
% Gas
Spillover
Quantity
CFL 127 0 n/a 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
LED Bulb 42 46 n/a 1932 0 2.9% 0.0%
ES Refrigerator 5 141 n/a 705 0 1.1% 0.0%
ES Freezer 1 49 n/a 49 0 0.1% 0.0%
ES Clothes
Washer 7 434 n/a 3038 0 4.6% 0.0%
ES Dishwasher 4 0 n/a 0 0 0.0% 0.0%
ES Room AC 2 104 n/a 208 0 0.3% 0.0%
Programmable
thermostat 1 0 67 0 36 0.0% 2.3%
ENERGY STAR
Furnace 1 0 146 0 146 0.0% 9.5%
Installed
insulation (sqft) 1,600 0 0 0 144 0.0% 9.4%
Total Spillover n/a n/a n/a 5932 357 9% 21%
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 66
C. APPENDIX: REEP IMPLEMENTATION MODEL
The evaluation team created an implementation model for the Residential Efficient Products
Program (REEP) that was evaluated in PY4. An implementation model is a graphic presentation of
the intervention—what occurs and who undertakes the functional activities of the program.
The model, created in a multi-level Visio format, displays various functions in rows, with the key
stakeholders and processes in the columns. We determined these functions, stakeholders, and
processes by reviewing the available program documentation, which we further refined in
interviews with program staff. This model does not attempt to assess the effects of the program.
The model is organized by function and the stakeholders involved.
Functions represent the discrete purposes established by the program. They include
program design, marketing, customer education, service delivery and QA/QC, and
evaluation. “Service delivery” encompasses activities that are directed toward intervention
recipients and, as shown in this model, is a catch-all for any activity that does not fit in
another function.
Stakeholders are the various providers who are involved in program delivery or those who
receive program services. Stakeholders include the customer, retailers and other trade
allies, AIC, CSG, APT, and EFI.
We also identified several key points within each of the program functions.
Program Administration and Design: AIC personnel and implementation staff from CSG
work together to establish program goals, budgets, and marketing plans. APT also provides
assistance in establishing the incentive structure and program budgets.
Marketing and Outreach: APT prepares and implements marketing through POP displays
and store promotions.
Education: APT trains retailers on product and program details. Retailers and APT staff
conduct education events for customers to inform them about the program, the efficient
products offered, and their benefits.
Service Delivery (Customer Facing Activities): Retailers stock products and display POP
advertising.
Service Delivery (Rebates and Incentives): Customers submit rebates to AIC through EFI,
which in turn processes the application and sends payment to customers. CSG and AIC staff
review applications for non-compliance.
Service Delivery (QA/QC and Reporting): EFI tracks rebate form data, loading it into a
database that is incorporated into CSG’s overall program database. CSG and AIC review this
data to identify where to make changes to the program’s design and implementation. APT
and EFI submit invoices to CSG for payment and CSG submits invoices to AIC for work
completed and rebates disbursed. CSG pays APT and EFI as subcontractors.
Appendix: REEP Implementation Model
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 67
The REEP Implementation model and key follow.
Appendix: REEP Implementation Model
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 68
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 69
D. APPENDIX: PRODUCT PRICE AND
PURCHASING TRENDS FROM PROGRAM
TRACKING DATABASE
The evaluation team analyzed product-specific data included in the tracking database to provide
insight into actual prices paid by customers, the most popular retail outlets, and the most popular
brands chosen. For each product, the study examined the range, average, median, and standard
deviation of purchase prices, as shown in Table 21. All products experienced significant price
variation.
Table 21. Product Price Statistics
Category Average
Price
Median
Price
Max
Price
Min
Price
Standard
Deviation
Thermostat $44 $34 $700 $10 $37
Heat Pump Water
Heater $1,101 $1,000 $1,940 $115 $278
Gas Water Heater $699 $704 $1,505 $189 $141
Air Purifier $142 $145 $598 $14 $59
Dehumidifier $188 $184 $448 $98 $45
Room Air Conditioner $259 $236 $1,540 $98 $115
Smart Power Strip $43 $34 $400 $8 $32
Figure 14 through Figure 20 show price distributions for each product category. As shown in Figure
14, most thermostats fell within the $20 to $60 price range.
Figure 14. Thermostat Price Distribution
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
below$20
$20 upto $40
$40 upto $60
$60 upto $80
$80 upto $100
$100 upto $120
$120+
Fre
qu
en
cy
Electric
Gas
Appendix: Product Price and Purchasing Trends From Program Tracking Database
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 70
Gas water heaters most likely were priced between $500 and $700.
Figure 15. Gas Water Heater Price Distributions
Heat pump water heaters most likely were priced between $750 and $1,500.
Figure 16. Heat Pump Water Heater Price Distributions
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Below$300
$300 upto $500
$500 upto $700
$700 upto $900
$900 upto $1100
$1100+
Fre
qu
en
cy
0.70 WH
0.67 WH
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
below$250
$250 upto $500
$500 upto $750
$750 upto $1000
$1000up to$1250
$1250up to$1500
$1500up to$1750
$1750+
Fre
qu
en
cy
Appendix: Product Price and Purchasing Trends From Program Tracking Database
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 71
Air purifiers most likely were priced between $50 and $150.
Figure 17. Air Purifier Price Distributions
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
below$50
$50 upto $100
$100up to$150
$150up to$200
$200up to$250
$250up to$300
$300up to$350
$350up to$400
$400+
Fre
qu
en
cy
Appendix: Product Price and Purchasing Trends From Program Tracking Database
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 72
Dehumidifiers most likely were priced between $125 and $225.
Figure 18. Dehumidifier Price Distributions
Room air conditioners typically were priced between $100 and $300.
Figure 19. Room Air Conditioner Price Distributions
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
below$100
$125 upto $150
$150 upto $175
$175 upto $200
$200 upto $225
$225 upto $250
$250 upto $275
$275 upto $300
$350+
Fre
qu
en
cy
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
below$100
$100 upto $200
$200 upto $300
$300 upto $400
$400 upto $500
$500 upto $600
$600+
Fre
qu
en
cy
Appendix: Product Price and Purchasing Trends From Program Tracking Database
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 73
Smart power strips typically were priced between $20 and $60.
Figure 20. Smart Power Strip Price Distributions
Table 22 and Table 23 show top-selling brands and retailers (by unit volume).
Table 22. Top-Selling Brands by Product Category
Product Category Brand 1 Brand 2 Brand 3
Thermostat Honeywell Hunter LUX Products
Heat Pump Water Heater GE Richmond Rheem
Gas Water Heater Richmond Whirlpool GE and Powerflex (Tie)
Air Purifier KAZ INC Hunter Air Envion LLC
Dehumidifier Electrolux and Gree Electric (Tie) GE
Room Air Conditioner Frigidaire GE Soleusair
Smart Power Strip Monster Philips Woods
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
below$20
$20 up to$40
$40 up to$60
$60 up to$80
$80 up to$100
$100 upto $120
$120+
Fre
qu
en
cy
Appendix: Product Price and Purchasing Trends From Program Tracking Database
AIC PY4 Efficienct Products Program Final Report
Page 74
Table 23. Top Retailers by Product Category
Product Category Retailer 1 Retailer 2 Retailer 3
Thermostat Menards Lowe's Wal-Mart
Heat Pump Water Heater Lowe's Sears Menards
Gas Water Heater Menards Lowe's Home Depot
Air Purifier Wal-Mart Lowe's Sam's Club
Dehumidifier Menards Lowe's Home Depot
Room Air Conditioner Menards Lowe's Wal-Mart
Smart Power Strip Wal-Mart Best Buy Menards
Figure 21 shows the number of rebates, for each month through PY4. As expected, this figure
indicates strong seasonal influences on purchases of room air conditioners and thermostats.
Figure 21. Number of Rebates Processed by Product Category and Month
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Re
bat
es
Room AC
Smart Strip
Dehumidifier
Air Purifier
Water Heater
Thermostat