eea annual reportx(1)s(s5ibn0ff5eln2o55oizkej55))/eeinfo... · increased staffing –to increase...
TRANSCRIPT
EEA Annual Report
April 1
2013
Arkansas Energy Office
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
1
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………. 2
2.0 Portfolio Impact ………………………………………………………………………... 7
3.0 Portfolio Programs ……………………………………………………………………... 8
3.1 Residential Education and Information Outreach ………………………………… 9
3.2 Media Promotion …………………………………………………………………. 12
3.3 Commercial and Industrial Education and Information Outreach ……………….. 13
3.4 EEA Program Evaluation ………………………………………………………… 17
4.0 Supplemental Requirements ………………………………………………………….. 19
4.1 Training …………………………………………………………………………… 19
4.2 Lost Contribution to Fixed Cost ………………………………………………….. 21
4.3 Unity Performance Incentives ……………………………………………………. 21
4.4 Challenges & Opportunities……………………………………………………… 21
4.5 Market Maturity ………………………………………………………………….. 21
4.6 Staffing …………………………………………………………………………… 21
4.7 Stakeholder Activities ……………………………………………………………. 21
4.8 Estimation of EE Resource Potential ……………………………………………. 21
4.9 Information Provided to Consumers to Promotion EE ………………………….. 21
Appendix ………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
5.0 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
6.0 Appendix B: EM&V Contractor Report
7.0 Appendix C: Arkansas Industrial Energy Clearinghouse Report
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
2
BEFORE THE
ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Energy Efficiency Arkansas
2013 Annual Report
1.0 Executive Summary
The Energy Efficiency Arkansas (“EEA”) 2013 report for the EEA Arkansas program is provided
by the Arkansas Economic Development Commission-Energy Office (“AEO”) on behalf of the Arkansas
Oklahoma Gas Corporation, Arkansas Western Gas Company, CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.,
d/b/a CenterPoint Energy Arkansas Gas, The Empire District Electric Company, Entergy Arkansas, Inc.,
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, and Southwestern Electric Power Company (“EEA Utilities” and,
together with the AEO, the “Parties”) for the statewide education program approved in Order No. 7 of
Docket No. 07-083-TF. Although not required by the Arkansas Public Service Commission (“APSC” or
“Commission”) to participate in the First Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”), the Arkansas
Electric Cooperatives Corporation (“AECC”) agreed to voluntarily contribute their pro-rata share for
expenses contained in the First MOU.
This EEA 2013 Annual Report covers the recommendations filed in the Third Amended MOU
approved by the Commission on December 31, 2012. The report covers the activities for the EEA
Comprehensive program that commenced on January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013. The EEA
2013 report discusses the EEA Working Group Activities and the four EEA Program Components.
The EEA Comprehensive Program consists of four primary components: Education and
Information Outreach (Residential), Media Promotion, Commercial and Industrial Education and
Information Outreach, and Program Evaluation. The following is an overview of many of the EEA
activities for each of the four components:
I. The EEA’s Education and Information Outreach (Residential) Program was
supported by additional staffing during the second half of 2013. The AEO employed
an EEA Facilitator to focus on the marketing and outreach of the residential program.
The EEA Facilitator focused on marketing the program by presenting to diverse
groups of customers, staffing outreach opportunities, and promoting trade allies
incentives and rebates. By adding the EEA Facilitator, EEA saw an increase in
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
3
grassroots activities during the last six months of 2013. The EEA outreach staff was
able to distribute a total of 36,110 fact sheets, booklets and CDs through 24
grassroots events. Through EEA’s toll-free phone number, EEA fulfilled requests for
1,901 packets of EEA’s energy efficiency materials. EEA also reprinted 15,000
copies of “Home Energy Project” or HEP booklets. The reprint of HEP booklet was
requested by code enforcement officials, energy professionals and weatherization
staff.
II. The purpose of the EEA media promotion is to make consumers aware of energy
saving opportunities, motivate individuals to reduce energy consumption, provide
information on specific cost-effective energy efficiency measures, and inform the
public how and where to get additional energy information with the ultimate goal of
changing individual or collective behavior. Due to the limited budget resources for
mass media, EEA did not contract any television or radio advertisement for this
program year. Instead, EEA utilized talk show appearances and print advertisements
to reach Arkansas residents. The following publications were used to educate various
communities about EEA: The Stand, News, Energizing Arkansas, Ink Magazine,
Arkansas Living, SEA Life, ARGreen Living Guide, Perspectives, El Latino, Hola
Arkansas, Amigo News, and La Prensa. EEA hosted summer (June 24th-28
th) and
winter (October 28th-November 1
st) “Tighten-Up Week” campaigns to increase
interest in home energy efficiency. In addition, the Director of AEO appeared on
morning radio and television talk shows to emphasize the benefits of energy
efficiency practices and promote utilities’ rebates and incentives.
III. Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Education and Information Outreach is
designed to provide training to school districts, state agencies and large commercial
and industrial sectors. The EEA Commercial and Industrial Education program
trained a total of 220 participants in topics such as Commercial HVAC, Industrial
Compressed Air Systems, Pumping System Optimization, Boiler Operations and
Safety, and Refrigeration Energy Management. The EEA utilities have participated
in commercial training by enrolling and sending utility staff and/or utility contractors.
Many of the utilities have promoted their rebates and incentives during the
commercial and industrial trainings.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
4
Another component of the C&I outreach is the Arkansas Industrial Energy
Clearinghouse (“AIEC”); the primary function of the AIEC is to support and promote
energy efficiency within Arkansas’s industrial and manufacturing sector. The AIEC
serves as a technical resource for Arkansas’s diverse industrial and manufacturing
sectors as well. During program year 2013, the AIEC provided technical information
to over 494 customers and utilities and performed 56 site visits which resulted in
energy efficiency recommendations to those manufacturers (see AIEC report
Appendix C).
IV. During March 2013, the Arkansas Energy Office (AEO) contracted with Cadmus to
perform a process evaluation of the 2012 EEA program, and to make
recommendations for improvement. Cadmus worked with AEO and the Independent
Evaluation Monitor (IEM) staff to identify four areas for the evaluation. The four
areas identified were: 1) program design, 2) program performance and
implementation, 3) market effects and 4) data and information tracking. Based on the
evaluation process, the following are some of the recommendations: 1) Improve
communication and coordination between the various stakeholders, 2) C&I increase
technical knowledge and awareness of energy efficiency among participants, 3)
improve program integration with the utilities, and 4) Improve data collection and
tracking to get better information about market effects, track performance, and
conform to evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) Protocols in the
Arkansas Technical Reference Manual (TRM). Cadmus finalized the EEA evaluation
report (Appendix B) on December 31st, 2013. EEA will work to address all findings
and recommendations made by the evaluator.
Highlights
Increased Staffing –to increase grassroots marketing efforts, EEA added an EEA
Facilitator to reach the underserved and hard-to-reach segments of Arkansas’s
population.
The AIEC-EEA added the AIEC to its programs to provide technical assistance to
industrial and commercial customers. The AIEC conducted over 56 site visits to 28
manufacturers during 2013, which resulted in energy efficiency recommendations.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
5
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) grant award-EEA was instrumental in
obtaining the five hundred thousand dollar ($500,000) grant from SEEA.
EEA Monthly Bulletin-EEA began publishing a monthly bulletin to inform
stakeholders, contractors and participants of upcoming events, meetings, trainings and
other energy related activities.
Program Evaluation-EEA awarded the Program Evaluation contract to the Cadmus
Group. The program evaluation report was completed on December 31, 2013 (see
Appendix B)
Arkansas Industrial Energy Efficiency Finance Forum (AIEEFF)-EEA was a major
contributor to this forum which had over 150 commercial and industrial customers
seeking information on how to finance energy efficiency projects.
What’s working or what needs improvement?
What is Working:
AIEC recommendations of energy and cost-savings opportunities to Arkansas’s industrial
and manufacturing sectors. AIEC site visits to Arkansas industrial and manufacturing
customers increased to 56 which is a 22 visit increase over last year’s levels.
Recommendations made by the AIEC could result in annual cost savings of $1.2 million.
What needs Improvement:
C&I trainings saw a decrease by 124 participants, or 36 percent below 2012 training
levels. The decrease was due to retirements of two of the training coordinators that
facilitated the C & I Trainings. Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions assigned duties from
the training coordinator to their marketing representative. Also the Federal Government
shutdown in 2013 had an adverse effect on C&I trainings because it caused three (3) of
the trainings to be cancelled due to the fact that Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions is
primarily supported by federal government funds. EEA has addressed the low training
attendance concerns with the marketing representative and developed a plan of action to
address the decreased attendance issue.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
6
Utilities Participation
The utilities or their contractors have participated in all of the EEA trainings by having account
representatives attend the training and/or by providing rebates and incentives information. The utilities
also provided major support with staff and energy incentives information for trade shows, presentations,
fairs and other events.
Budget ActualElectric Utilities Target Sector Program Type ($) ($)
Entergy Res/C&I Behavior/Education 224,639 408,086 182%
SWEPCO Res/C&I Behavior/Education 34,147 62,033 182%
OG&E Res/C&I Behavior/Education 18,319 33,279 182%
Empire Res/C&I Behavior/Education 1,263 2,294 182%
Regulatory - - -
Total 278,368 505,692 182%
2013% of
RBudget
EE Portfolio Summary by Electric Utility
EE Program Cost Summary
% of Budget Actual % of
Cost Type Total ($) ($) Total
Planning / Design 0% - - 0%
Marketing & Delivery 100% 278,368 505,692 100%
Incentives / Direct Install Costs 0% - - 0%
EM&V 0% - - 0%
Administration 0% - - 0%
Regulatory 0% - - 0%
100% 278,368 505,692 100%
EE Portfolio Summary by Cost Type - Electric2013 Total Cost
Budget ActualNatural Gas Utilities Target Sector Program Type ($) ($)
CenterPoint Res/C&I Behavior/Education 106,304 193,116 182%
SourceGas Res/C&I Behavior/Education 38,773 70,436 182%
AOG Res/C&I Behavior/Education 11,760 21,363 182%
Regulatory - - -
EE Portfolio Summary by Natural Gas Utility2013
% of
RBudget
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
7
2.0 Portfolio Impact
The purpose of the EEA Program is to cost-effectively deliver relevant, consistent, and fuel
neutral information and training that causes people to consume less energy through energy efficiency and
conservation measures.
Below is the program cost by each utility which includes the budgeted and actual dollars for each
report year.
Electric Utilities:
EE Program Cost Summary
% of Budget Actual % of
Cost Type Total ($) ($) Total
Planning / Design 0% - - 0%
Marketing & Delivery 100% 156,837 284,915 100%
Incentives / Direct Install Costs 0% - - 0%
EM&V 0% - - 0%
Administration 0% - - 0%
Regulatory 0% - - 0%
100% 156,837 284,915 100%
EE Portfolio Summary by Cost Type - Natural Gas2013 Total Cost
Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Acutal %
Program Year 2011 297,988$ 190,489$ 64% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2012 317,952$ 268,137$ 84% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2013 224,639$ 408,086$ 182% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Entergy Portfolio Impact 07-083-TFCost Energy Savings (kWh) ParticipantsDemand Savings (kW)
Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Acutal %
Program Year 2011 45,912$ 29,353$ 64% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2012 48,332$ 40,760$ 84% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2013 34,147$ 62,033$ 182% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Swepco Portfolio Impact 07-083-TFCost Energy Savings (kWh) ParticipantsDemand Savings (kW)
Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Acutal %
Program Year 2011 24,211$ 15,458$ 64% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2012 25,929$ 21,867$ 84% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2013 18,319$ 33,279$ 182% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
OG&E Portfolio Impact 07-083-TFCost Energy Savings (kWh) ParticipantsDemand Savings (kW)
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
8
Gas Utilities:
3.0 Portfolio Programs
The EEA Comprehensive Program consists of four primary program components which are:
Residential Education and Information Outreach
Media Promotion
Commercial and Industrial Education and Information Outreach
EEA Program Evaluation
Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Acutal %
Program Year 2011 1,696$ 1,086$ 64% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2012 1,787$ 1,507$ 84% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2013 1,263$ 2,294$ 182% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Empire Portfolio Impact 07-083-TFCost Energy Savings (kWh) ParticipantsDemand Savings (kW)
Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Acutal %
Program Year 2011 133,181$ 85,106$ 64% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2012 150,462$ 126,889$ 84% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2013 106,304$ 193,116$ 182% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
CenterPoint Portfolio Impact 07-083-TFCost Energy Savings (Therms) ParticipantsDemand Savings (Therms)
Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Acutal %
Program Year 2011 48,971$ 31,307$ 64% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2012 54,879$ 46,281$ 84% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2013 38,773$ 70,436$ 182% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
SourceGas Portfolio Impact 07-083-TFCost Energy Savings (Therms) ParticipantsDemand Savings (Therms)
Program Budget Actual % Plan Evaluated % Plan Evaluated % Plan Acutal %
Program Year 2011 14,876$ 9,509$ 64% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2012 16,645$ 14,037$ 84% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
Program Year 2013 11,760$ 21,363$ 182% 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 -
AOG Portfolio Impact 07-083-TFCost Energy Savings (Therms) ParticipantsDemand Savings (Therms)
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
9
The following is a brief summary of the activities and progress of EEA:
3.1 RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION AND INFORMATION OUTREACH
The Residential Education and Information Outreach of the EEA Comprehensive Program is
comprised of the following four activities: (A) updating and reproducing fact sheets; (B) reproducing and
co-branding publications; (C) distribution of information via requests and outreach; and (D) Residential
Energy Codes Training/Energy Star Homes Seminar
a. Updating and reproducing fact sheets
The EEA updated the five fact sheets (Heating, Cooling, Water Heating, Locating and Sealing
Air Leaks, and Lighting and Appliances). Each fact sheet provides customers with an explanation of low-
cost/no-cost actions that they can take within key topic areas and the resulting benefits.
2014 Outlook: EEA will update and reprint 30,000 copies of each fact sheet.
b. Reproducing and Co-branding Publications
The EEA has converted The Home Energy Project (HEP) booklets and the Five Fact Sheets to a
CD for general distribution to customers. EEA reproduced 10,000 CDs for general distribution. The CD
has information regarding utilities incentives such as rebates, energy efficiency products and tips. EEA
also reprinted 10,000 copies of “30 Simple Things You Can Do To Save Energy and Money” booklets.
2013 Activities: EEA updated and reprinted 15,000 copies of the HEP booklet.
2014 Outlook: The HEP booklet and the 30 Simple Things booklet are two of the most requested
energy savings publications that EEA distributes. EEA will update and reprint 15,000 copies of “30
Simple Things You Can Do To Save Energy and Money” for 2014.
c. Responding to Requests for Distribution of Information
EEA hired an EEA facilitator to distribute outreach information to Arkansas consumers. Most
Arkansans obtained EEA material by phone (1-888-524-4567 toll-free) or grassroots events (fairs,
tradeshows, and conferences).
EEA distributed a total of 38,011 items of EEA material. The EEA outreach staff was able to
distribute a total of 36,110 fact sheets and CDs during 24 grassroots events (see events table page 10).
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
10
EEA’s staff and the utilities were able to participate in the 2013 Arkansas State Fair and several other
events. EEA distributed a total of 1,901 fact sheets, CDs, and other energy saving information through the
toll-free EEA phone number. Also, the utilities distributed energy efficiency incentive and rebate
information at trade shows and other grassroots events.
2013 Activities: EEA participated in 24 events during program year 2013.
2014 Outlook: EEA has added a program facilitator which will enhance the grassroots outreach
and visibility of the program. EEA plans to participate in 35 events with high visibility.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
11
d. ENERGY STAR Homes-Builder Seminars
EEA sponsored no Energy Star Homes Seminars in 2013. AEO will contract Centers of
Excellence to administer Energy Star Training for 2014.
2013 EventsEXTERNAL Events EEA information was distributed
Event No. Date Event and Location Sponsor
1 4/1/2013 Assurance Classes-Pine Bluff Pine Bluff CAP Agency
2 4/10/2013 ABA Earth Day -Little Rock Arkansas Building Assoc.
3 4/22-26/2013 DHS Green Week-Little Rock Dept. of Human Services
4 4/23/2013 UAMS Earth Day-Little Rock UAMS
5 4/24/2013 Interfaith Power and Light Event Interfaith Power and Light
6 5/4/2013 Cinco De Mayo-College Station Hola-Arkansas
7 6/12-13/2013 Summer Energy Academy -Fayetteville University of Arkansas
8 6/19-21/2013 Arkansas Municipal League Conference Arkansas Municipal League
9 6/26-29/2013 Arkansas County Judges Meeting-Hot Springs Judges Assoc.
10 6/28/2013 Delta Green Community Forum-Forrest City Delta Citizens Alliance
11 6/30/2013 Arkansas Industrial Energy Efficiency Forum-
Little Rock
Arkansas Energy Office
12 9/18-19/2013 Arkansas Hospitality Association-Little Rock Arkansas Hospitality Association
13 9/19/2013 Hola Arkansas Expo-Little Rock Hola-Arkansas
14 9/21/2013 Sherwood Fest-Sherwood City of Sherwood
15 9/27/2013 State Employee Benefit Fair-Little Rock State Employees Human Resources
16 10/1/2013 Arkansas School Plant Management Assoc.-Hot
Springs
Arkansas School Plant Management
Assoc
17 10/11-20/2013 Arkansas State Fair-Little Rock Arkansas Livestock Association
18 10/15-17/2013 Sustainable Communities Leadership Summit-
North Little Rock
University of Arkansas
19 10/25-26/2013 Lake Chicot Fall Festival-Lake Village City of Lake Village
20 10/28-30/2013 2013 Arkansas Weatherization Training
Conference- Little Rock
WAP
21 11/5/2013 Interdepartmental Relations Committee-Annual
Conference for Professional Assistants-Little
Rock
Arkansas Professional Assistant
Association
22 11/6/2013 Youth Home, Inc. Health and Wellness-Little
Rock
Youth Home, Inc.
23 11/9/2013 Engineers Make a World-Mountain Homes Donald W. Reynolds Library
24 11/9/2013 Asian Festival Asian Pacific Resource and Cultural
Center
Distribution of EEA Fact Sheets, CD's, HEP's and 30 Simple Things Bookets
1/1/2013-12/31/2013
Name of Material Distributed
Inventory
As of
12/31/2012 Callin 1-800
Grassroots
Outreach
Total
Distributed
by Item
Inventory As
of 12/31/2013
Heating Fact Sheets 16,637 82 1,555 1,637 15,000
Cooling Fact Sheets 16,502 75 1,427 1,502 15,000
Water Heating Fact Sheets 16,502 525 9,977 10,502 6,000
Lighting and Appliances Fact Sheets 16,502 225 4,277 4,502 12,000
Locating and Sealing Air Leaks Fact Sheets 16,502 425 8,077 8,502 8,000
EEA CD's 4,725 81 1,533 1,614 3,111
* Home Energy Project Booklet (HEP) 0 127 2,408 2,535 12,465
30 Simple Thing Booklet 8,477 361 6,856 7,217 1,260
Total 95,847 1,901 36,110 38,011 72,836
* Reprinted Home Project Booklet 15,000 in 2013
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
12
e. Residential Energy Codes Training and Outreach
EEA sponsored no residential energy codes training in 2013. AEO will revise the training for
program year 2014 to address the updated energy codes.
f. Centers of Excellence
AEO contracted Northwest Arkansas Community College (“NWACC”) and Pulaski Technical
College (“PTC”) as two Building Training Centers to form the Centers of Excellence (“CoE”). The CoE
developed an impressive training infrastructure with ARRA funds. During 2013, EEA contracted with
the CoEs to continue Building Performance Institute Certification Training, Residential Energy Systems
Network Certification Training, Energy Star and Air-Conditioning Contractors of America Training. The
2013 budget amount was $187,460 for a one year contract term.
3.2 MEDIA PROMOTION
The EEA combined radio, television, and printing into one mass media category with a single
consolidated budget. Consolidating media costs into a single budget category allowed the media
contractor to better capitalize on media block buys at a cheaper price and enabled the marketing firms to
allocate media dollars where the benefits to the program were maximized.
The mass media budget was $350,000 which covered print ads, TV and radio spots during the
program term June, 2010 through December, 2013. The media budget for 2013 was $100,000 budgeted.
a. Maintain a Fuel Neutral EEA Website.
The website offers fuel neutral information on energy efficiency measures, practices, resources,
and technologies for all customer classes. The website has direct links to the utility partners’ websites as
well as AEO publications, EEA media advisories, upcoming events, etc.
The EEA website was updated and refreshed to run through December 2013. Over the life of this
campaign, website traffic has been consistent with more than 2,000 unique visitors to the site during paid
media flights. The most visited page after the homepage was the “Tighten Up” Challenge, an interactive
game used to educate consumers on areas of their home where a few changes can mean great cost
savings. Because of the interest and engagement with this interactive game, the average visitor stayed on
the site for more than three minutes - almost double that of most websites.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
13
3.3 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
OUTREACH
Below is a description of the Commercial and Industrial training opportunities and associated
budget:
Energy Efficiency in Industry Workshops
The AEO, through the EEA, contracted with Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions
to develop and implement an information outreach program comprised of two activities:
1. Energy 101 focuses on topics that are current and relevant and present timely
opportunities for energy and demand savings
2. Energy management Seminars. These seminars focus on energy efficient
technologies and best practices.
2013 Activities: AMS conducted a Refrigeration Energy Management class; two
Establishing Energy and Next Steps for Building Manufacturing Plants; two Lighting and
Energy Efficiency workshops; two Energy Efficiency 101 classes; and two Boiler/Steam
System Efficiency. Overall, a total of 132 participants attended the trainings.
2014 Outlook: EEA will sponsor six Industrial Energy Efficiency workshops for 2014.
Energy Audits for Commercial/Industrial Training
The commercial audit encompasses the total building. The industrial audit
focuses on efficiency improvements in the production process, but also includes a
building envelope assessment. The benefits of the commercial and industrial audit
training are below:
Analyze building envelope-roofs; walls between conditioned spaces;
construction joints and connections; and door and window frames and seals.
Analyze HVAC systems ductwork, fans and blowers, and electrical
connections
Analyze motors and generators
Analyze lighting
Energy behavior
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
14
The C/I audit gathers energy data and reviews previous utility bills from the
previous year to find areas of the facility that may be using the most energy. Also the
audit reviews the current rate structure, demand and consumption figures, and other fees
for natural gas, electric, and other fuel. Completion of this training prepares energy
auditors, other energy professionals and participants to take the AEE’s certification test
for Certified Energy Auditor (“CEA”).
2013 Activities: No EEA sponsored CEA seminar 2013.
2014 Outlook: EEA will sponsor one CEA seminar during 2014.
Industrial Compressed Air Systems Training
In many industrial facilities, air compressors use more electricity than any other
type of equipment. The impact of inefficiencies in compressed air systems can therefore
be significant. A properly managed compressed air system can save energy, reduce
maintenance, decrease downtime, increase production output, and improve product
quality.
2013 Activities: EEA sponsored three Industrial Compressed Air Systems trainings; a
total of 34 participants attended the trainings.
2014 Outlook: EEA will sponsor one Industrial Compressed Air Systems training for
2014.
Certified Energy Management (“C.E.M.”) – Program for Professional Certification
Certified energy mangers can assist school districts, hospitals, large commercial
facilities, and industries identify unnecessary energy waste. Offering energy based
education to large commercial and industrial facility and plant management personnel
(with the added benefit of and opportunity for professional certification) increases the
likelihood that real savings will be achieved. Additionally, an increased number of
professionals in the energy trades workforce in Arkansas can enhance the state’s potential
for future utility and state incentives for energy improvements that are dependent on
certified professionals.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
15
2013 Activities: EEA sponsored two CEM seminars; a total of 27 participants attended
the trainings. Of the 27 participants, 20 students passed the CEM examination.
2014 Outlook: EEA will sponsor two CEM seminars for 2014.
Benchmarking and Performance C/I Training
The US Department of Energy (“DOE”) and the US Environmental Protection
Agency (“EPA”) have developed a nationally recognized and accepted benchmarking
tool: ENERGY STAR® Portfolio Manager (“ESPM”). ESPM is an interactive energy
management tool that allows businesses and industries to track and assess energy and
water consumption across an entire portfolio of buildings in a secure online environment.
2013 Activities: EEA did not sponsor Benchmarking seminar in 2013
2014 Outlook: EEA will sponsor one Benchmarking seminar for 2014.
Pumping System Optimization
The one day workshop covers practical issues involved in field measurements
and electrical data. It offers an introduction to the Pumping System Assessment Tool
(“PSAT”) software which is used to assess the performance of the pump systems.
Participants learn how the software functions, what data is required, how to use the
software when measured data are not available, and what the assessment results mean.
2013 Activities: EEA sponsored one Pumping System Optimization workshop; a total of
11 participants attended the workshop.
2014 Outlook: EEA will sponsor one Pumping System Optimization workshop for
2014.
Motor Systems Management Training
This training helps the end-users gain skills necessary to effectively manage
electric motor systems; the knowledge results in reduced energy costs and increased
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
16
system reliability. In addition, the workshop provides an overview of DOE’s
MotorMaster+ and MotorMaster+ International software.
2013 Activities: No Motor System Management trainings were conducted in 2013.
2014 Outlook: EEA will sponsor Motor Systems Management training for 2014.
Boiler Operation and Maintenance Training
The AEO contracted with Applied Thermal Engineering Inc. to conduct several
three-day EEA boiler training workshops. The workshops were designed to provide in-
depth training on safe and energy-efficient boiler operation including maintenance,
inspections, and codes and troubleshooting. At the conclusion of the training, the
students were presented with a certificate of completion and credited with 2.4 Continuing
Education Units.
2013 Activities: EEA sponsored two Boiler Operator workshops; a total of 16
participants attended the workshop. Of the 16 participants, 10 passed the Arkansas
licensing exam for Boiler Operators.
2014 Outlook: EEA will sponsor one Boiler Operator workshop for 2014.
Name
2013
Budgeted
Workshops
2013
Completed
Workshops
2013
Attendees
2013
Budget 2013 Cost Balance
School Facility Managers Training & Webinars 6 $67,348 $67,348
Energy Efficiency in Industry Workshops 4 9 132 $63,654 $72,332 -$8,678
Commercial HVACR Load Sizing & Duct Design 2 $24,725 $24,725
Building Commissioning Workshops 1 $20,964 $20,964
Energy Audits for Commercial/Industrial Training 1 $23,000 $23,000 $0
Industrial Compressed Air Systems Training 1 3 34 $20,553 $28,332 -$7,779
C.E.M. Certification 2 2 27 $35,640 $55,640 -$20,000
Benchmarketing and Performance Training 1 $18,500 $18,500
Pumping System Optimization 1 1 11 $18,500 $11,445 $7,055
Motor Systems Management Training 1 $18,500 $18,500
Boiler Operation and Maintenance Training 1 2 16 $12,500 $16,666 -$4,166
Totals 21 17 220 $323,884 $207,415 $116,469
Comprehensive Program C/I Training
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
17
Arkansas Industrial Energy Clearinghouse
The AIEC is a joint project of the University of Arkansas and AEO. The primary function
of the AIEC is to support and promote energy efficiency developments in Arkansas
manufacturing plants. The AIEC has a full-time engineering staff and part-time students available
to respond to inquiries from industry, at no cost to the participants.
The AIEC has been in existence for two years, has experienced staff, and is well known
and trusted within the state. Energy savings recommendations for companies located across the
entire state have covered a wide spectrum of energy systems, including compressed air, lighting,
process heat, steam/condensation, waste heat recovery, fans, pumps, and more.
AIEC has served 58 different companies in the state of Arkansas with energy efficiency
recommendations and other support. In addition to supporting the manufacturers directly, the
AIEC indirectly supported these companies through interactions with their utility companies and
their energy efficiency programs.
2013 Activities: The Clearinghouse provided technical information to over 494 industrial
customers and utilities and performed 56 site visits which resulted in energy efficiency
recommendations to those manufacturers. Cost of AIEC for 2013 was $168,647.
2014 Outlook: EEA will continue to fund the AIEC for 2014, at a total cost of $168,647.
3.4 EEA Program Evaluation
RFP Evaluators Selection Committee, composed of seven reviewers that represented gas
utilities, electric utilities, Attorney General, APSC, AEO, ACAAA and the IEM, selected the
Cadmus Group to conduct the EEA program evaluation. The Cadmus Group completed the
program evaluation and submitted a report with several recommendations for the EEA program.
EEA will work diligently to address the findings and recommendations which were outlined in
the program evaluation report (Appendix B). Below are some of the evaluator’s
recommendations:
Involve all stakeholders (EEA, vendors, the utilities, plus others as necessary) in the
collaborative development of an annual program implementation plan for EEA.
Develop and implement a consistent and comprehensive brand and messaging strategy
to strengthen long term awareness and recognition, and ultimately support EEA’s goal
to reach and engage key audiences.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
18
Solidify partnerships and communications with utility energy-efficiency programs by
formalizing the utilities’ role in developing the training agenda and content as well as
developing the marketing strategy and plan.
Revisit program budgets to strategically prioritize expenditures that generate the
greatest impact for the program.
Develop a database, including participation data and metrics, which allows AEO to
monitor and maintain information necessary for a comprehensive evaluation and to
track performance
2013 Activities: Completed process program evaluation by Cadmus. Program Evaluation cost
for 2013-$84,828.66.
2014 Outlook: EEA will work diligently to address the finding and recommendations which was
outlined in the program evaluation report.
Benefits Cost Results-N/A
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
19
4.0 Supplemental Requirements
4.1 Training
Training
EXTERNAL TRAINING (contractors, trade allies, consumer groups, etc.)
Event
No. Start Date Class Class Description
Training
Location Sponsor
No. of
Attendees
(A)
Length of
Session
(B)
Training
Session
Man-Hours
(A x B)
Any
Certificates
Awarded?
(Y or N)
# of
Certificates
Awarded
1 March 27, 2013 Lighting & Energy
Efficiency
Workshop
The course is designed
for commercial, industrial
and institutional building
owners, managers, and
facllity engineers. The
training assesses the
lighting usage and ways
to reduce energy cost by
upgrading the building's
lighting.
Searcy EEA 20 7 140 Y 20
2 March 28, 2013 Lighting & Energy
Efficiency
Workshop
The course is designed
for commercial, industrial
and institutional building
owners, managers, and
facllity engineers. The
training assesses the
lighting usage and ways
to reduce energy cost by
upgrading the building's
lighting.
Russellville EEA 13 7 91 Y 13
3 April 18, 2013 Fundamentals of
Compressed Air
Training course designed
to teach facility
engineers, operators and
maintenance staff how to
achieve 15-25% cost
savings through more
effective production and
use of compressed air
Pine Bluff EEA 13 7 91 Y 13
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
20
Event
No. Start Date Class Class Description
Training
Location Sponsor
No. of
Attendees
(A)
Length of
Session
(B)
Training
Session
Man-Hours
(A x B)
Any
Certificates
Awarded?
(Y or N)
4 April 24-25, 2013 Pumping System
Optimization
Training identifies the
importance of energy
conservation and
highlights opportunities'
to optimize pumping
systems for energy
efficiency
Little Rock EEA 11 16 176 Y
5 May 1, 2013 Boiler and Steam
System Efficiency
The training objective is
to teach energy efficiency
techniques with proper
maintain of a steam
boiler.
Little Rock EEA 17 6 102 Y
6 May 2, 2013 Boiler and Steam
System Efficiency
The training objective is
to teach energy efficiency
techniques with proper
maintain of a steam
boiler.
Russellville EEA 11 6 66 Y
7 May 6-10, 2013 Certified Energy
Manager Training
The CEM certification
recognizes individuals
who have demonstrated
high levels of experience
competence, proficiency
and ethical fitness in the
energy management
profession
Fort Smith EEA 16 40 640 Y
8 May 22, 2013 Industrial Energy
Efficiency 101
The workshop provided
an introduction to
important energy
management steps of
assessing your current
and past enery
performance-energy data
gathering and tracking,
establishing baselines,
benchmarking, and
analyzing results that
lead to an energy action
plan.
Jonesboro EEA 24 6 144 Y
9 June 5, 2013 Establishing
Energy & Next
Steps for Building
& Manufacturing
Plants
The workshop provide
and introduction to
important energy
management steps of
assessing the current
and past energy
performance.
Fort Smith EEA 15 8 120 Y
10 October 21-23, 2013 Boiler Operation
Safety Training
The training objective is
to teach safety and
energy efficiency
techniques with proper
maintain of a steam
boiler.
Jonesboro EEA 10 20 200 Y
11 October 22, 2013 Refrigeration
Energy
Management
The training addresses
the concepts of energy
consumption in industrial
refrigeration systems
Russellville EEA 10 8 80 Y
12 November 5, 2013 Fundamentals of
Compressed Air
Training course designed
to teach facility
engineers, operators and
maintenance staff how to
achieve 15-25% cost
savings through more
effective production and
use of compressed air
Litte Rock EEA 15 7 105 Y
13 November 6-7, 2013 Advanced
Management of
Compressed Air
Systems
The workshop teaches
participates the
advantages of optimizing
their compressed air
systems -higher
productivity, energy
saving, and increase
product quality.
Little Rock EEA 6 15 90 Y
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
21
4.2 Lost Contribution to Fixed Cost-NA
4.3 Unity Performance Incentives-N/A
4.4 Challenges & Opportunities
4.5 Market Maturity
4.6 Staffing
The EEA has two full time employees-Program Coordinator and Facilitator.
4.7 Stakeholder Activities
4.8 Estimation of EE Resource Potential
4.9 Information Provided to Consumers to Promotion EE
Event
No. Start Date Class Class Description
Training
Location Sponsor
No. of
Attendees
(A)
Length of
Session
(B)
Training
Session
Man-Hours
(A x B)
Any
Certificates
Awarded?
(Y or N)
# of
Certificates
Awarded
14 November 20, 2013 Industrial Energy
Efficiency 101
The workshop provided
an introduction to
important energy
management steps of
assessing your current
and past enery
performance-energy data
gathering and tracking,
establishing baselines,
benchmarking, and
analyzing results that
lead to an energy action
plan.
Jonesboro EEA 12 6 72 Y 12
15 November 18-20, 2013 Boiler Operation
Safety Training
The training objective is
to teach safety and
energy efficiency
techniques with proper
maintain of a steam
boiler.
Fort Smith EEA 6 20 120 Y 6
16 December 11, 2013 Establishing
Energy & Next
Steps for Building
& Manufacturing
Plants
The workshop provide
and introduction to
important energy
management steps of
assessing the current
and past energy
performance.
Fort Smith EEA 10 8 80 Y 10
17 December 9-13, 2013 Certified Energy
Manager Training
The CEM certification
recognizes individuals
who have demonstrated
high levels of experience
competence, proficiency
and ethical fitness in the
energy management
profession
Little Rock EEA 11 40 440 Y 11
Totals: Events: 17 220 2,757 220
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
22
Appendixes
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
23
5.0 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms
Term Definition
ABudget (Approved Budget) This is the budget most recently approved by the Commission.
Annual Energy Savings Energy savings realized in a full year. (8,760 hours)
Benefit Cost Ratio The ratio of the total benefits of the program to the total costs over the life of
the measure discounted as appropriate.
Custom Savings Savings that are derived from custom measures where deemed savings are not
addressed in the currently approved TRM.
Deemed Savings A “book” estimate of gross energy savings (kWh) or gross energy demand
savings (kW) for a single unit of an installed energy efficiency measure that (a)
has been developed from data sources and analytical methods that are widely
considered acceptable for the measure and purpose and (b) is applicable to the
set of measures undergoing evaluation.
Demand The time rate of energy flow. Demand usually refers to electric power measured
in kW but can also refer to natural gas, usually as Btu/hr or therms/day, etc. The
level at which electricity or natural gas is delivered to users at a given point in
time.
Demand Savings Demand that did not occur due to the installation of an EE measure. (non-
coincident peak)
Energy Sales Energy sold by the utility in the calendar year.
Energy Savings Energy use that did not occur due to the installation of an EE measure.
Gross Savings The change in energy consumption and/or demand that results directly from
program-related actions taken by participants in an efficiency program,
regardless of why they participated.
kW A Kilowatt is a measure of electric demand - 1000 watts.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
24
kWh The basic unit of electric energy usage over time. One kWh is equal to one kW of
power supplied to a circuit for a period of one hour.
LCFC Energy Savings For the current Program Year, the sum of eligible net energy savings from (1)
measures installed in prior Program Years (8,760 hours) and (2) measures
installed in current Program Year as adjusted for time of installation, weather,
etc. (less than 8,760 hours). Clarification for item (1) above: The savings
reported in the current year should only reflect the current year impact of
measures installed in prior years but, should not include the savings claimed and
reported in prior years.
Lifetime The expected useful life, in years, that an installed measure will be in service and
producing savings.
Lifetime Energy Savings The sum of the energy savings through the measure's useful life.
Measures Specific technology or practice that produces energy and/or demand savings as a
result of a ratepayer’s participation in a Utility/TPA energy efficiency program.
Net Benefits The program benefits minus the program costs discounted at the appropriate
rate.
Net Savings The total change in load (energy or demand) that is attributable to an energy-
efficiency program. This change in load may include, implicitly or explicitly, the
effects of free drivers, free riders, energy-efficiency standards, changes in the
level of energy service, and other causes of changes in energy consumption or
demand.
Net-to-Gross Ratio (NTGR) A factor representing net program savings divided by gross program savings that
is applied to gross program impacts, converting them into net program load
impacts.
Other Savings Savings for which no deemed savings exist and no custom M&V was performed.
Participant Cost Test (PCT) A cost-effectiveness test that measures the economic impact to the participating
customer of adopting an energy efficiency measure.
Participant A consumer that received a service offered through the subject efficiency
program, in a given program year. The term “service” is used in this definition to
suggest that the service can be a wide variety of services, including financial
rebates, technical assistance, product installations, training, energy-efficiency
information or other services, items, or conditions. Each evaluation plan should
define “participant” as it applies to the specific evaluation.
Plan Savings Annual energy savings budgeted by the Utility for the Program Year.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
25
Portfolio Either (a) a collection of similar programs addressing the same market (e.g., a
portfolio of residential programs), technology (e.g., motor-efficiency programs),
or mechanisms (e.g., loan programs) or (b) the set of all programs conducted by
one organization, such as a utility (and which could include programs that cover
multiple markets, technologies, etc.).
Program Administrator Cost
(PAC) Test
The Program Administrator Cost Test measures the net costs of a demand-side
management program as a resource option based on the costs incurred by the
program administrator (including incentive costs) and excluding any net costs
incurred by the participant.
Program Year The Year in which programs are administered and delivered, for the purposes of
planning and reporting, a program year shall be considered a calendar year,
January 1 - December 31.
Program A group of projects, with similar characteristics and installed in similar
applications. Examples could include a utility program to install energy-efficient
lighting in commercial buildings, a developer’s program to build a subdivision of
homes that have photovoltaic systems, or a state residential energy-efficiency
code program.
Ratepayer Impact Measure
(RIM) Test
The Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) test measures what happens to customer
bills or rates due to changes in utility revenues and operating costs caused by the
program.
RBudget (Revised Budget) This is the Budget the utility used for the Program Year. This budget may be
different from the Approved Budget (Abudget).
Sales as Adjusted for SD
Exemptions
The Utility's 2010 Annual Energy Sales minus the 2010 Annual Energy Sales of
the customers granted self-direct exemptions by Commission Order.
Total Resource Cost (TRC)
Test
The Total Resource Cost Test measures the net costs of a demand-side
management program as a resource option based on the total costs of the
program, including both the participants' and the utility's costs.
TRC Levelized Cost The total costs of the program to the utility and its ratepayers on a per kWh or
per therm basis levelized over the life of the program.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
26
6.0 Appendix B: EM&V Contractor Report
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
ARKANSAS
PROGRAM EVALUATION December 30, 2013
Arkansas Energy Office
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
27
This page left blank.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
28
Prepared by:
Jamie Lalos
Bonnie Watson
Lolly Lim
Contributions from:
Cheryl Winch
Kathleen Higgins
Cadmus
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
29
This page left blank.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
1
Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Program Description ............................................................................................................................... 5
Program Theory ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Process Evaluation Overview ................................................................................................................. 6
Document Organization ......................................................................................................................... 7
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Materials Review .................................................................................................................................. 10
Program Stakeholder Interviews .......................................................................................................... 11
Training Participant Interviews ............................................................................................................ 11
Customer Surveys ................................................................................................................................. 12
Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Outreach and Promotion ...................................................................................................................... 15
Planning and Design ....................................................................................................................... 15
Program Awareness ....................................................................................................................... 16
Energy-Efficiency Information Sources .......................................................................................... 17
Marketing Materials and Content ................................................................................................. 18
Barriers and Motivators ................................................................................................................. 19
Program Performance and Implementation .................................................................................. 23
Market Effects ................................................................................................................................ 24
Potential Interest ........................................................................................................................... 26
Data and Information Tracking ...................................................................................................... 28
Commercial and Industrial Training ..................................................................................................... 28
Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 28
Planning and Design ....................................................................................................................... 29
Target Audience and Attendance .................................................................................................. 29
Outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 30
Awareness ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Program Materials and Website .................................................................................................... 31
Training Content ............................................................................................................................ 32
Training Delivery ............................................................................................................................ 34
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
2
Satisfaction ..................................................................................................................................... 35
Impacts of Training ........................................................................................................................ 35
Barriers ........................................................................................................................................... 38
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 40
Program Design .............................................................................................................................. 40
Program Performance and Implementation .................................................................................. 41
Market Effects ................................................................................................................................ 41
Data and Information Tracking ...................................................................................................... 41
Areas for Improvement .................................................................................................................. 43
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
3
Executive Summary
The Arkansas Energy Office (AEO) contracted with Cadmus in March 2013 to perform an evaluation of
Energy Efficiency Arkansas’s (EEA) 2012 program year, and to make meaningful, actionable
recommendations for improvement. This report describes Cadmus’ findings, conclusions and
recommendations, and will inform EEA’s future program operations and planning.
In 2007, the Arkansas Public Service Commission (PSC) called for “utilities to take actions jointly with the
AEO to design, construct, and fund a statewide education program that has a consistent message
promoting the efficient use of electricity and natural gas,” which was named Energy Efficiency Arkansas.
The purpose of this program, according to a number of Memorandum of Understandings (MOU), is to
cost-effectively deliver relevant, consistent, and fuel neutral information and training that causes people
to consume less energy through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
Cadmus worked with the AEO and Independent Evaluation Monitor (IEM) staff to identify four research
areas to for the evaluation: 1) program design, 2) program performance and implementation, 3) market
effects, and 4) data and information tracking. The evaluation team developed research questions
associated with these areas (Table 2). To address these research questions, Cadmus reviewed program
materials; conducted interviews with program staff and training participants; and surveyed customers.
Based on our findings from evaluation activities, the conclusions and recommendations are highlighted
below.
The Commercial and Industrial (C&I) training is effectively increasing technical knowledge and awareness
of energy efficiency among participants, as well as stimulating participants to take actions such as
talking about energy efficiency. The current design of the Outreach and Promotion is meeting the goal of
increasing awareness among residential Arkansas residents. However building stronger awareness of
the program is limited, due to inconsistent branding. Additionally, residential customers lack familiarity
with EEA. Therefore, Cadmus recommends that EEA develop and implement a consistent and
comprehensive brand and messaging strategy.
EEA can improve communication and coordination between the various stakeholders. There is lack of
communication and coordination involved in the EEA program as it relates to objectives, coordination
for promoting trainings, and sharing of program results. To address this, Cadmus recommend that EEA
develop an annual program implementation plan that is collaborative across stakeholders including EEA,
vendors, utilities, and others as necessary.
EEA and the utility energy-efficiency programs could be better integrated. A driving motivator among
attendees’ reasons to sign up for training is to learn about utility programs. For residential customers,
37% of those who implemented energy-efficiency improvements indicated the improvement was done
through a utility energy-efficiency program. Additionally, the most visited section on the website (except
for the homepage) was the incentives page. Therefore, Cadmus recommends that EEA solidify
partnerships with utility energy-efficiency programs by formalizing their role in developing training
agenda and content as well as designing a marketing strategy that meets objectives of all stakeholders.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
4
EEA could improve data collection and tracking to get better information about market effects, track
performance, and conform to evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) Protocols in the
Arkansas Technical Reference Manual (TRM). Cadmus recommends EEA develop a database that
includes participant data and metrics, which allows AEO to monitor and maintain information necessary
for a comprehensive evaluation and to track performance. If not cost prohibitive, EEA should also collect
feedback from training participants sooner after the training.
Several other conclusions from the evaluation are:
Despite a limited marketing budget, awareness of EEA or the campaign name, Tighten Up was
approximately 39%;
There are not enough program resources dedicated to outreach for C&I training;
Nearly all stakeholders and training participants are satisfied with the trainings and find them
useful;
The training instructors selected to lead the trainings provided high quality education and were
knowledgeable about the subject matter; and
Not all C&I training attendees thought the level of technical detail was appropriate for them,
and the program materials did not always specify the level of technical detail that would be
covered in the training.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
5
Introduction
In March 2013, the Arkansas Energy Office (AEO) contracted with Cadmus to evaluate Energy Efficiency
Arkansas’ (EEA) 2012 program year and to make meaningful, actionable recommendations for
improvement. This report describes Cadmus’ findings and recommendations and will inform EEA’s
future program operations and planning.
In 2007, the Arkansas Public Service Commission (PSC) called for “utilities to take actions jointly with the
AEO to design, construct, and fund a statewide education program that has a consistent message
promoting the efficient use of electricity and natural gas, which they named Energy Efficiency Arkansas.
The purpose of this program, according to a number of Memorandum of Understandings (MOU), is to
cost-effectively deliver relevant, consistent, and fuel neutral information and training that causes people
to consume less energy through energy efficiency and conservation measures.
Program Description The AEO initially launched EEA in November 2007. Since that time, AEO has increased funding and
added components facilitating the program’s evolution into a comprehensive energy-efficiency effort.
Currently, the program is organized into three distinct efforts:
1. Residential Education and Information Outreach: update and print fact sheets, reproduce and
co-brand publications, distribute collateral consumers request through call center and events,
and sponsor ENERGY STAR® home seminars for builders.
2. Media Promotion: use TV, radio, print, and the web to raise awareness and educate consumers
on energy-saving opportunities.
3. Commercial & Industrial Education and Information Outreach (C&I Training): provide
webinars, trainings, and workshops for school districts, state agencies, and the large C&I sectors.
This training may include energy management seminars; school facility and state building
manager training and webinars; and technical trainings, such as Heating, Ventilation, Air
Conditioning, and Refrigeration (HVACR); load sizing; duct design; energy audits; building
commissioning; compressed air systems; energy management certification; pumping system
optimization; building operator certification; motor systems management; and benchmarking.
For the purposes of this evaluation, Cadmus treated the Residential Education and Information
Outreach and Media Promotion efforts as one element (now referred to as Outreach and Promotion)
since they have similar goals, audiences, and planning processes, and are implemented by the same
marketing agency vendor (Stone Ward).
The EEA Program is funded by the seven investor-owned gas and electric utilities in Arkansas:
CenterPoint Energy, Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corporation, Sourcegas, The Empire District Electric
Company, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, and Southwestern Electric
Power Company. The program is also voluntarily funded by the Arkansas Electric Cooperatives
Corporation.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
6
EEA has two program managers who are responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the program,
management of the program budget, documentation and program status report production, and
attendance at meetings with the Arkansas Public Service Commission, utilities, and cooperative
stakeholders. For the Outreach and Promotion effort, Stone Ward’s responsibilities include
development and execution of the EEA brand and Tighten Up campaign creative, marketing strategies
and plan, events, collateral, website, as well as media planning, negotiating, buying, managing, and
reconciling/reporting.
For the C&I Training effort, Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions (AMS) oversees the day-to-day program
management for the majority of courses (10 out of 12 topics) offered by EEA. The Arkansas
Environmental Federation (AEF) oversees the management and implementation for two course topics.
The responsibilities of AMS and AEF include developing course content, booking facilities to hold
trainings, selecting instructors, and performing outreach to promote the trainings. In 2012, the EEA
program expanded to include the Arkansas Industrial Energy Clearinghouse (AIEC) to help promote
energy efficiency in Arkansas manufacturing plants. According to the 2012 Annual Report, EEA provided
20 C&I training sessions from February to December 2012 with 344 attendees on twelve topics.1
Program Theory The program theory asserts that increasing the availability of and access to information and training on
the benefits of energy efficiency and conservation will lead to changes in individual and/or collective
behavior to reduce energy use.
Process Evaluation Overview Cadmus worked with the AEO and Independent Evaluation Monitor (IEM) staff to develop the following
main research areas, in compliance with Protocol C of the Arkansas TRM.
1. Program Design. Determine the program design effectiveness by assessing the key elements of
goal setting, budget creation, implementation resources, delivery channels, and outreach
strategies.
2. Program Performance and Implementation. Assess the program’s 2012 performance by
examining progress towards goals, customer and contractor awareness of the program and of
energy efficiency, factors influencing participation, and satisfaction among training attendees.
3. Market Effects. Determine the program’s market effects, such as the energy-saving actions
taken by customers who received materials or heard media ads, or internal business changes
made by participants who attended trainings and workshops.
4. Data and Information Tracking. Examine EEA record-keeping practices and assess
thoroughness, identify gaps, and recommend a tracking system that will allow AEO to monitor
and maintain the information necessary for a comprehensive evaluation. 1 Topics include Commercial HVAC, Boiler Operation Safety, Certified Energy Manager, Economics of Energy
Efficiency, Certified Energy Auditor, Fundamentals of Compressed Air, Advanced Management of Compressed Air, Boiler and Steam System Efficiency, Motor Systems Management, Pumping System Optimization, Refrigeration Energy Management, Energy Management Benchmarking; but exclude Residential Energy Code Trainings.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
7
Cadmus addressed the research areas through the process evaluation activities listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Process Evaluation Activities
Activity Activity Overview
Materials Review Reviewed marketing and training materials (including outreach and media plan, media
ads, educational collateral, recaps, website, training curriculum, materials to promote
training, etc.)
Stakeholder Interviews Interviewed AEO, marketing agency and training implementer, and select utility staff
about history and marketing plan development process, goals and objectives, target
audiences, communication and coordination, curriculum priorities, perceived customer
response to the effort, internal data management, and areas of specific interest for the
evaluation.
Training Participant
Interviews
Interviewed contractors and end-users who participated in the training about their
satisfaction with the training content and process, how they learned about the training,
future training needs, overall strengths and weakness of the training, and actions that
resulted from the training.
Customer Surveys Surveyed customers about EEA and their energy-efficiency awareness, how they
learned about EEA, recall of specific marketing materials, barriers and motivations,
energy-efficiency actions taken as a result of the effort, factors that influenced
participation, and future interest in energy efficiency and utility programs.
Document Organization The remainder of this report contains the following sections:
Methodology, which contains an explanation of the evaluation tasks and how Cadmus collected
and analyzed data for this project.
Key Findings, which summarizes key results from our process evaluation activities.
Conclusions and Recommendations, which includes Cadmus’ inferences based on the key
findings to determine how the program is performing and identifies opportunities for improving
processes and outcomes.
Appendices, which contain the interview guides, survey instruments, and survey frequencies.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
8
Methodology
Cadmus worked with the AEO and IEM staff to identify the four research areas and associated research
questions shown in Table 2. To address these research questions, Cadmus reviewed program materials;
conducted interviews with program staff and training participants; and surveyed customers.
Table 2. Process Evaluation Research Questions and Activities
Research
Objective Research Questions Evaluation Methodology
Program Design How was the program designed?
What are the program goals and objectives?
Materials review
Stakeholder interviews
Who is the target audience and does the program target all appropriate segments?
Stakeholder interviews
Materials review
Customer surveys
What are the marketing/advertising/promotion materials and outreach strategies, and how well do they support program objectives?
Materials review
Stakeholder interviews
How appropriately do the marketing materials, content, channels, and messaging target intended audiences?
Materials review
Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
Customer surveys
How clear, actionable, educative, and motivating are outreach materials and activities?
Materials review
Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
Are marketing and media resources optimized by channel and target audience?
Materials review
Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
Customer surveys
Do the marketing plan, messaging, strategies, and success metrics correlate to the program objectives?
Materials review
Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
Customer surveys
What are the outreach delivery channels and how effective are they at achieving program objectives?
Materials review
Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
Customer surveys
Program
Performance and
Implementation
How did the program progress towards achieving its planned goals?
Materials (data and tracking) review
Stakeholder interviews
Is actual spending consistent with planned budgets? Materials (data and tracking) Stakeholder interviews
What is the optimal budget for EEA marketing and training?
Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
How effective are the program implementation processes and operations at achieving program objectives?
Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
9
Research
Objective Research Questions Evaluation Methodology
What barriers exist that prevent the program from achieving goals and objectives?
Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
What opportunities for improvement exist to further enable program staff to achieve program goals and objectives?
Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
Materials review
How did customers hear about the program? Training participant interviews
Customer surveys
What are customers’ preferred marketing and communications channels?
Training participant interviews
Customer surveys
How are customers motivated to move from awareness to participation?
Customer surveys
Training participant interviews
Are training participants satisfied with the training? Training participant interviews
Does training participation correlate to contractor satisfaction? If so, how?
Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
Materials review
How does the variety of trainings correlate to participation in programs and customer satisfaction?
Training participant interviews
Materials review
Are there suggested areas of improvement? Future training needs?
Training participant interviews
Customer surveys
Market Effects Are participating segments consistent with targeting activities?
Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
What impacts have marketing and promotions had on awareness, knowledge, and satisfaction with EEA?
Training participant interviews
Customer surveys
What actions have customers/training participants taken as a result of the outreach and training? What factors led to those actions?
Materials (data and tracking)Review Stakeholder interviews
Training participant interviews
Customer surveys
Data and Information Tracking
Are data captured and reported in an effective manner?
Materials (data and tracking)Review
Stakeholder interviews
How effective are the program’s data tracking processes and systems?
Materials (data and tracking)Review
Stakeholder interviews
Is collected data sufficient to support effective program implementation and evaluation?
Materials (data and tracking)Review
Stakeholder interviews
Cadmus completed key stakeholder interviews and customer surveys for the evaluation, as shown in
Table 3.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
10
Table 3. Summary of Process Evaluation Activities
Activity Description Population* Target Completed
Program Materials
Review
Review all available materials that EEA
designed to support both the Outreach and
Promotion and C&I Training efforts
N/A N/A N/A
Stakeholder
Interviews
In-depth telephone interviews with AEO,
marketing agency and training
implementation staff, and utility staff
N/A 6 8
Training Participant
Interviews
In-depth telephone interviews with C&I
contractors (e.g., HVAC or building
contractors) and end-users (e.g., facility
managers or building operators) who
received program training
197 30 27
C&I end-users 109 15 17
Contractors 88 15 10
Residential Customer
Surveys
Telephone surveys with a random sample of
residential customers across the state 1,492,008 200 203
Total N/A 236 238
* The populations for C&I training participants exclude the residential energy code classes, and the evaluation
team based the counts on the rosters provided by the AEO. These also exclude attendees with missing key
information (such as phone number) or those the team deemed not appropriate to interview as training
participants (such as utility representatives or Arkansas PSC staff).
Materials Review Cadmus reviewed all the available materials that EEA developed to support both the Outreach and
Promotion and C&I Training efforts (listed in Table 4). The evaluation team qualitatively assessed the
materials and website based on the intended purpose, audience, and desired action for each piece.
Cadmus also rated the materials against the following five best practices for energy efficiency
marketing:
1. Clear central message
2. Clear and direct call to action (CTA)
3. Consistent branding
4. Identifiable target audience
5. Visual appeal
Cadmus scored each of these best practices on a four-point scale (1=Not at all; 2=Somewhat; 3=Mostly;
4=With certainty).
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
11
Table 4. Materials Reviewed
Material Audience
Energy Efficiency Arkansas Website Residential Consumers, C&I Contractors, C&I End-users
Print Residential Consumers
Direct Mail Residential Consumers
Radio Residential Consumers
Television Residential Consumers
Online Ads Residential Consumers
Public Relations Residential Consumers
Fact Sheets, Booklet Residential Consumers
Online Videos Residential Consumers
Training Flyers and Brochures C&I Contractors, C&I End-users
Training Agendas C&I Contractors, C&I End-users
Training Rosters C&I Contractors, C&I End-users
Post-Training Satisfaction Surveys C&I Contractors, C&I End-users
Additionally, Cadmus reviewed planning and recap documents as part of our overall evaluation for
Outreach and Promotion to understand the process of developing the plan, goals and objectives, and
data tracking.
Cadmus’ approach to assessing marketing materials and plans draws on the expertise derived from
implementing, advising, and evaluating award winning marketing initiatives for conservation programs
at many utilities and energy service providers. This experience allows the evaluation team to identify the
most effective marketing and communications strategies and tactics and create a list of best practice
elements against which to assess marketing effectiveness.
Cadmus used a team approach for the review and analysis to ensure it did not base the ratings on
individual perceptions or preferences.
Program Stakeholder Interviews In March and June 2013, Cadmus conducted in-depth interviews with eight program staff members from
various organizations involved in designing, executing, and supporting the effort. This included staff
from the AEO, the program’s marketing agency, training implementers, and utilities. Cadmus originally
anticipated speaking with six stakeholders; however, in order to gain a fuller understanding of the
program’s implementation attributes and its benefits to multiple parties, the evaluation team
determined it was valuable to interview two additional stakeholders.
The team focused the interview topics on program design and delivery, and program partner
communication. Collectively, these interviews provided the team with an opportunity to assess the
program from multiple perspectives and identify areas for improvement.
Training Participant Interviews In March and June 2013, Cadmus conducted in-depth interviews with 27 training participants.
Respondents included 17 C&I end-users, such as building operations managers, facilities managers, and
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
12
maintenance supervisors. The remaining 10 respondents consisted of contractors who service C&I
facilities such as sales managers and engineers for HVAC contracting or building contracting companies.
Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes and covered 10 types of trainings offered through EEA
(Table 5). Cadmus aimed to complete 30 interviews across training types and respondent type (15
contractors; 15 end-users). The evaluation team did not achieve as many contractor interviews as hoped
for the following reasons:
A number of people were too busy to provide feedback and asked interviewers not to call back.
A few people had signed up for the training but did not attend.
There were some wrong numbers and companies that had gone out of business.
Several people, with whom interviewers scheduled follow up calls, did not answer their phone
or call back at the appointed time.
Table 5. Completed Training Participant Interviews
Training Population Contractors C&I End-
users Total
1 Advanced Mgmt. of Compressed Air Systems 9 1 1 2
2 Boiler and Steam Systems Efficiency 25 2 2 4
3 Certified Energy Audit 4 1 0 1
4 Certified Energy Manager 18 1 1 2
5 Economics of Energy Efficiency 14 1 1 2
6 Energy Management Benchmarking 20 0 0 0
7 Fundamentals of Compressed Air 15 0 4 4
8 HVAC 8 1 0 1
9 Motor Systems Management 17 0 2 2
10 Pumping System Optimization 9 2 0 2
11 Refrigeration Energy Management 13 1 2 3
12 State Building and K-12 Energy Manager Training 21 0 4 4
Total 173 10 17 27
* The populations for commercial and industrial training participants exclude the residential energy code classes, and the evaluation team based the counts on the rosters provided by the AEO. These also exclude attendees with missing key information (such as phone number) or those the team deemed not appropriate to interview as training participants (such as utility representatives or PSC staff).
Cadmus focused the interview topics on program design and delivery, program awareness among
training participants, feedback on training content and delivery, utility-funded energy-efficiency rebate
programs, and the market impacts of the training.
Customer Surveys Cadmus contracted with Lawrence & Schiller Teleservices to complete 203 telephone surveys with
Arkansas residents using a random digit dial approach.
The evaluation team designed a survey instrument with input from AEO that averaged 12 minutes.
Lawrence & Schiller fielded surveys in June 2013. Cadmus had two main goals for the customer surveys:
(1) to establish a baseline of customer awareness, barriers, motivations, and impressions of marketing
activities; and (2) to identify responses to marketing and education efforts. The survey also included a
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
13
limited number of supplemental questions regarding household and customer characteristics, which
Cadmus used to inform future segmentation analyses and targeted marketing approaches.
During the survey fielding process, Lawrence & Schiller provided daily extracts of the data, including
respondents’ geographic location and their responses to questions about awareness. Cadmus monitored
the daily extracts to ensure that survey respondents lived in Arkansas, represented areas from across
the state, and that a representative segment was aware of EEA or the Tighten Up campaign.
In the survey response analysis, the evaluation team focused on identifying differences between
respondents who were “aware” of EEA versus those “unaware”, as this is the primary outcome EEA
marketing was to affect. Because several respondents were aware of EEA, Cadmus determined it did not
need quota groups in the survey fielding process.
Figure 1 shows that respondents represented both rural and populated areas across the state, and that
there was a blend of those “aware” and “unaware” in each region. By random selection, Cadmus
achieved a geographically representative sample and had sufficient survey completions to achieve a 95%
confidence interval (±7% precision) for analysis.
Figure 1. Survey Respondent Address Map*
* Red pins = “Aware”; Yellow pins = “Unaware”
Appendix C provides the frequency tables for each survey, outlining the quantity and percent of each
survey response. This report includes charting and descriptive analyses in the Key Findings section for
items that address research questions. Where segments warranted, the evaluation team conducted
cross-tabulation analysis, testing column proportions between groups. Cadmus tested statistically
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
14
significant differences at the 95% confidence interval (±5% precision) and 90% confidence interval (±10%
precision), highlighting differences only where testing met or exceeded the statistically significant
threshold.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
15
Key Findings
This section includes the findings deemed most important or relevant by the Cadmus evaluation team.
The team derived the findings from the materials review, stakeholder interviews, training participant
interviews, and customer surveys performed. This report presents these findings in two main sections:
Outreach and Promotion and Commercial and Industrial Training.
Outreach and Promotion
Planning and Design
Based on feedback from interviews, the evaluation team found wide variations in stakeholders’
understanding of the goals and objectives of the Outreach and Promotion component. When
interviewers asked program stakeholders to identify the objectives of the marketing effort, responses
included increased awareness of the EEA brand, increased awareness of energy efficiency, improved
awareness of utility offerings, customer implementation of energy-efficiency actions, and to help funnel
consumers to energy-efficiency and incentive programs. There was also a mention from one stakeholder
that objectives shifted over time, based on a budget reduction.
According to stakeholders Cadmus spoke with, AEO initially developed the EEA Program plan in 20072.
As the program progressed, AEO drafted new MOUs that were reviewed by the utilities. In previous
years, there were more formal meetings in which details of the program were discussed; however, those
meetings have become less frequent. Currently, AEO staff provides updates during scheduled PWC
meetings or conference calls. Those meetings and calls are typically high level since the meetings involve
many parties from various levels and not all stakeholders are involved in this meeting. The utility
stakeholders suggested that EEA staff set up formal meetings and/or reporting schedules to ensure that
all parties are up-to-date with program activities and can be involved in strategic discussions.
The target audience of EEA’s 2012 residential Outreach and Promotion effort is broad. Stakeholders said
that the goal is to reach all residents within the State of Arkansas. However, according to the outreach
plan developed by Stone Ward, the target audience is Arkansas residents 25 years or older. Cadmus
understands that EEA staff changed the target audience for 2013, based on the need to optimize the
program’s reduced budget.
The types of outreach materials EEA staff produced include TV ads, radio spots, print ads, fact sheets,
do-it-yourself videos about installing energy-efficiency measures, the EEA website, press releases, public
relations activities, online banners, and bill stuffers. The main element of the Outreach and Promotion
effort was a yearlong campaign, featuring the Tighten Up concept to promote awareness and execution
of simple energy-efficient actions and measures. There was also a Tighten Up Week, in which EEA staff
heavily promoted the campaign through radio and TV talk shows featuring the AEO director.
2 The stakeholders were unclear about the original planning process for the EEA Program, as it started in 2007 and current staff members were not part of that planning.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
16
The Outreach and Promotion component also includes a residential energy code class implemented by
the Arkansas Home Builders Association. The class was designed to educate builders, code officials,
remodelers, and HVAC and insulation installers about the upcoming changes to the Arkansas energy
code. The Home Builders Association held 11 of these trainings in 2012.
Program Awareness
Recognizing the potential for confusion or lack of specific name recall with Energy Efficiency Arkansas,
Cadmus defined awareness as acknowledgement of having heard of EEA or the Tighten Up slogan.
Approximately four in 10 (39%) Arkansas residents were aware of EEA or Tighten Up. Although less than
20% were aware of both EEA and Tighten Up, the evaluation team classified any respondent as “aware”
who acknowledged having heard of either brand (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Awareness of EEA and Tighten Up
Source: Customer Survey Questions B1 and B2: “Are you familiar with the energy-efficiency
campaign using the slogan Tighten Up?” and “Before this call today, had you heard of Energy
Efficiency Arkansas?” (n=203)
Although classified as “aware,” a majority of these respondents (72%) were not too familiar or not at all
familiar with either EEA or the Tighten Up slogan. Only 7% of respondents had visited the EEA/Tighten
Up website within the past six months. Most of those who visited the EEA website (80%; 12 of 15) found
the information not too useful or not at all useful.
52%
19%
48%
81%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Aware of EEA
Unaware of EEA
Unaware of Tighten Up Aware of Tighten Up
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
17
Figure 3. Familiarity with EEA or Tighten Up Slogan
Source: Customer Survey Question B3. “How familiar are you with Energy Efficiency Arkansas or
the Tighten Up campaign?” (n=80)
Of those classified as “aware,” television advertising (42%) was the most common source for their
awareness on an unprompted basis, followed by online advertising (24%).
When prompted with the various types of EEA outreach methods, 63% had heard or seen EEA television
commercials (Figure 4). Less than one third of those “aware” had heard of radio commercials (29%),
news stories (26%), EEA website (24%), fact sheets (20%), videos (18%), community events (18%), or
trainings (11%).
Figure 4. Prompted Awareness for EEA Outreach Activities
Source: Customer Survey Question B6. “Are you familiar with any of these outreach methods
from EEA or the Tighten Up campaign?” (n=80; multiple responses accepted)
Energy-Efficiency Information Sources
Regardless of EEA awareness, two-thirds (65%) of all respondents were aware of organizations in
Arkansas that promote energy efficiency. Of those “aware of an energy-efficiency resource,” one-half
63%
29%
26%
24%
20%
18%
18%
11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
TV commercials
Radio commercials
News story
EEA website
Fact sheets
How-to video
Community events
Trainings
26%
46%
21%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Aware
Very familiar
Somewhat familiar
Not too familiar
Not at all familiar
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
18
(49%) identified utility companies, and one-third (35%) mentioned EEA, the AEO, or a government
organization.
Respondents considered the Internet as a popular resource for seeking out energy-efficiency
information. When asked where they would look for energy-saving opportunities if interested,
respondents (39%) most commonly mentioned they would do an Internet search (using Google, Bing,
Yahoo, or Ask.com). A smaller proportion (18%) indicated they would seek out the EEA or AEO website,
and another 16% mentioned either the EEA or AEO’s toll-free number.
However, consistent with energy use as a low-involvement category, many survey respondents opted
for less proactive methods for receiving information about saving energy. Traditional channels such as
television (38%), radio (16%), and direct mail (16%) were the preferred resources for receiving
information about how to save energy in the home. Online methods were considered secondary
preferences: e-mail (11%), internet (11%), online ads (1%), online groups (1%), and social media (<1%).
Marketing Materials and Content
EEA has a wide range of materials for the Outreach and Promotion component. These include print ads,
TV and radio spots, and informational fact sheets. EEA’s outreach collateral is distributed to customers
who call EEA, as well as through public libraries and grassroots events, such as fairs, tradeshows, and
conferences. EEA tracks the total number of collateral materials distributed through these channels.
Meanwhile, EEA’s marketing agency tracks the reach of radio spots, TV ads, and print ads as well as the
website interaction data.
These materials serve to inform customers about energy efficiency, provide them with tips on how to
implement energy-efficiency measures, and/or direct them to www.EnergyEfficiencyArkansas.org or to
www.tightenuparkansas.com for more information. Table 6 shows the evaluated metrics for each type
of marketing material as well as the average evaluated score for each metric. The full evaluated metrics
chart is in Appendix E.
Table 6. Marketing Materials - Evaluation Metrics and Average Scoring
Material
Clear central
message/
hierarchy of
messages
Clear and
direct CTA
Consistent
branding
Identifiable
target
audience
Visual appeal
Print Ads 1.8 2.0 3.6 3.8 2.8
Direct Mail 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Radio Ads 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 N/A
Digital 3.0 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.0
Press Outreach 3.5 3.7 3.7 4.0 N/A
Informational 3.2 3.2 3.7 4.0 3.0
Misc. Collateral 3.3 3.7 3.0 2.5 3.5
TV Ads 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0
DIY Videos 4.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 3.0
Average Rating 3.4 3.5 2.9 3.7 3.3
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
19
Upon review of the materials, Cadmus found that there is inconsistent branding across all Outreach and
Promotion materials. Some of the materials feature Energy Efficiency Arkansas, while others highlight
Tighten Up.
All effective marketing materials have a clear hierarchy of messages, beginning with a compelling
headline message that guides the reader through program/campaign information and benefits, and
narrows to a specific call for action. Many marketers want to include as much information as possible,
however, that can be overwhelming to consumers. EEA materials should follow a clear message
hierarchy and include a distinct call to action that provides customers with clear and intuitive navigation.
For most materials, the target audience is identifiable as residential energy users in Arkansas as well as
visually appealing. Not as visually appealing, program staff members have appropriately aimed the
informational materials at consumers looking for more detailed information. However, program staff
could update the materials to include a consistent look and feel to fit within the overall EEA materials.
Website
It is important for customers to be able to access an easily navigable website that provides clear
information and steps for participation or action. Most of EEA’s marketing materials direct the reader to
the homepage, www.EnergyEfficiencyArkansas.org, to learn more about lowering energy costs or
applying for a rebate. While the website features a wide range of information and resources, it mostly
consists of a passive repository of information for users to view and absorb. It also includes a large
amount of links back to its own pages and/or materials, which can feel repetitive or overwhelming. The
Tighten Up Challenge and Incentives pages allow the user to take action, however, it is largely
unintuitive to navigate and specifically know where to start. EEA should consider developing a
messaging flow that is in line with how customers search for information, use drop down menus to
allow for easier search, and revisit the website navigational structure and Google Analytics flows to
ensure a streamlined and easy-to-use customer online experience.
From Jan 1, 2012 – Dec 31, 2012, there were approximately 12,800 views to the website. The
homepage, www.EnergyEfficiencyArkansas.org, was the most visited page (30%), followed by the
Incentives page (10%). Also, Google Analytics showed that the Incentives page is the second most visited
page on the website with a 79% bounce rate, which is higher than the overall website average bounce
rate of 56%. The bounce rate of a webpage denotes the percent of first-time visits to that page, in which
the user did not interact with any other component of the website and left the site. The higher than
average bounce rate for the incentives page suggests that users enter the EEA site through this page
then leave immediately—possibly to access utility sites, which are linked to the webpage.3
Barriers and Motivators
Nearly half (45%) of all respondents said saving energy was very important when considering monthly
household expenses.
Considering that some respondents may have already made energy-efficient improvements to their
home, the evaluation team asked them to rate how efficient their home is currently. A majority of
3 The website was not setup to track clicks to the utility websites so Cadmus is unable to track this metric.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
20
respondents said their home was somewhat efficient, having some energy-efficient features, but it could
be more efficient. One quarter (26%) of respondents said their home was already very energy efficient
in that it was newly constructed or recently renovated with energy-efficient equipment. This 26%
represents a marketing challenge, in that they see no need for further energy-efficiency home
improvements.
The evaluation team also found this barrier in respondents’ challenges to saving energy. Ten percent
said their home was already somewhat efficient and 20% said they had no challenges in saving energy.
Another cohort (17%) indicated challenges in getting cooperation from other household members.
Twelve percent said they found it difficult to change personal habits associated with energy use.
Significantly more “aware” respondents (14%) said their home was very inefficient compared to those
“unaware” of EEA (5%). This may point to a relationship between EEA awareness and awareness of the
factors that contribute to inefficiency as well as improvement opportunities.
Figure 5. Current Home Energy-Efficiency Level
Source: C4. How energy-efficient would you say your home is currently? (n=200)
Attitudes toward new technologies represent another potential barrier to energy-efficiency adoption. As
many of the equipment rebates and improvements are available through new technologies,
receptiveness to energy-efficiency may correlate with Early Adopter attitudes. One theory4 about how
new products become adopted in a marketplace uses a model to illustrate various levels of new product
adoption. This model postulates there are five segments: Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late
Majority, and the last to adopt new technologies, Laggards. These five segments are present in a general
4 Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth Edition 2003, Free Press, New York.
8%
26%
40%
26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
C4: How energy-efficient would you say your home is currently?
Very inefficient (older home with less efficient heating/cooling and appliances)
Somewhat inefficient (has few if any efficient features and has room for improvement)
Somewhat efficient (has some energy efficient features but could be more efficient)
Very efficient (new home or recently renovated with energy-efficient equipment)
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
21
population for any new product in proportions that resemble a normal distribution, with the majority
(68%) tending to exhibit attitudes typical of the Early and Late Majority.
Figure 6. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Model
Survey respondents in Arkansas, however, tended to endorse statements associated with later stages on
the diffusion of innovation curve5, with the largest segment, one third (33%), expressing attitudes most
closely associated with Laggards. Roughly 15% could be considered in the earlier stages of innovators
(8%) or early adopters (7%). While diffusion of innovation theory provides context for the uptake of new
technologies over time, it does not address other key factors of user acceptance. Although self-report
may be one limiting factor in classifying respondents according to the Rogers model, other barriers to
diffusion of energy efficiency technologies are also likely at work in this Arkansas population.
Figure 7. Diffusion of Innovation Attitudes
Source: C2. Which of the following statements comes closest to how you feel about new
technologies? (n=203)
5 Diffusion of Innovations takes a divergent approach from other theories of behavior change. The focus is on
the evolution of products as they better meet the needs of individuals and groups, instead of focusing on changing individuals’ behavior. Rogers postulates that change happens not with people, but with the innovations themselves and their role in the marketplace. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth
Edition 2003, Free Press, New York.
33%
20%
27%
7%
8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Laggard: I prefer tried and true methods overnew technologies
Late Majority: I get on board with newtechnologies to keep from falling behind
Early Majority: I like to wait until the bugs areworked out before I invest in new technologies
Early Adopter: I usually invest in newtechnologies before most of my family and…
Innovator: I pay a premium to be the first to tryout a new technology
C2: Which of the following statements comes closest to how you feel about new technologies such as cell phones or electronic
gadgets?
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
22
This distribution was similar for “aware” and “unaware” respondents, with no statistically significant
differences between groups.
Although respondent attitudes generally appear less than receptive to new technologies, understanding
this barrier may provide useful approaches and tone for developing messages that can speak to this
mind set.
Additionally, respondents cited several other barriers that made saving energy in their homes
challenging. The evaluation team presented this question as an open-ended item and coded similar
responses. The largest single category (20%) was that they had no challenges to saving energy. The
remaining 80%, however, indicated other members in the household, difficulty changing personal
habits, not knowing what to do, an already efficient home, and the expense of home improvements
contribute to challenges they face in saving energy.
Figure 8. Challenges with Saving Energy
Source: C5. What challenges if any do you face in saving energy in your home? (n=191)
Cadmus asked respondents to rate their agreement/disagreement with several attitude statements.
Although responses generally support interest in and willingness to consider saving energy, a barrier
around home comfort priorities was also evident (Figure 9).
Don't know what to do/lack of
information, 10% Can't control use by other members of
the household, 17%
Hard to change personal habits, 12%
Can't afford it/too expensive, 10%
Too hard to install/implement,
5% Not confident it will
save energy/be worth it, 1%
Not a priority, 5%
Home is already pretty efficient, 10%
Challenges with older, inefficient
home, 7%
Renter - limited ability to make
changes, 1%
Disruption to home/mess involved
with installing improvements, 1%
No Challenges/None, 20%
OTHER, 15%
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
23
Figure 9. Respondent Attitudes (All)
Source: C1 A-I (n=203)
Cadmus also observed several differences between “aware” and “unaware” respondent attitudes. A
significantly greater proportion of “unaware” respondents strongly agreed with the following challenges
to savings energy:
I would like to save more energy but do not know where to start (22% of ”unaware” strongly
agree/9% of “aware”)
I have already done as much as possible to save energy in my home (36% of “unaware”/22% of
“aware”)
Energy-efficiency products are too expensive (27% “unaware”/9% “aware”)
I’ve tried a few things to save energy but have not seen any real savings on my bill (17%
“unaware” versus 8% “aware”)
These differences were statistically significant at the 95/5 confidence level.
Program Performance and Implementation
The 2012 budget for the EEA Program overall was $755,201. The program spent $636,880, or 84%, of
this total allotted budget in 2012. According to the program expense documentation provided for this
14%
17%
20%
31%
33%
34%
51%
55%
58%
39%
41%
46%
46%
35%
35%
38%
32%
37%
38%
25%
26%
19%
27%
22%
9%
12%
4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
C1H: I've tried a few things to save energy, but havenot seen any real savings on my utility bills.
C1D: I would like to save more energy but do notknow where to start.
C1G: Energy-efficient products are too expensive
C1F: I have already done as much as possible to saveenergy in my home
C1E: I always shop for the lowest prices, even if ittakes more time
C1I: I actively look for ways to reduce my carbonfootprint
C1B: Using energy to keep the home comfortable ismy top priority
C1C: Saving energy helps the environment
C1A: It is important to conserve energy as much aspossible.
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
24
evaluation, program staff used 27% of the total expense for outreach, marketing, and the EEA website,
and 43% of the total expense for the trainings offered by EEA6.
There is no formal procedure for collaboration between the EEA Program and other Utility programs.
There is some collaboration with the utilities in developing materials and performing outreach, which
includes co-branding bill stuffers, placing utility links on the EEA website, and jointly staffing outreach
events within individual utilities’ services territories. The utilities also distribute some of EEA’s materials,
such as fact sheets, to their customers. However, there is less coordination and collaboration from a
strategic and planning perspective.
In prior program years, there were quarterly meetings in which program managers reported on program
status, accomplishments, successes, and lessons learned throughout program implementation.
However, in 2012, formal communications between the EEA program management and the utilities has
decreased. According to stakeholders, the recent meetings have generally served as an opportunity for
the EEA program managers to inform the utilities on the status of the program. Based on interview
feedback, there is a desire to increase collaboration in planning to discuss possible efficiencies and
benefits that could cross stakeholder efforts. For example, it was determined that an objective of EEA
would be to help funnel consumers into utility incentive programs, then this would be an opportunity to
possibly coordinate some tactics. Another example cited was in reference to events that EEA hosts and
staffs. EEA staff has a desire to work with the Utilities to help staff the events, however, many times EEA
did not plan those events within the territories of the Utilities that Cadmus interviewed.
Market Effects
Overall 37% of survey respondents indicated they had made energy-efficient improvements to their
home within the past year. Significantly more of those aware of EEA (46%) made improvements
compared to those unaware (31%).
Of those that had made improvements, the most common were installing compact fluorescent lamps
(CFL) or LED light bulbs (27%), purchasing an efficient window air conditioner (27%), and installing an
energy-efficient central air conditioner (26%).
6 The documentation received did not note whether this expense included costs for the Energy Code training,
which is a component of the Residential Outreach and Promotion effort, and not a part of the C+I trainings.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
25
Figure 10. Energy Efficient Investments Made in the Past Year
Source: D2. What did you purchase or install? (n=73)
Nearly one quarter (22%) indicated they had read or heard about the improvement they made through
EEA. About the same proportion (21%) said the EEA information was somewhat to very important in
their decision about which improvement(s) to make.
A little over one-third (37%) of those who had made improvements indicated they had received a rebate
or incentive from their utility.
Significantly more aware respondents indicated EEA as an important factor in their improvement
decision:
Significantly more of the “aware” respondents (31%) said they had heard about the
improvement through EEA (versus “unaware” 14%)
Significantly more “aware” respondents (12%) indicated information from EEA was very
important in their decision (versus 0% of “unaware”)
Significantly more “aware” respondents (47%) received an incentive/rebate from their utility for
the improvement made (versus 26% of “unaware”)
Significantly more “aware” respondents (57%) had purchased a CFL within the past year (versus
41% “unaware”)
3% 3%
4% 4% 4% 4%
5% 8%
10% 11%
15% 16%
18% 18%
26% 27% 27%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Purchased dishwasher
Had ducts sealed
Purchased an efficient light fixture
Installed window film/plastic on windows
Installed air infiltration/ air sealing measures
Had a home energy audit
Installed efficient faucet aerator or low-flow…
Installed an energy efficient water heater
Tuned up their air conditioning or heat pump
Purchased energy efficient refrigerator
Installed energy efficient windows
Other
Purchased efficient clothes washer and or dryer
Added insulation
Installed an energy efficient air conditioning
Purchased/installed CFLs or LED light bulbs
Purchased an energy efficient window AC
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
26
As some of the energy saving tips provided by EEA address behaviors, the evaluation team also included
questions to assess respondents’ engagement level in typical energy-saving behaviors. Figure 11 shows
the type of behavior and level of engagement endorsed by all respondents.
Figure 11. Energy Saving Behaviors
Source: D10 A-G (n=189-202)
Cadmus found no statistically significant differences on energy-saving behavioral actions between
“aware” and “unaware” respondents; therefore the impact on behaviors has yet to be evident in the
general population.
Potential Interest
One-third (33%) of all respondents were somewhat to very interested in receiving information about
EEA or the Tighten Up campaign in the future. Interest levels were similar between “aware” and
“unaware” respondents, with slightly more “unaware” than “aware” respondents being not at all
interested in receiving more information.
Most respondents (69%) said they did not have plans to make energy-efficient upgrades to their home
in the next 12 months. Thirteen percent said they did have plans and another 4% were considering
upgrades but did not have specific plans.
24%
30%
32%
35%
36%
37%
70%
48%
44%
56%
39%
30%
40%
28%
28%
25%
12%
26%
34%
22%
1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
D10F: Turn down water heater temperature
D10E: Take shorter showers
D10B: Wash laundry in cold water
D10G: Use advanced power strips
D10C: Installed/use a programmable thermostat
D10D: Change thermostat settings to lower heatingtemp when sleeping or not at home
D10A: Turn off lights in unoccupied rooms
Always Sometimes Never
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
27
Figure 12. Energy-Efficient Improvement Plans in Next 12 Months
Source: D9. Do you have plans to make any energy-efficiency upgrades to your home in the next
12 months? (n=203)
Cadmus analyzed differences between those who had definite plans to make additional energy-
efficiency upgrades to their homes compared to those who did not have plans. The evaluation team
considered the characteristics of those with plans a target profile. Those with plans tended to live in
larger homes (2,500 to 3,000 square feet); have lived in their home for a shorter period of time (less
than 20 years); and have Oklahoma Gas as their natural gas utility. Though most live in single family
homes, more condominium dwellers were among those that had plans for upgrades than among those
without plans.
Although the group with plans have made past improvements in similar proportions to those without
future plans (44% versus 31%), they were more likely to have heard about the improvements they
already made from EEA, and more likely to have received a rebate or incentive for the improvement(s)
they made previously.
Further, they are more likely to recognize energy-efficiency opportunities for their home, to consider
quality over price, and would likely seek out additional information by calling the EEA toll-free number.
Another potential target group includes those that have considered making energy-efficiency upgrades
but do not have specific plans or timing for those upgrades. This group was more likely than other
respondents (those with or without any plans) to have already made an improvement within the past six
months. They also endorsed environmental attitudes and were more likely to have made energy use
behavior changes. While this group is likely “already committed,” members of the group could consider
deeper levels of energy-efficiency upgrades.
Yes, 13%
No, 69%
Considering but have no set plans, 4%
Not sure/Don't Know, 8%
Other, 5%
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
28
Data and Information Tracking
It is a best practice in marketing to identify and track key performance indicators to measure the
performance of marketing campaigns in engaging audiences and inducing the intended audience
response. The EEA campaign tracks traditional marketing and media performance metrics, including
media impressions (including reach and frequency), click throughs, cost per click, amount of collateral
distributed, and events attended. The campaign also tracks basic website analytics including homepage
visits, unique visitors, average time spent on site, and referring sites.
Many efficiency marketing efforts are also starting to use evaluative metrics, which can get closer to
calculating and identifying the sales leads generated by a specific ad. When coupled with traditional
media metrics, this allows the full marketing performance story to be told and for the program manager
to plan and execute the most cost-effective, impactful marketing program. These additional tracking
metrics can be added to marketing materials and advertising, such as unique promotional codes or
URLS, a specific call to action with a unique or mask URL, a special toll-free number to call, etc. can help
marketing managers better track audience response to discrete tactics, ultimately allowing marketing
resources to be channeled to ensure the highest return on investment. In addition to these tracking
metrics, audiences can be asked “how did you hear about us?” type questions through social media
polls, by call center operators, or mini-surveys on the EEA website, and responses tracked in a program
database.
In speaking with a utility program manager, there is effort currently in place to track participant data
between EEA staff and the utilities. While the main objectives of the EEA Program were initially to
increase awareness of energy efficiency overall, according to the MOU dated December 4, 2012, there
may be refinement of activities to better support other utility programs. If this results in a more focused
objective of promoting utility programs, it would require increased coordination of outreach efforts to
differentiate how customers heard about EEA and/or the relevant utility program(s) to track
effectiveness of the various campaigns.
Currently, the only reports developed for this program include a marketing campaign recap developed
and provided by Stone Ward, and the annual report that the AEO submits to the Arkansas PSC. There
are also verbal updates at Parties Working Collaboratively (PWC) meetings. As part of the Arkansas TRM,
EM&V Protocol C3 includes ‘Documentation of program tracking methods and reporting formats’ as an
area of investigation in a process evaluation. There is no formal database that tracks this data, therefore
the Conclusions and Recommendations section includes a set of metrics recommended for tracking and
reporting.
Commercial and Industrial Training
Goals and Objectives
There seems to be an inconsistent understanding among stakeholders of what the goals and objectives
are for the C&I training. The MOU dated November 3, 2010, states that the objective of the C&I
Trainings is to increase awareness of energy-efficiency practices and technologies among school
districts, state agencies, and the large commercial and industrial sectors.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
29
However, when asked about the goals and objectives of the C&I training, stakeholders reported a much
wider variety of responses:
Increase sharing of training concepts within companies
Incorporate training concepts into training participants’ business practices
Disseminate information about energy-efficiency to manufacturing and commercial facility staff
to help reduce energy use and save money
Increase awareness and participation in utility-funded energy-efficiency incentives
Build a trained and certified work force to drive participation in utility-funded programs
Promote implementation of more energy-efficient projects
Promote follow-on participation in other training sessions
Reach approximately 20 attendees per training session
In addition to unclear and undocumented goals, the program is lacking measurement to track the
performance of goals with the exception of session attendance. Similar to the Outreach and Promotion
component, the Conclusions and Recommendations section includes a set of metrics recommended for
tracking and reporting.
Planning and Design7
Stakeholders reported that prior to the development of the Second Amended MOU, the Arkansas PSC
requested that EEA develop more comprehensive and extensive trainings within the program. To
accomplish this, Energy Office staff said they added more industry-specific training topics, chosen
through collaboration with the utilities, and by leveraging feedback from various utility trade ally
networks to determine topics that would be most useful and relevant.
Feedback from staff was that stakeholders can discuss planned training sessions and the utilities can
provide feedback on these updates at ongoing PWC sessions. EEA staff also invites the utilities to speak
directly and informally with AMS staff, who manage the trainings, to provide suggestions on future
topics.
Target Audience and Attendance
According to the MOU dated November 3, 2010, the commercial and industrial training sessions target
school districts, state agencies, and large commercial and industrial sectors. Based on interviews with
stakeholders, there does not appear to be a common understanding among stakeholders of who the
specific target audiences are within the commercial and industrial sectors. For example, several
stakeholders said the program intended to reach contractors, but others thought it aimed to reach end-
users. Based on feedback from AEO, both audiences are targets for the training, however this direction
was not clear among stakeholders. Outreach efforts mirror this as some stakeholders targeted outreach
efforts at only end-users, while others aimed outreach targeted both contractors and end-users.
7 The general planning and design of the C&I Training program was developed in conjunction with the Outreach
and Promotion program, and is discussed in detail in the Planning and Design section on p. 15.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
30
Cadmus performed an analysis of the training rosters provided by EEA. The evaluation team classified
training participants according to several categories including:
End-users, which include representatives from any commercial and industrial facilities who are
not contractors, such as building operators, maintenance managers, engineering managers at
manufacturing facilities, schools, hospitals, government agencies, etc. (49%)
Contractors, which includes commercial and industrial HVAC contractors, boiler operators,
suppliers, builders, etc. (26%)
Utilities, including utility energy-efficiency program implementation staff, utility program staff,
and municipalities. (22%)
Regulators, including staff from the Arkansas Public Utilities Commission. (2%)
Unidentifiable attendees because they did not list their business name, or they did not provide
enough information otherwise to categorize them into any specific group. (5%)
Commercial and industrial end-users represent about half of the population, and contractors represent
just over a quarter of participants. Utility staff accounted for a large portion (nearly a quarter) of
attendees.
Figure 13 shows the different types of training attendees based on our analysis of the participant rosters
Cadmus received from the EEA.
Figure 13. Percent of Training Attendees by Type
*Some training attendees could not be identified because they did not list their business name,
or they did not provide enough information otherwise to categorize them into any specific group.
Outreach
EEA provides outreach for the commercial and industrial training sessions through distributing flyers and
brochures via e-mail or regular mail. Additionally, EEA recruits training participants through
interpersonal networking and, for some courses, reaching out to contractors using lists derived from the
Arkansas Department of Labor and the Arkansas Department of Health.
26%
49%
22%
2% 5%
Contractor
End-User
Utility
Other
Unidentifiable*
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
31
EEA does not proactively provide information to the utilities or other stakeholders about upcoming
training opportunities, who signed up (pre-training), or who attended (post-training). The utilities
Cadmus interviewed notify their end-users and/or trade allies about the trainings through e-mail or
direct outreach, but they do not always know about upcoming trainings and AMS does not reach out to
them unless there is very low anticipated participation. Furthermore, the utilities do not use consistent
e-mail distribution lists for outreach. One utility reported sending the e-mails for some training sessions
to commercial and industrial end-users only, while another utility said they sent the training information
to both end-users and their network of commercial and industrial trade allies.
Stakeholders cited the largest barrier to program success is constrained resources for outreach and
marketing. The allocated program resources are not sufficient to allow AMS staff to manage the day to
day activities and spearhead outreach. As a result, participation in the trainings is typically lower than
goal, outreach strategies are not consistently coordinated across stakeholders (e.g., between the
utilities and the EEA), and details of each training (e.g., scheduled training dates, attendee lists, follow-
up, etc.) are not shared in a consistent way among stakeholders.
Awareness
Most respondents first learned about the training through an e-mail (56%) or a professional organization
(19%). Of those who received an e-mail, most (25%) recalled receiving the e-mail from AMS. Other
professional organizations that disseminated information about the training included Arkansas Industrial
Machinery, CLEAResult, the Arkansas Environmental Federation, and Mid-South Steam Boiler and
Engineering Company.
Respondents said they signed up for the training to expand their technical knowledge (69%), to improve
their qualifications (19%) or to learn about energy-efficiency programs (19%).
When asked how they would like to hear about training opportunities in the future, nearly all (93%) of
respondents said they would like to learn about trainings through e-mail. Two respondents would like to
learn about training opportunities through the EEA Website. One respondent mentioned that they did
not think the calendar on the EEA website was very functional because it was not current. The
respondent thought having a central website that was current would be helpful.
Program Materials and Website
The flyers and brochure effectively communicate the training details and target appropriate audiences.
In terms of visual consistency, one training brochure produced by the AEF is very different from the
flyers produced by AMS, so some people may not equate all trainings as having come from EEA. The EEA
branding on the flyers/brochure consists of a small EEA logo. The flyers lacked a consistent “look and
feel” compared to residential EEA outreach materials such as print-ads and bill inserts. The flyers and
brochure all include a call to action to register for trainings via phone or online.
Some materials feature a stronger call to action than others, by noting seating limitations and
encouraging readers to register right away, while most materials state “Register” followed by contact
information. The EEA website does not include much information about the commercial and industrial
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
32
sector training sessions. The two relevant pages on the website include the Events and Training page,
and the Business section.
The Events and Training page features a link to an events calendar, but this calendar is not user-friendly.
Upon first glance, it looks as though the calendar holds no information. However, users must search for
a specific topic in a text box and/or in a drop-down menu in order to see a list of events or training
sessions on that topic. This process is not user-intuitive and may lead to missed opportunities in
promoting training events.
The Business section does not include information that is relevant to the commercial sector. It includes
links the website’s Resource page, which features resources aimed at residential customers. It also
features links to the three different utilities’ residential weatherization and/or energy audit program
pages.
Table 7 shows the evaluated metrics of each of the program materials as well as the overall evaluated
score for each metric.
Table 7. Program Materials – Evaluation Metrics and Scoring
Program Materials and Website
Evaluation Metrics and Scoring*
Clear and
comprehensive
details
Clear and
direct call
to action
Identifiable
target
audience
Identifiable
EEA
branding
Visual
Appeal
EEA Website - 2013 3 2 4 3 3
CEM + CEA brochure 4 4 4 2 2
Benchmarking flyer 3 3 3 2 4
Motors flyer 4 3 3 2 4
Pumping flyer 4 4 3 2 4
Spring Energy Seminars flyer 4 3 3 2 4
State and K-12 flyer 4 2 4 2 3
Refrigeration flyer 4 3 4 2 4
Economics of Energy Management
flyer 4 3 2 2 4
Fundamentals of Compressed Air
flyer 4 3 4 2 4
Average Score 3.8 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.6
*Scoring Key: 1 = Not at all; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Mostly; 4= With certainty
Training Content
AEO and the utilities collaboratively decided training topics during the PWC meetings. All the
stakeholders Cadmus interviewed were generally pleased with the selection of topics, quality of
delivery, and instructors delivering the training sessions.
When the evaluation team asked training participants which topics they found most useful in the
training, respondents most frequently (40%) said the technical information, and about a third (29%) said
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
33
the application tools, software or analytical methods for energy management. However, many
respondents could not remember specific topics since they took the training more than one year ago.
About three-quarters (74%) of respondents said the instructor or a utility representative discussed the
utility-funded energy-efficiency incentive programs during the training (15% could not remember; 11%
said, according to their memory, this was not discussed).
Of those who recalled discussing utility programs, 65% thought the information helped them
understand how to participate in the programs, while 15% of respondents said it did not, and 20% of
respondents could not remember. Forty-one percent of all respondents said they had participated in at
least one of the following utility-funded energy-efficiency incentive program areas:
Lighting
Audits
Faucet Aerators
Air Audits
Refrigeration
Steam Rebate
HVAC
Motors
Furthermore, 70% of trade allies said the instructor provided guidance on how to promote energy
efficiency to their end-user customers. Of these trade allies, most (71%) thought it was “very useful”
because they thought it was good refresher information and that it was good practical information that
can be easily applied.
Of the 30% of respondents who said they did not receive training on how to promote energy efficiency,
all of them were very interested in receiving this type of guidance in the future.
When asked if there were any topics they would like covered in future EEA training sessions,
respondents mentioned the following areas:8
1. Building efficiency class (15%)
2. Refrigeration (15%)
3. Renewable energy (11%)
4. Energy management tools (11%)
5. Basic air compressor systems (8%)
6. Electricity generation and transmission (4%)
7. Smart metering (4%)
8 Percent of respondents shown. Multiple responses allowed; percentages may not sum to 100%.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
34
Furthermore, a few respondents said they would like to receive refresher courses through EEA because
they forgot some of the information learned through the initial in-depth training.
Training Delivery
All of the training sessions were in-person with a qualified instructor assigned by EEA or AMS. Training
sessions ranged anywhere from one to five days long at varying locations across the state.
Several stakeholders Cadmus interviewed thought the training sessions were too long, a likely barrier to
participation among attendees who cannot take that much time away from work. However, when asked
how satisfied they were with the format of the training, 96% of training respondents said they were
either “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied.”
When asked about the appropriateness of the level of technical detail provided in the training, most
attendees (77%) said they thought it was just right, 16% thought the training needed more technical
detail, and 8% thought it needed less technical detail. From reviewing the program materials, Cadmus
found that the flyers did not always have clear requisites for level of skill needed to attend the trainings.
Nearly all (96%) respondents thought the instructor who led the training was knowledgeable and
credible about the subject matter (the one respondent accounting for the remaining 4% could not
remember).
Just over half (56%) of respondents recalled the instructor used interactive learning tools such as videos
or digital models (15%), hands-on demonstrations (11%), or team exercises (30%) and all of them
thought this was “very useful” or “somewhat useful” (Figure 14). Nineteen percent of respondents could
not remember if instructors used these types of tools in class, and 15% said there were not interactive
learning tools.
Overall, participants found the training very useful (Figure 14).
Figure 14. Usefulness of Training
10%
90%
4%
15%
81%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Not at alluseful
Not too useful Neutral Somewhatuseful
Very useful
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Interactive learning tools (n=20) Training overall (n=26)
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
35
Fifty-six percent of respondents said they received pamphlets, brochures, or hand-outs from the
instructor. Fifteen percent could not remember, and 8% said they received a software program or web-
link to a software program.
Satisfaction
When asked how useful they thought the training was overall, 81% said “very useful,” 15% said
“somewhat useful” and one respondent said “not too useful.”
Seventy-eight percent of respondents were “very satisfied” with the training, while 22% were
“somewhat satisfied.” These results align with the high satisfaction rates from the post-training surveys
submitted by training participants upon completion of the course.
Figure 15 shows training participant satisfaction with the program.
Figure 15. Satisfaction with the Training Overall (n=27)
Impacts of Training
When asked how the training impacted their business, respondents most frequently said they were able
to increase their technical knowledge (48%) or increase their awareness of energy efficiency (26%).
Other benefits to participating included saving energy through energy-efficiency actions (15%), receive
educational credits or certifications (15%) and gaining industry contacts (8%).
Overall, participants took several actions related to energy efficiency, including the following most
frequently mentioned actions:9
Talking about energy efficiency with colleagues (41%)
Contractors talking about energy efficiency with end-user customers (22%)
Installing energy-efficient equipment (19%)
Applying for an incentive from a utility-sponsored energy-efficiency program (19%)
Did not take any actions related to energy-efficiency after the training (22%)
9 Percent of respondents shown. Multiple responses allowed; percentages may not sum to 100%.
0% 0% 0%
22%
78%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Not at allsatisfied
Not toosatisfied
Neutral Somewhatsatisfied
Very satisfied
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Satisfaction Rating
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
36
When comparing contractors to end-users who attended the trainings (Figure 16), contractors most
frequently talked about energy efficiency with their colleagues (40%) and end-user customers (35%).
They also installed energy-efficient equipment at a customer’s facility (20%) or talked with end-user
customers about participating in a utility energy-efficiency program (20%).
C&I end-users who attended the trainings most commonly reported talking about energy efficiency with
colleagues (35%), or applying for a utility incentive for making energy-efficient upgrades at their facility
(29%). C&I end-users that attended the trainings also looked for more information about energy
efficiency (18%), performed an audit or evaluation of their facility/equipment (18%), and installed
energy-efficient equipment (18%).
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
37
Figure 16. Actions Taken by Participants Since Training
40%
30%
35%
20% 20%
10%
35%
24%
18%
29%
18% 18%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Talked about EEwith colleagues
Nothing [ContractorsOnly] Talked
about EE withcustomers
Installed EE equipment at a
customer’s facility/own
facility
Applied for an incentive from
utility for making energy-efficiency upgrades at own
facility/a customer’s
facility
Looked for moreinformation
about EE
Performed anaudit or
evaluation offacility or
equipment
[ContractorsOnly] Talked
with customersabout
participating in autility EEprogram
Incorporated EEinto sales and
marketingefforts
Adjustedbusiness
operation to runequipment onlywhen needed
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Actions Taken by Participants Since Training
Contractors (n=10)
End-Users (n=17)
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
38
Of the respondents who said they took action, half (50%) thought the EEA training was “very influential” in getting
them to make those changes, and 35% said EEA training was “somewhat influential.” One respondent said the
EEA training was “not too influential,” and one said it was “not at all influential” in getting them to take the
actions. Figure 17 shows how influential EEA’s training was on participants’ decisions to take these actions.
Figure 17. Influence of EEA Training on Participants’ Actions (n=20)
Barriers
Training participants mentioned several challenges they experience in integrating energy efficiency into their
business practices. Most commonly mentioned were:
Participants do not think energy efficiency is necessary or believe their existing business model works fine
(28%)
Limited interest among their customer base in energy efficiency (12%)
Limited time or too much hassle (12%)
Forty percent of participants thought that continued education on energy efficiency for both businesses and end-
users would be helpful in overcoming these challenges (20%) as well as more rebates to fund energy-efficiency
upgrades (20%). Forty-five percent of participants did not have suggestions for ways to overcome these
challenges (multiple responses allowed).
When the evaluation team asked trade allies specifically about barriers, they most commonly thought that limited
capital was the greatest barrier to making energy-efficiency upgrades among end-user customers (40%), along
with the benefits of energy efficiency not being clear to end-user customers (30%). Note that first cost is the most
common barrier to participation among businesses in most C&I energy-efficiency programs.
To address these challenges, contractors thought end-user customers could benefit from more information on
energy efficiency (30%), more information on rebate programs (10%), and more energy-efficiency resources
(10%).
50%
35%
10%
5% 5%
Very influential
Somewhat influential
Neutral
Not too influential
Not at all influential
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
39
Aside from training, some respondents had suggestions for other ways EEA can help them integrate energy
efficiency into their facilities and business practices. Most commonly, respondents wanted more updates and
information about energy-efficiency news/classes/new technologies in the form of newsletters and mailings
(15%), more information they [contractors] can pass to end-users about energy efficiency (15%), and case studies
(11%).
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
40
Conclusions and Recommendations
Cadmus developed the following conclusions and recommendations for program improvements based on the
findings from the evaluation activities previously discussed. Cadmus organized following conclusions and
recommendations by research objective, which apply to both the residential Outreach and Promotion and C&I
Training components of the program unless otherwise specified.
Program Design
Conclusion: The current design of the Outreach and Promotion is meeting the goal of increasing awareness
among residential Arkansas residents.
Conclusion: EEA can improve communication and coordination between the various stakeholders involved in the
Program. Specific problems to communication include unclear and undefined objectives, clarification of target
audiences, inconsistent and ad hoc coordination and promotion of trainings, and little to no data or results
sharing. These factors impact the strategies developed to achieve EEA’s objectives and the success of its activities
in terms of reach and participation.
Conclusion: Due to inconsistent branding and messaging, residential customers may not associate EEA and the
Tighten Up campaign together, thus limiting the program’s ability to build stronger awareness.
Conclusion: There is no explicit branding or content embedded in the training materials or agendas about utility
rebate programs, however, learning about the utility programs is a driving motivator among attendees’ reasons to
sign up.
Conclusion: EEA and the utility energy efficiency programs could be better integrated.
Recommendation 1: Involve all stakeholders (EEA, vendors, the utilities, plus others as necessary) in the
collaborative development of an annual program implementation plan for EEA. This plan should include:
Defined roles, responsibilities and partnerships, including a staff person in-charge of overseeing outreach
among supporting staff and stakeholders
Defined objectives and measureable goals
Key target audiences and strategies to reach those audiences
Branding and messaging strategy, including guidelines for stakeholder use and templates, especially for
promotion of trainings
Plans for keeping the website updated as a usable resource for both residential consumers and the C&I
training component
Outreach strategies and specific activities including protocols for coordination with stakeholders and a
schedule
Training topics and schedule for the year
Plans for tracking progress towards goals, measuring effectiveness, and sharing results with stakeholders
on a regular basis
Meeting and reporting schedule for all stakeholders
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
41
Recommendation 2: Develop and implement a consistent and comprehensive brand and messaging strategy to
strengthen long term awareness and recognition, and ultimately support EEA’s goal to reach and engage key
audiences.
Recommendation 3: In collaboration with Recommendation 1, solidify partnerships and communications with
utility energy-efficiency programs by formalizing the utilities’ role in developing the training agenda and
content as well as developing the marketing strategy and plan.
Program Performance and Implementation
Conclusion: Even with a limited marketing budget, awareness of EEA or the campaign name, Tighten Up was
approximately 39%.
Conclusion: Despite awareness levels, residential consumers lack familiarity with EEA. With utilities and general
internet searches as consumers’ primary energy-efficiency resource choices, EEA has room to expand reach and
familiarity among Arkansas residential consumers.
Conclusion: The C&I training instructors selected to lead the trainings provided high-quality education and were
knowledgeable about the subject matter.
Conclusion: There are not enough program resources dedicated to outreach for C&I training, resulting in several
challenges to meeting goals.
Conclusion: E-mail is the most effective and preferred way for reaching C&I training participants, and it may be a
cost-efficient way to continue ongoing outreach to targeted markets.
Conclusion: Not all C&I training attendees thought the level of technical detail was appropriate for them, and the
program materials did not always specify the level of technical detail that would be covered in the training.
Recommendation 4: Revisit program budgets to strategically prioritize expenditures that generate the greatest
impact for the program. Based on the revisited budget, move forward with those areas identified as priorities.
Market Effects
Conclusion: Nearly all stakeholders and training participants are satisfied with the trainings and find them useful.
Conclusion: The C&I training is effectively increasing technical knowledge and awareness of energy efficiency
among participants, as well as stimulating participants to take actions such as talking about energy efficiency with
colleagues and customers, installing energy-efficient equipment, and applying for incentives from utility funded
programs.
Conclusion: EEA is missing opportunities for increased and longer-term impacts of the C&I trainings by not
performing post-training follow-up or tracking attendance.
Data and Information Tracking
Conclusion: There are missed opportunities to track performance and facilitate future effective evaluations
because not enough information is being tracked.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
42
Recommendation 5: Develop a database, including participation data and metrics, which allows AEO to monitor
and maintain information necessary for a comprehensive evaluation and to track performance.
Data collection fields for marketing could include, if available, contact information for hotline callers
including name, phone number, email and mailing address, type of information customer seeks, how
customers heard about EEA, preferred method of communication, and traditional and evaluative metric
results for various marketing tactics.
Data collection fields for training should include first name, last name, title, street address, city, state, zip,
phone number, e-mail, training type, training date, company name, company type10, and a unique
identification number to track participants across trainings and utility energy-efficiency programs.
EEA should work with the utilities to track cross over participation from EEA to energy-efficiency
programs, when relevant.
If not cost prohibitive, collect more feedback from training participants to get better information about
market effects. Perhaps perform a longitudinal study with all C&I training participants to gauge long- and
short-term market effects and to increase participants’ recall rates. The study could include a brief on-site
survey, including questions that rate participant satisfaction and usefulness of the training at the
conclusion of the training11; a second survey a few months later to ask about the changes they have made
to their business practices; and another survey(s) several months later asking about any additional
changes they have made.
10
This information will help EEA understand audiences and align target markets. Specific field options should include: contractor [specify type], end user [specify type: school district, state agency, etc.], utility representative [specify type: utility represented], EEA representative [specify type], other [specify type]
11 There is already a brief survey collected from participants with quantitative and qualitative questions.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
43
Areas for Improvement
Additionally, the following are suggested areas for improvement for the EEA effort.
Suggestion 1: Increase and deepen awareness levels by continuing TV and radio outreach channels. Target
media outreach channels and tactics to reach those who are proactively seeking energy-efficiency information
through online sources.
Suggestion 2: Consider targeting more compelling messaging to encourage the “already committed” residential
group that may have started down the path to making energy-efficiency investments beyond the low/no cost
alternatives. Challenge perceptions that homes are already energy efficient and other perceived barriers by
engaging families, whole households, and communities in the Tighten Up challenge. Attitudes and household
characteristics of those that are most likely to engage in energy efficient upgrades include:
Larger homes
Less than 20 years tenure living in their current home
Oklahoma Gas utility customers
May have already made some improvements and received rebates
Are aware that their home could be more energy efficient
Suggestion 3: Consider enriching the C&I training curriculum and delivery methods through these
enhancements:
Add more detail to C&I training outreach materials about desired audience and level of technical detail to
target audiences more effectively.
Offer shorter C&I training sessions for specific target groups (i.e., executives and key decision makers) and
for follow-up refresher courses.
Embed in every course, formal training about how to promote and sell energy efficiency to end-users, to
colleagues, or to key decision makers within businesses. In addition, a separate course specially focused
on this topic may be warranted.
Add content to the trainings on how to sell energy efficiency to end-users, to colleagues, or to key
decision makers within businesses.
Depending on the target market, add in some shorter sessions or other delivery formats, such as
Webinars, that might be better suited for some less in-depth training courses.
Suggestion 4: After each training session, follow up with every attendee to reinforce the training topic and
general efficiency message. EEA staff should take the following steps:
Remind attendees of ways they can take action and implement the concepts learned in the course
Send attendees information about utility programs and ways to participate
Offer quick refresher courses on the topics they already learned about to ensure long-term results
(webinar format could work great for this and reduce administration costs)
Alert participants to other trainings and keep them abreast of all relevant upcoming opportunities
Ask attendees to suggest colleagues or business associates who may also benefit from attending training
sessions
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
1
7.0 Appendix C: Arkansas Industrial Energy Clearinghouse Report
Arkansas Industrial Energy Clearinghouse
Annual Report January – December 2013
To: Energy Efficiency Arkansas (EEA) Program
Arkansas Economic Development Commission - Energy Office 900 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 400
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
From: Dr. Darin Nutter
Arkansas Industrial Energy Clearinghouse University of Arkansas
Mechanical Engineering Department 863 West Dickson Street Fayetteville, AR 72701
479-575-4503 [email protected]
Friday, January 31, 2014
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
2
Introduction and Background The Arkansas Industrial Energy Clearinghouse (or the ‘Clearinghouse’) was originally funded by the Arkansas Energy Office through support of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) from February 2010 through March 2012. Then for April and May 2012, the Clearinghouse staff and efforts were supported through U.S. Department of Energy’s Industrial Assessment Center funds. Since June 2012, the Clearinghouse has been sponsored by Energy Efficiency Arkansas (EEA), a partnership between the Arkansas Economic Development Commission’s Energy Office and Arkansas’ investor-owned electric and gas utilities and electric cooperatives through a ratepayer funded program approved by the Arkansas Public Service Commission. The primary function of the Clearinghouse is to support and promote energy efficiency within Arkansas’s industrial and manufacturing sector. The Clearinghouse is housed at the University of Arkansas’s Mechanical Engineering Department located in Fayetteville, Arkansas. The Clearinghouse includes an on-line website for contact information and links to resources, a full time staff engineer, part-time engineering students, and a program director (Dr. Darin Nutter). Typical Clearinghouse tasks and activities are to: 1. Assist companies in starting an energy management program, 2. Provide independent review of energy projects, 3. Support utility Energy Efficiency Program incentives, 4. Provide an understanding of industrial system(s) energy performance, 5. Recommending energy and cost-savings opportunities, 6. Providing technical resources, such as papers, publications, and loaning instruments, 7. Maintaining up-to-date knowledge of financial incentives for energy conservation, 8. Provide on-site plant assessments and system energy/power measurements, 9. Recommend system specific experts, as needed, such as DOE system specialists, and 10. Maintain a website with Arkansas specific information and tools. Summary of Activities during Progress Period As shown in Table 1 below, during the period of January 2013 through December 2013, the Clearinghouse served 58 different companies in the state of Arkansas. In addition to supporting the manufacturers directly, the Clearinghouse indirectly supported these companies through interactions with their utility companies and their energy efficiency programs.
Table 1. Company Interactions (2014 and Clearinghouse Life-to-Date)
Time Contacts Companies Web hits Web visitors
Jan 2013 – Dec. 2013* 494 89 11,299 5,651
June 2010 –Dec. 2013 (LTD) 2,910 388 36,472 14,778 ______________________________________________________________________________________
*58 of the 89 companies were Arkansas industrial manufacturers.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
3
Table 2 below provides as summary of various interactions with Arkansas manufacturers during the
2013 calendar year. The Clearinghouse recommended the implementation of numerous energy
efficiency measures that will reduce the use of electricity and natural gas, as well as utility costs. These
recommendations range from written engineering reports, which provide detailed calculations of
potential savings, to written lists of recommendations based on a one-day site visit. During 2013, the
Clearinghouse made 56 site visits to 28 manufactures and made recommendations for these and other
manufacturers. The number site visits was up compared to any previous year. Only two visits with
manufacturers did not result in recommendations. It is common for companies to have their own
unique selection criteria as to whether a measure is implemented, so various implementation rates are
seen. In total for the project period, the recommendations had an estimated implementation cost of
$2.2 million, annual cost savings of $1.2 million, and annual energy savings (site basis) of 150,000
MMBtu.
Table 2. Summary of 2013 Interactions with Arkansas Manufacturers
Entity Companies Interactions Site Visits
Entergy 25 92 19
Swepco 19 103 16
OG&E 6 47 10
Empire District
1 15 6
Co-ops 4 32 4
Municipals 3 22 1
Subtotals: 58 311 56
CenterPoint 33 132 21
SourceGas 19 132 25
AOG 6 47 10
Subtotals: 58 311 56
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
4
Brief discussion of noted work during period:
The Clearinghouse efforts for 2013 again had wide coverage of services across the state. The number of site visits to manufactures increased significantly, as did the quality of recommendations. This was largely due to our increased in experience and ability to directly serve Arkansas manufactures with recommendations they are more likely to implement. The Clearinghouse also had an increase in our instrumentation loan program (129 instruments loans), which positively impacts both manufactures (loaned to 13 companies, including 49 data logger/CT sets, 8 pressure loggers 4 thermal image cameras, anemometers, pitot tubes, ultrasonic leak detectors, light meters, data logger/temperature/RH sets, power quality analyzers, and flow meters); utility subcontractor (loaned 5 times, including date loggers and thermal imaging camera); equipment vendors; and UA. More specifically, the year included the promotion and completion of energy efficiency efforts in a number of ways. Selected examples include:
1. completion of a whole-system compressed air analysis for an Arkansas sanitary paper products manufacturer. The recommendations were implemented with very positive feedback from the company, Cadmus (the utility incentive program’s independent verification contractor), and others. Results from this study will be published in May 2014 at the Industrial Energy Technology Conference (IETC), with paper titled “Compressed air system analysis and retrofit for energy savings – an industrial case study”;
2. completion via follow-up with southern Arkansas company. Per the request of the company, the Clearinghouse re-visited the plant to provided details on previous energy savings recommendations. Implementation included lights, compressed air, and steam system.
3. completion of a significant effort with a poultry processing plant. This was a detailed energy analysis for the processing plant. The Clearinghouse portion of the project included a comprehensive energy efficiency study with analysis and recommendations with the potential to reduce the plant’s utility costs by over 20%;
4. completion of a new Clearinghouse website with the addition of a combined heat and power (CHP) section;
5. Dr. Nutter’s participation as a committee member of the National Governor’s Association (NGA) Arkansas Policy Academy to “enhance manufacturing through energy efficiency and combined heat and
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130
5
power”. His involvement also included being a presenter at the Arkansas Industrial Energy Efficiency Finance Forum;
6. a study of combined heat and power (CHP) system application was started and is on-going. This UA study’s working title is “Modeling the benefit of a joined combined heat and power (CHP) and thermal energy storage (TEM) system: an industrial scenario analysis for energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) minimization”.
APSC FILED Time: 4/1/2014 2:05:04 PM: Recvd 4/1/2014 1:57:35 PM: Docket 07-083-tf-Doc. 130