Upload
alexander-tate
View
217
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Community Pilot~
Project Overview and
Final Outcomes
12-17-13
2
Agenda
• WPS – Project Overview– Communications/Branding– Rates– Tools/Tech discussion – Utility perspective
• Focus on Energy – Programs• Energy Center of WI
– Tools/Tech discussion – Customer perspective
• DNV GL (KEMA) – Evaluation – Findings– Recommendations
3
Overview
• 2008 - WPS reached an agreement with CUB to provide increased funding to WPS customers participating in energy efficiency programs. The additional funds supported two types of programs:– Territory-Wide programs (mostly bonus incentives
on top of existing Focus programs)
– Community Pilot programs – test the effectiveness of new tools, technologies, program and rate approaches.
– Key requirement: WPS jointly develop and implement at least three community-based pilot projects. WPS worked collaboratively with CUB, PSCW staff, and Focus on Energy.
4
Community Pilot Key Messages
• iCanConserve was a bold, new community energy conservation pilot project– Participation was voluntary – Encouraged customers to conserve energy
and change energy behaviors– Lowered energy bills – Helped the environment– Be part of the community
5
Community PilotGoals & Objectives
• Evaluate customer response to current and new innovative rates
• Better understand the communication and education methods to encourage customer participation in energy efficiency
• Create awareness of energy usage via feedback devices and web-based tools
• Create scalable models incorporating lessons learned from each pilot community
6
Community PilotSelection Criteria
• Size of community– City or village (1-10,000 customers)
• “Green” eco-friendly • Progressive• Diverse community• Active parks and recreation• Active business associations• South of Hwy 64
7
Scope
• Three communities– Brillion - October 2009– Allouez - September 2010– Plover - July 2011(Staggered approach to build on lessons learned)
• All communities completed – December 2012
• Residential and small commercial customers included
• Large commercial and industrial customers not included
• Brillion – 1,500 customers– Tend to be older, more conservative, reluctant to
change or adopt new technologies– Fewer internet connected customers– Offers are “too good to be true”– Receive information via TV, bill stuffers, news,
neighbors– Word of mouth is extremely important – leverage
Energy Advocates– Community newspaper– Small businesses with an average of 5 FTE’s
Community Characteristics
• Allouez – 6,000 customers– Younger, wealthier, and more connected
• Provides opportunity to leverage microsite– No newspaper or schools so marketing channels
differed– Community leader support and involvement was
high– Small businesses with an average of 12 FTE’s
• Plover – 6,000 customers– Similar to Allouez except
• More renters• Slightly younger population – more families• Plover newspaper and schools
Community Characteristics
10
Community PilotKey Program Elements
Brillion Allouez PloverPopulation ~3,182 ~14,126 ~10,520
Total Households 1,408 5,894 5,498
Total Businesses 210 412 759
Program Duration October 2009 – December 2012
September 2010 – December 2012
July 2011 – December 2012
Customer Base Residential and Small Business
Control Community
Chilton Ashwaubenon Weston
Reasons for Program Variances
Not applicable. Lessons learned from Brillion and opportunities to test new design elements.
Lessons learned from Brillion and Allouez, opportunities to test new design elements, and shortened program duration.
Community Reward
$25,000 per Community, if goal is met
11
Tools & Technology: Brillion Allouez Plover
Smart Thermostat X X X
Home Energy Management System
XSmart Meter/CT, Thermostat, Plug Level Controller, Controlled Strip, Home Base
In-Home Display X X X
Google PowerMeter X X
Usage Graphs X X
Direct Load Control - New Technology (DRU) X
Electric Car w/public charging station X
Rates: Brillion Allouez Plover
3-Tier Time-of-Use X X X
Response Rewards (Critical Peak Pricing with Time-of-Use) X X X
Cool Credits (Direct Load Control) X X X
Flat Rate Rewards (Critical Peak Pricing with Flat Rate) X X
Conservation Rate (Inclining Block Rate) X
Community PilotProgram Offerings
12
Focus on Energy Programs: Brillion Allouez Plover
Home Energy Review/Assessment (two visits) X
Home Energy Audit (one visit - $25) X X
Heating & Cooling Early Retirement X
Heating Equipment Bonus (no A/C bonus) X
Community Participation Reward X X X
Energy Education from School to Home X X X
Small Business Customers Brillion Allouez Plover
Small Business Energy Review* X X X
Enhanced Business Incentives* X X X
Community Supported Financing for Small Business* X X X
Business Staffing Grants* X X X
Community PilotProgram Offerings
13
Community Reward Brillion Allouez Plover
Community Reward Progress 64% 82% 115%
Community Reward Value $16,000 $21,000 $25,000
Community Reward Projects LED Pole Lights on
Main Street
LED Bollard Lights along
Green Isle Park
Walkway
LED Pole Lights at Woyak Sports
Complex and Plover
Village Hall
Community PilotCommunity Reward Outcome
14
Final Report
• Final Report available on Public Service Commission of Wisconsin website: http://psc.wi.gov/
• Search Electronic Requirement Filing (ERF) System – Docket #: 6690-UR-119
15
Key Findings
16
• Marketing & Communications– Successes:
• iCanConserve Microsite• iCanConserve Brand & WPS Logo• Involvement of Local Officials• Email Newsletter
– Challenges:• Difficult to get customers to stop at pilot specific
events (Brillion and Plover).• Various channels were used to deliver messages
– Challenge to get customers interested/motivated to take action
• Media channel selection limited due to “spillover” effect (Allouez & Plover).
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
• Plover Success Kits• Community
Involvement• Pilot-ending messages• Referral Rewards• WPS/Focus
Collaboration
17
• Marketing & Communications– Lessons Learned:
• Reduce communications after second year in first community.
– Started to “tune out” pilot messaging (higher-than-normal frequency).
• Individual messaging helped clarify each offer vs. multiple pilot offerings in one communication.
• Customer’s preference for face-to-face interaction with the Energy Advocates.
• Using testimonials to push the peer-to-peer participation in communications.
• Tying actual energy savings (dollars) to the programs and rate offerings in communications to give customers a sense of the payback for such efforts.
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
Overview of Communications
Channels:• Bill Inserts• Targeted Web
Banners• Direct Mail• Emails• Microsite (variety of
information)• Newspaper
Ads/Editorials• Free Standing Inserts• Social Media• Yard Signs
Topics:• Program Offerings• Rate
Options/Education• Energy-Saving Tips• Community Reward• Testimonials
18
19
• Rates– Successes:
• Rate Videos– http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/home/response_rewards.as
px
• Outreach• Success Kits• Understanding Opt-out impacts• Load Shifting behavior change• Conservation behavior change• Google PowerMeter and WPS Usage Graphs• Plover Opt Out Evaluation • Simple is better
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
20
• Rates– Challenges
• Engaging/Educating Customers– Major appliances – Natural Gas/propane or
electricity?• Reviewing Rate Options
– Provided tables showing appliance consumption for small and large appliances
– Impact of appliances to overall bill– What to run off-peak
• Cell Phone Bill vs. Electric Bill Options
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
Community PilotEPRI Demonstration Projects
311W Each, High Pressure Sodium
152 W Each, LED
22
• EPRI Initiatives – Hyper-Efficient Appliances– Refrigerators
• Design options to increase the energy efficiency of refrigerators include:
– Variable-speed compressors– Adaptive defrost technologies– Improved insulation– Better-sealing doors and gaskets– Alternative refrigerants
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
• Savings based on manufacturer/model
» Range: -5% to 45%• Barrier to market
adoption– Cost
• 1980 – avg. refrigerator
• 19 cubic feet • used 1275 kWh/yr.
• 2010 – avg. refrigerator
• 22 cubic feet • uses 500 kWh/yr.
Average energy savings of about 50% (all host sites)
23
EPRI - Refrigerators
• Average energy savings of
8 - 15% per washer-dryer load
• Average hot water savings (gallons) of about 42% per load
• ~90% of the energy used for washers is for heating water
• Water extraction in the water spin cycle reduces dryer energy use
EPRI-Washer/Dryer
24
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
25
• EPRI Initiatives – LED Lighting– Successes:
• Customer Perspective– Informal feedback - LED lights were favorable.– Collaborative project made it possible for this technology
to be used in Brillion; otherwise cost prohibitive.• Operating Perspective
– Cold weather in NE WI did not hamper operation.
• Energy savings ranged from 20% to 70%
– Challenges:• The collection of photometric data was a challenge.• Circuit was controlled by a remote photo eye. Resulted in turn
on and turn off times that would not be considered normal. • Location of the test site was a parking lot at a mini mall, which
was not a high traffic area.
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
Research Objective:
Assess light emitting diode (LED) technology by measuring performance and user satisfaction of the technology when installed in street and area lighting locations.
LED Street & Area Lighting
Brillion Data
27
• EPRI Initiatives – Plug-In Electric Vehicles– Successes:
• First-ever, North America-based scale demonstration of first production Plug-in Electric Vehicles.
• Thirty (30) utilities, sixty-one (61) 2011 Chevrolet Volt vehicles, Texas to Manitoba, Maine to Hawaii footprint.
• Focus on utility industry perspective – infrastructure impact, energy use, effect of various parameters on energy consumption and consumer preferences around infrastructure and charging.
• Comprehensive data analysis spanning over 750,000 miles of driving and several thousand charge events over 2 years.
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
28
• EPRI Initiatives – Plug-In Electric Vehicles– Challenges
• Logistical challenges focused around structuring the program terms that balanced risk (liability) of the new technology, ownership of the vehicles, confidentiality of information and technical objectives. Total negotiations > a year to complete.
• Enterprise risk management – with an advanced technology class of vehicle being driven by regular drivers, liability and risk exposure were major concerns. To resolve this, EPRI carried a fleet-wide insurance policy for any unforeseen events.
• Technical challenges focused around getting data to flow regularly from GM (OnStar) and analyzing it for meaningful results, as well as getting the EPRI-designed data acquisition platform running smoothly.
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
29
• EPRI Initiatives – PEVs– As of Jan 31, 2013 the fleet totaled 738,000
miles; 359,000 miles on electric.– As of Jan 31, 2013 the fleet totaled 128 AC
megawatt-hours.
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
30
Tools & Technology
31
(EPRI) Feedback Type Categorization
• Home Energy Report– Designed based on industry
research and customer feedback– Incorporated key data
and information– Kept data consistent with
online and on-bill data– Mailings in spring and fall
32
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
33
• Home Energy Report– Successes:
• Two focus groups: – Customers perceived the HER as a value added service – Value in viewing their personal historical usage data, even if they
aren’t taking energy saving efforts– Paper format was well accepted - mental trigger to think about
energy usage– Customers trust the data and the utility– While viewing the entire report, customers found the most value
from the usage graphs– The design was very appropriate, from the packaging to the overall
layout of the report– Report spurred discussions within the household– Energy savings tips were of value– Comparison to average home (terminology) was preferred vs.
providing a comparison to their neighbor
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
34
• Home Energy Report– Challenges:
• Defining requirements and layout brought complexity :– Average home comparison and if it should be regional,
etc.– Variables in customer data– Bill adjustments and exceptions– Multiple electric or gas meters at one location– Weather normalization
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
35
• Home Energy Report– Lessons Learned:
• Focus Group Feedback:• Implementation options – potential opt-out process for
those not interested• Customers would like to see more information about
incentives, other programs and rate options• Comparison process must be done carefully - customers
stated that the term “neighbor” was problematic, however the “average home” terminology was preferred
• Customers requested a checklist of items to complete prior to the next heating/cooling season
• Report is required to be a 1st class mailing
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
36
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
• Google Powermeter
37
• Google PowerMeter– Successes:
• ~67% of participants continued to use it at least once per week.• Customer linked the PowerMeter to their iGoogle account• Customers became more conscious of energy consumption
– Challenges:• Initial enrollment labor intensive, customers were manually
entered in batches• Data was 24 hours old once viewed by customers• Comparison to other WPS tools, looks, etc.
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
38
• Google PowerMeter– Lessons Learned:
• Customer Perspective– Inability to make translation from energy usage to
bill savings– Customers did not know what contributed to
hourly energy load “spikes”– Would like to see information on natural gas usage– Would like to see calculated dollars saved on
current plan vs. other rate plans– Believability and accuracy of energy usage and
calculations
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
39
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
• Web Tools
40
• Web Tools– Successes:
• Customers felt they were user friendly and easy to interpret• Customers were able to measure historical changes• Interview respondents used the graphs to understand usage
patterns
– Challenges:• Color-coding of TOU rates were initially misleading• Throughout design of the graphs, actual cost data was
considered, but too costly
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
41
• Web Tools– Lessons Learned:
• Receipt of bill triggered review of usage graphs– Generally accessed every two weeks to once a month.
• Customers became accustomed to the 1-2 day lag
• Customers want to see usage along with cost• Customer wanted to see energy usage as a
whole for their community– average usage per day,– household comparisons.
• Some suggested providing quarter-hour intervals in an effort to identify appliance usage
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
42
• Smart Thermostat– Successes:
• Provided the customer with remote access • User friendly control settings• Created awareness of temperature settings and
schedules• Created awareness of energy usage and cost• Minimal installation issues
– Challenges:• Internet connectivity issues caused lack of control• Warranty returns and exchanges• Some users thought display was problematic
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
43
• Smart Thermostat– Customers also received:
• Live weather feeds and weather forecasts• Temperature alerts• Helpful conservation reminders
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
44
• Smart Thermostat– Lessons Learned:
• Additional critical-peak pricing notification options:– Customers were not always home to see the messages on
the thermostat.– Email notification received after had started
• Customers were not aware of all thermostat features:– Most controlled the thermostat locally, and not remotely – Customers did not review home energy reports via the
customer portal.• Easier enrollment and un-enrollment processes needed for
expansion• A customer notification, via email, to resolve their Internet
connectivity issues.
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
45
• Smart Thermostat• Customers preferred use of touch screen versus for changes• Most customers used the default control scheme for critical-peak
price events.– Control summary:
» 43 customers – altered set point 4 degrees higher (relative adjustment-default)
» 1 customer – altered set point 5 degrees higher (relative adjustment)
» 1 customer – altered set point 7 degrees higher (relative adjustment)
» 1 customer – altered set point to 80 degrees (absolute adjustment)
» 4 customers – Turned system off• Training the customer call center related to expanding territory
wide
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
46
• Home Energy Management System (HEMS)– Setups
• CT based Installations– In-home current transformers installations
• Zigbee based communications– Additional meter installed on home with communication
capabilities
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
47
• Home Energy Management System (HEMS)– Successes:
• In-home device communication was solid and reliable• Smart meter-based HEMS reported no delays in real-time
information• Nearly all households, used the Home Base to understand
appliance impacts
– Challenges:• Customer’s home router caused reliability issues• Proximity issues between the Home Base and the smart meter• Installation of the current transformer (CT) could be difficult• Dual socket adaptors were needed to keep the billing meter in
tack• Customer was not able to select program billing dates• WPS managed rates on device, holidays, TOU periods
– Blocks were not supported.
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
48
• Home Energy Management System (HEMS)– Lessons Learned:
• Immaturity of advanced meter technology used caused delays
• Package disbursement goals limited selection for some customers
• Over a 6 month period the frequency of use decreased• The energy usage data updates needs to be as real-time
as possible• Sockets and strips and time management were often
reported to be unused• Preferred method of access was via the Home Base
directly– Mobile application was not highly adopted due to limited functionality.
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
49
• Direct Load Control– Successes:
• Appearance of the DRU is similar to the legacy DLC devices.• Indication lights on the DRU give status to customers• DRU’s can perform shed and cycle functions in a similar manner
as legacy DLCs
– Challenges:• 50% cycling capabilities required manual recording of daily heat
indexes • To expand this weighting signal would be sent as part of an
automated process• Installation challenges which could result in additional contractor
installation costs:– Less space in DRU unit to connect A/C and Water Heater
wires– Extra compartment with 4 additional screws covering the
high voltage side access– Protective barriers around relays
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
50
• Direct Load Control– Lessons Learned:
• Randomization differences in the DRU vs. legacy DLC:
• Still small percentage of area not covered , 3%• Customer cycling program requires more
attention to daily heat and humidity metrics than the existing DLC system
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
51
• Smart Meters - Wi-Fi (Aclara)– Successes:
• Constant communication• Customer was able to view data with any web browsing
device
– Challenges:• Default web interface from factory• Didn’t support the breadth of rates• Cumbersome Wi-Fi setup
Community PilotWPS Key Findings
52
• Smart Meters (Aclara)– Lessons Learned:
• Wi-Fi firmware updates caused delays in the initial deployment.
– Router support• Meter security for pairing and password
strengths
Community PilotWPS Key Lessons Learned
53
• EPRI Initiatives – SmartGrid– Customer adoption of the technology has been low , likely
early adopters – Focus should be on leveraging higher throughput / lower
cost models– Technology readiness– DLC is still a very effective technology for lowering demand– Not one communication is best at all customer densities,
from rural to urban– Meter to In-home-Display communications can be a
challenge especially as it relates to larger dwellings and multi-tenet buildings
– customer education will continue to play a large role• Increase adoption rates• spend time on educating customer on rates, events and tools• new tools alone will not gain mass market acceptance
Community PilotWPS Key Take-Aways