State of Wisconsin Department of Administration Division of Energy

Transcription

1 State of Wisconsin Department of Administration Division of Energy Focus on Energy Statewide Evaluation Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience Final: April 5, 2006 Evaluation Contractor: PA Government Services Inc. Prepared by: Miriam L. Goldberg, KEMA Inc.

2 State of Wisconsin Department of Administration Division of Energy Focus on Energy Statewide Evaluation Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience Final: April 5, 2006 Liaison Contact: PA Knowledge Limited 2006 Dr. David Sumi PA Government Services Inc Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 Madison, WI Tel: Fax: Prepared by: Miriam L. Goldberg, KEMA Inc. Contributions by: Acknowledgment: Ralph Prahl, Prahl & Associates, contributed critical review and analysis. This report is the property of the State of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department of Administration, Division of Energy, and was funded through the Wisconsin Focus on Energy program.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary Introduction Process Findings Market Findings Introduction Purpose and Scope Report Organization Key Findings Process Findings Market Findings The Agricultural Sector Influence of Focus and Other Factors on Customer Energy- Efficiency Decisions Customer Impressions of Focus Customer Experience with Business Program Financial Assistance Processes Customer Experience with Overall Business Program Services Barriers to Implementing Energy-Efficiency Projects Lasting Effects of Participation The Commercial Sector Influence of Focus and Other Factors on Customer Energy- Efficiency Decisions Customer Impressions of Focus Customer Experience with Business Program Financial Assistance Processes Customer Experience with Overall Business Program Services Barriers to Implementing Energy-Efficiency Projects Lasting Effects of Participation The Industrial Sector Influence of Focus and Other Factors on Customer Energy- Efficiency Decisions Customer Impressions of Focus Customer Experience with Business Program Financial Assistance Processes 6-3 iii Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.4 Customer Experience with Overall Business Program Services Barriers to Implementing Energy-Efficiency Projects Lasting Effects of Participation The Institutional Sector Influence of Focus and Other Factors on Customer Energy- Efficiency Decisions Customer Impressions of Focus Customer Experience with Business Program Financial Assistance Processes Customer Experience with Overall Business Program Services Barriers to Implementing Energy-Efficiency Projects Lasting Effects of Participation 7-7 Appendices Appendix A: Questionnaires A-1 Appendix B:Verbatim Suggestions for Improvement B-1 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience.4/7/06 iv

5 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the recent program experience of Focus on Energy Business Programs (BP) customers. The report is not intended as a comprehensive process evaluation. Rather, the intent is to provide basic information that has been collected from recent BP customers on a limited set of questions. These results will provide a point of comparison for customer satisfaction surveys currently being conducted by the Business Programs under a separate contract. The report is based on surveys of program partners (end users) who completed a project through Focus in the first half of FY05 (July through December 2004). The primary purpose of those surveys was to collect information needed to determine verified gross and net savings for the impact evaluation. Analysis of the process and market effects questions collected at the same time is presented for the first time in this report. 1.2 PROCESS FINDINGS Factors influencing customer energy-efficiency decisions show distinctly different patterns across the four BP sectors (Figure 1-1). These differences reflect the different markets and the ways the programs interact with customers in each sector. Figure 1-1. Percent of Participants Reporting High or Very High Influence Institutional 8% 36% 40% 63% 62% Industrial 5% 30% 59% 62% 75% External $ Comml Non-CFL 18% 28% 34% 45% Focus $ Information w/in the Organization Distributors/Contractors Ag Non-CFL 4% 8% 18% 65% 76% Focus Staff 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Missing/blank bar indicates 0 responses reported in this category. 1-1 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

6 1. Executive Summary Broadly speaking, the levels of Focus influence reported by customers are consistent with the program attribution determined by the impact evaluation for each sector. Influence and attribution were determined from the same customer surveys at the same time, but are based on different questions. The attribution factors developed from the same survey questions and reported in the most recent Semi-Annual Report are shown in Table 1-1. Table 1-1. Attribution Factors by Primary Segment Based on Samples from Participants Who Installed a Measure During the First Half of Year 4 Segment n Attribution Adjustment Factor kwh kw Therms Standard Error Attribution Standard Error Attribution Jul04- Dec04 Extrapolated n Adjustment Factor Jul04- Dec04 Extrapolated n Adjustment Factor Standard Error Jul04- Extrapolated Dec04 Agriculture 66 58% 5.8% 7.0% 60 48% 7.5% 8.3% 10 37% 5.7% 9.4% Commercial 65 62% 5.9% 7.0% 58 59% 6.9% 7.9% 18 30% 9.1% 10.4% Industrial 27 43% 7.1% 15.8% 25 38% 8.4% 17.7% 12 51% 15.8% 20.9% Institutional 23 48% 11.9% 19.5% 23 48% 9.3% 14.0% 19 56% 13.3% 20.8% Business Programs Overall % 4.9% 10.1% % 4.6% 8.8% 59 48% 10.1% 13.3% Customer Impressions of Focus Customer impressions of Focus are generally quite favorable. The large majority rated their impressions as 4 or 5 out of 5, and only a small percentage indicated unfavorable impressions (Figure 1-2). The industrial sector had somewhat less favorable ratings than the others, likely reflecting the complexity of serving this sector. Figure 1-2. Impressions of Focus 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 58% 31% 11% Ag Non-CFL 1% 28% 71% Comml Non- CFL 43% 41% 13% 2% 1% Industrial 68% 22% 10% Institutional Low High 5 Missing/blank bar indicates 0 responses reported in this category. 1-2 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

7 1. Executive Summary Customer Experience with Business Programs Financial Assistance Processes Consistent with the generally positive overall impressions, customer experience with BP financial assistance processes was generally favorable (Figure 1-3). Figure 1-3. Experience with Financial Assistance 100% 100% 97% 92% 90% 90% 90% 96% 100% 88% 90% 84% 80% 75% 73% 67% 66% 60% 40% 58% Ag Non-CFL Comml Non-CFL Industrial Institutional 20% 0% Application didn't take too long No problem completing application No problem getting payment No suggestions for improving process These results exclude commercial and agricultural participants who received only CFLs Customer Experience with Overall Business Program Services Overall satisfactions levels generally mirrored the overall impression scores. Large majorities in each sector indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied, and very few indicated dissatisfaction (Figure 1-4). 1-3 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

8 1. Executive Summary Figure 1-4. Satisfaction with Overall Program Services Not at all satisfied Very satisfied 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 61% 64% 54% 59% 34% 42% 35% 31% 6% 8% 1% 1% 2% 2% Ag Non-CFL Comml Non-CFL Industrial Institutional Missing/blank bar indicates 0 responses reported in this category. Dominant reasons for satisfaction were they liked the money, liked the information, and liked the savings. What customers liked varied by sector. These differences reflect differences in customer needs, market structures, and, resulting from these, how the sectors interact with customers (Figure 1-5). Figure 1-5. Reasons for Satisfaction with Overall Program Services Liked the money 17% 33% 33% 59% Liked the savings 2% 23% 35% Liked the information 2% 9% 49% 55% Liked the program rep 4% 8% 21% 30% Just liked the program overall Prgm prfessionlly handled/promoted 3% 4% 2% 5% 1% 16% 18% Institutional Industrial Comml Non-CFL Ag Non-CFL Happy with results 1% 14% Other 15% 23% 36% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Missing/blank bar indicates 0 responses reported in this category. 1-4 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

9 1. Executive Summary 1.3 MARKET FINDINGS Barriers to Implementing Energy-Efficiency Projects Reasons participants had not previously implemented the Focus measures were coded from open-ended responses. On the whole, the barriers identified through these surveys are consistent with those identified previously for each sector. These are: Lack of time/not a priority/hassle or transaction costs Lack of capital/access to financing Lack of knowledge/information or search costs. Inability to identify measures (lack of knowledge) and financial limitations were reported by large fractions of customers in all sectors. Lack of time/not a priority manifested itself somewhat differently in the different sectors. In the agricultural and industrial sectors, and, to a lesser extent, institutional sectors, various responses indicated that nothing was being done until there was a need to deal with a piece of equipment. In the commercial sector, lack of time was identified directly by a large fraction of respondents Lasting Effects of Participation Customers were asked if, as a result of participating in Focus on Energy, various changes had occurred in their organizations thinking or practices related to energy efficiency. High levels of agreement were reported for all these statements in all sectors, with the exception of being more likely to consider renewable energy technologies and being more likely to implement additional energy efficiency without further assistance. The relatively low scores for considering renewables more are not surprising given that most customers program experience did not involve renewable technologies. The small increase in the likelihood of implementing further efficiency measures without assistance is more disappointing. 1 Programs with long-term market transformation objectives often look to changes in thinking and practices around energy efficiency as precursors to the ultimate effect of interest: increased adoption of additional energy efficiency without direct program assistance. In the present case, however, many key precursors are indicated to be present without the ultimate effect. Participants report increased looking for and assessing energy-efficiency opportunities 1 It may seem that the low agreement with increased likelihood of implementing additional efficiency measures without program support implies a high attribution rate for the original measures. That is, Focus must have had a strong influence on the decision to implement the measures done through the program. However, the program s effects on future behavior and past behavior are separate questions. Customers who were already inclined to adopt efficiency measures on their own would have low program attribution for the original Focus measures and would not be more likely than before to adopt efficiency. Customers who did not and will not implement efficiency without program support would have high program attribution for the Focus measures and also would not be more likely than before to adopt efficiency. Thus, being no more likely than before to implement efficiency on their own could be consistent with either high or low program attribution for the measures these customers implemented through Focus. 1-5 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

10 1. Executive Summary and more confidence in savings estimates, yet say they are no more likely than before to implement additional efficiency improvements without program support. Understanding in more detail how the program experience has changed customer behavior would require further investigation. Figure 1-6 indicates the percent with very high agreement (5 on a 5-point scale) that they were more likely to consider renewables or more likely to implement efficiency without program assistance. Also shown in the figure are the minimum, maximum, and average levels of very high agreement across the remaining questions. Figure 1-6. Percent Strongly Agreeing with Indicators of Lasting Effects consider renewables implement w/o Focus min(others) max(others) avg(others) Institutional 7% 19% 34% 47% 61% Industrial 2% 19% 26% 40% 51% Comml Non-CFL 1% 11% 24% 28% 34% Ag Non-CFL 1% 14% 24% 33% 54% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1-6 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

11 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report describes recent program experience of Business Programs customers. The report is not intended as a comprehensive process evaluation. Rather, the intent is to provide basic information that has been collected through these surveys on a limited set of questions. These results will provide a point of comparison for customer satisfaction surveys currently being conducted by the Business Programs under a separate contract. The current Business Programs surveys include many of the same question sequences. The following areas are addressed: Process issues Influence of Focus and other parties on customer energy-efficiency decisions Customer impressions of Focus Customer experience with BP financial assistance Customer experience with overall BP services. Market effects Barriers to implementing energy-efficiency projects Lasting effects of participation. The report is based on surveys of program partners (end users) who completed a project through Focus in the first half of FY05 (July through December 2004). The primary purpose of those surveys was to collect information needed to determine verified gross and net savings for the impact evaluation. The decision was made to collect simultaneously the process and market-effects question batteries that had been developed for previous BP evaluation surveys. However, at the time there was no budget available to analyze and interpret these results. Analysis of these questions is presented for the first time in this report. 2.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION Section 3 summarizes the key findings of this analysis. Sections 4 through 7 provide further detail these results separately by BP sector. The survey instruments are in Appendix A. Verbatim suggestions for improvement are in Appendix B. 2-1 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

12 3. KEY FINDINGS 3.1 PROCESS FINDINGS Factors Influencing Customer Energy-Efficiency Decisions Respondents were asked to rate the influence of several possible decision factors on their decision to implement the energy-efficiency measures on a scale from 1 (no influence) to 5 (a lot of influence). Factors rated were: Information, advice, or technical assistance you received from Focus on Energy staff Information, advice, or technical assistance you received from a company involved in the purchase and installation of the equipment (for example, a distributor or contractor) Information you already had within your company Financial assistance or rebate from Focus Funding from some other external source. The reported influence of these factors on customer energy-efficiency decisions shows distinctly different patterns across the four BP sectors (Figure 3-1). In the agricultural sector, information/assistance from vendors who were involved with the project has a very dominant influence. Focus incentives have a strong influence, but the effect of direct information or assistance from Focus staff is relatively small. These findings reflect the strong pre-existing relationships between distributors/contractors and their customers in this market and the program s strategy of leveraging those established relationships. In the commercial sector (excluding CFL-only participants) information/assistance from Focus staff has the greatest influence, though not as great as in other sectors. The influence of Focus staff support is greater than that of Focus incentives. The role of vendors is less here than in the other sectors. The role of information from within the company is relatively high. In the industrial sector, vendors/contractors/distributors, Focus staff, and Focus incentives are all important influences, but the vendor role is the greatest. In the institutional sector, the influence of Focus staff is very similar to that of vendors, contractors, or distributors. Other external funding is a factor for only a small fraction of participants in any sector, but usually has a very high level of influence if it has any. The institutional sector has more non-focus external funding than any of the others. Respondents were not asked to identify these other funding sources. 3-1 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

13 3. Key Findings Figure 3-1. Percent of Participants Reporting High or Very High Influence Institutional 8% 36% 40% 63% 62% Industrial 5% 30% 59% 62% 75% External $ Comml Non-CFL 18% 28% 34% 45% Focus $ Information w/in the Organization Distributors/Contractors Ag Non-CFL 4% 8% 18% 65% 76% Focus Staff 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Missing/blank bar indicates 0 responses reported in this category. Broadly speaking, the levels of Focus influence reported by customers are consistent with the program attribution for each sector. Influence and attribution were determined from the same customer surveys at the same time, but are based on different questions. Attribution is determined from a sequence of questions focused on the decision process (the net-to-gross series) and not from this more general influence question. However, the two values relate to different ways of looking at similar issues. As a basis for assessing the consistency of the influence responses with the attribution assessment, we can develop an overall influence rating. For this overall estimate, we assign full credit (attribution = 1) to customers reporting the highest level of influence to Focus incentives and high partial credit (attribution = 0.75) to those reporting the next highest level. Results are summarized and compared with those of the complete attribution analysis in Figure Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

14 3. Key Findings Figure 3-2. Comparison of Attribution Factors and Influence Ratings Institutional Industrial Commercial Non-CFL Agricultural Non- CFL 46% 65% 56% 48% 48% 59% 63% 51% 38% 43% 19% 54% 30% 65% 67% 60% 25% 37% 22% 51% Focus $ High Influence Focus Staff High Influence th Attn kw Attn kwh Attn 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% The complete attribution analysis provides less credit to the program if part of the equipment would have been installed without the program or if it would have been installed at a later date. The rough overall influence rating does not account for these gradations. In addition, a lot of influence, the highest score available on the survey, does not necessarily mean that the program is entitled to 100 percent of the credit for the measure, as given by this scoring. Thus, we expect this rough influence rating for Focus to be somewhat higher than the complete attribution estimate. On the other hand, the overall influence of Focus is some combination of the staff and incentive influences. Thus, we expect only a rough correspondence among these measures, which is what we see. A more complete analysis of the relationship between individual survey questions and the complete attribution determination is currently underway. Nonetheless, the comparison does indicate a reasonable relationship between the influence and attribution findings Customer Impressions of Focus Customer impressions of Focus are generally quite favorable. The large majority rated their impressions as 4 or 5 out of 5, and only a few percent indicated unfavorable impressions (Figure 3-3). The industrial sector had somewhat less favorable ratings than the others, likely reflecting the complexity of serving this sector. 3-3 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

15 3. Key Findings Figure 3-3. Impressions of Focus 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 58% 31% 11% Ag Non-CFL 1% 28% 71% Comml Non- CFL 43% 41% 13% 2% 1% Industrial 68% 22% 10% Institutional Low High 5 Missing/blank bar indicates 0 responses reported in this category Customer Experience with Business Program Financial Assistance Consistent with the generally positive overall impressions, customer experience with BP financial assistance processes was generally favorable (Figure 3-4). These results exclude commercial and agricultural participants who received only CFLs. Large majorities of participants reported no problem completing the application, did not find the application took too long to complete, and did not have problems receiving payments. The commercial sector participants had the most consistently favorable experience, with only 3 percent reporting any problem. The agricultural sector customers had the most problems, with one-third reporting problems completing the application. The nature of the problems was not asked on the survey. Unlike customers in other sectors, the majority of agricultural customers (65 percent) had the application filled out by their vendor or (less commonly) by Focus staff. Thus, some problems may have been related to communications between the customer and vendor or to customers lack of interest in filling out the forms at all. A few customers indicated that it took too long to receive payment even though the average time to payment was shorter for this sector than for any of the others. Industrial sector customers were most likely to report excess time to receive payment. Average time to payment was over 10 weeks in this sector, the longest of any sector. Reasons for the longer time to payment were not explored, but may be related to the more complex Focus approval processes needed for custom projects or delays within the often large organizations receiving the rebate. 3-4 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

16 3. Key Findings Figure 3-4. Experience with Financial Assistance Processes 100% 100% 92% 90% 97% 90% 90% 100% 96% 88% 90% 84% 80% 75% 73% 67% 66% 60% 40% 58% Ag Non-CFL Comml Non-CFL Industrial Institutional 20% 0% Application didn't take too long No problem completing application No problem getting payment No suggestions for improving process Customer Experience with Overall Business Program Services Overall satisfactions levels generally mirrored the overall impression scores. Large majorities in each sector indicating they were satisfied or very satisfied, and very few indicated dissatisfaction (Figure 3-5). In the commercial sector, while 71 percent indicated the highest level for their impression of Focus, only 35 percent gave the highest satisfaction rating. In the industrial sector, on the other hand, somewhat greater fractions reported the highest level of satisfaction than indicated the highest level of overall impression. 3-5 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

17 3. Key Findings Figure 3-5. Satisfaction with Overall Program Services Not at all satisfied Very satisfied 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 61% 64% 54% 59% 34% 42% 35% 31% 6% 8% 1% 1% 2% 2% Ag Non-CFL Comml Non-CFL Industrial Institutional Missing/blank bar indicates 0 responses reported in this category. Reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction were coded from open-ended responses. Some customers provided multiple reasons. Since few customers reported dissatisfaction, there were no particular patterns of reasons to identify. Dominant reasons for satisfaction were they liked the money, liked the information, and liked the savings. What customers liked varied by sector. These differences reflect differences in customer needs, market structures, and, resulting from these, how the sectors interact with customers (Figure 3-6). 3-6 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

18 3. Key Findings Figure 3-6. Reasons for Satisfaction with Overall Program Services Liked the money 17% 33% 33% 59% Liked the savings 2% 23% 35% Liked the information 2% 9% 49% 55% Liked the program rep 4% 8% 21% 30% Just liked the program overall Prgm prfessionlly handled/promoted 3% 4% 2% 5% 1% 16% 18% Institutional Industrial Comml Non-CFL Ag Non-CFL Happy with results 1% 14% Other 15% 23% 36% 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Missing/blank bar indicates 0 responses reported in this category. In the agricultural sector, the money was the strongest reason for satisfaction (59 percent). The Focus representative was the reason for about half as many. In the commercial sector, a wider range of satisfaction reasons was given. Money and savings were the most common. In the industrial sector, information was the most prominent reason (55 percent). Over half (60 percent) also had particular reasons for satisfaction that didn t fall into the coded categories. These included that the program was simple or easy to work with, the tool lending library, and the partnership. Money was the satisfaction driver for only 17 percent, and the program representative for only 4 percent. Institutional sector respondents mentioned information most prominently (49 percent) but also liked the money, savings, program representative, and professionalism. Both satisfied and unsatisfied customers offered some suggestions for improving the program. Suggestions given were the following: Speed up the payment time (5 respondents) Make money more available and more consistent (4 respondents) Improve information dissemination (4 respondents) 3-7 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

19 3. Key Findings Improve the application process and/or program features (7 respondents) Encourage Energy Advisors be more (pro)active (3 respondents). Verbatim comments are provided in Appendix B. It is natural and typical that customers want these things from the programs when asked for suggestions. However, the ability of the programs to make substantial changes in these areas is constrained by budgets. As indicated, there does not appear to be widespread dissatisfaction with the programs. 3.2 MARKET FINDINGS Barriers to Implementing Energy-Efficiency Projects Reasons participants had not previously implemented the Focus measures were coded from open-ended responses. These reported reasons give some indication of the barriers being addressed by the program. However, off-the-cuff explanations of why someone didn t do something should not be over-interpreted. On the whole, the barriers identified through these surveys are consistent with those identified previously for each sector. In the January 2003 Market Effects report, the most critical barriers found in varying degrees across the sectors were 2 : Lack of time/not a priority/hassle or transaction costs Lack of capital/access to financing Lack of knowledge/information or search costs. Inability to identify measures (lack of knowledge) and financial limitations were reported by large fractions of customers in all sectors. Lack of time/not a priority manifested itself somewhat differently in the different sectors. In the agricultural and industrial and, to a lesser extent, institutional sectors, various responses indicated that nothing was being done until there was a need to deal with a piece of equipment. In the commercial sector, lack of time was identified directly by a large fraction of respondents Lasting Effects of Participation Customers were asked if, as a result of participating in Focus on Energy, various changes had occurred in their organizations thinking or practices related to energy efficiency. Specifically, customers were asked the extent to which each of the following was true of their organization as a result of their Focus experience: Better able to identify opportunities to improve energy efficiency 2 State of Wisconsin, Department of Administration, Division of Energy. Business Programs Comprehensive Report: Volume II, Preliminary Market Effects Report Updated Final: January 31, Prepared by M. Goldberg, V. Goepfrich, C. Dyson, J. Fagan, T. Michelman, K. Agnew, and J. Erickson. 3-8 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

20 3. Key Findings More likely to ask contractors to look for potential energy-efficiency improvements when developing project plans More likely to use life cycle costing in decisions involving energy-related equipment and designs Better able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of higher energy-efficiency equipment or energy efficient designs More likely to have confidence in the energy savings estimates provided by firms offering energy-efficiency products or services More likely to consider employing a renewable energy technology such as bioenergy or solar energy More likely to consider implementing a cutting-edge, high-efficiency building design More likely to employ energy efficiency as a criterion when selecting energy-related equipment and designs More routinely managing its energy use or costs Likely to implement other kinds of energy efficiency improvements in the future without the help of a program like Focus on Energy. High levels of agreement were reported for all these statements in all sectors, with the exception of being more likely to consider renewables and being more likely to implement additional energy efficiency without further assistance. Figure 3-7 indicates the percent with very high agreement (5 on a 5-point scale) that they were more likely to consider renewables or more likely to implement efficiency without program assistance. Also shown in the figure are the minimum, maximum, and average levels of very high agreement across the remaining questions. Figure 3-7. Percent Strongly Agreeing with Indicators of Lasting Effects consider renewables implement w/o Focus min(others) max(others) avg(others) Institutional 7% 19% 34% 47% 61% Industrial 2% 19% 26% 40% 51% Comml Non-CFL 1% 11% 24% 28% 34% Ag Non-CFL 1% 14% 24% 33% 54% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 3-9 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

21 3. Key Findings The relatively low scores for considering renewables more are not surprising given that most customers program experience did not involve renewable technologies. The small increase in the likelihood of implementing further efficiency measures without assistance is more disappointing. 3 Programs with long-term market transformation objectives often look to changes in thinking and practices around energy efficiency as precursors to the ultimate effect of interest: increased adoption of additional energy efficiency without direct program assistance. In the present case, however, many key precursors are indicated to be present without the ultimate effect. Participants report increased looking for and assessing energy-efficiency opportunities and more confidence in savings estimates, yet say they are no more likely than before to implement additional efficiency improvements without program support. The most straightforward explanation for this discrepancy would be that the program has mitigated many barriers to implementing efficiency, but others still remain. Another consideration is that the likelihood to implement additional measures was asked separately and differently from the list of other changes. Agreeing that the organization has changed its attitude or inclination in the direction of energy efficiency is an easy socially desirable response. Stating that the organization is likely to take particular efficiency steps is a stronger commitment. Moreover, if a respondent thought what we wanted to hear was that the program is needed, the socially desirable response might have seemed to be that they were unlikely to implement without further assistance. And in some cases, savvy respondents may have said they wouldn t do more without program support because they want to continue to get incentives. In the surveys that collected these data, the responses were not probed to reveal underlying reasons. Understanding in more detail how the program experience has changed customer behavior would require further investigation. In the agricultural and commercial sectors, only 1 percent of customers were very likely to implement additional efficiency measures outside a program. By contrast, on the order of 30 percent strongly agreed with the other indicators of being more inclined to adopt energy efficiency as a result of Focus. 3 It may seem that the low agreement with increased likelihood of implementing additional efficiency measures without program support implies a high attribution rate for the original measures. That is, Focus must have had a strong influence on the decision to implement the measures done through the program. However, the program s effects on future behavior and past behavior are separate questions. Customers who were already inclined to adopt efficiency measures on their own would have low program attribution for the original Focus measures and would not be more likely than before to adopt efficiency. Customers who did not and will not implement efficiency without program support would have high program attribution for the Focus measures and also would not be more likely than before to adopt efficiency. Thus, being no more likely than before to implement efficiency on their own could be consistent with either high or low program attribution for the measures these customers implemented through Focus Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

22 3. Key Findings Table 3-1. Attribution Factors of CFL/Non-CFL Based on Samples from Participants Who Installed a Measure During the First Half of Year 4 Segment n Attribution Adjustment Factor kwh CFL Statistically Different From Non-CFL? a Standard Error Jul04- Extrap- Dec04 olated n Attribution Adjustment Factor kw CFL Statistically Different From Non-CFL? a Standard Error Jul04- Extrap- Dec04 olated Agriculture CFL 45 69% No 7.0% 7.1% 45 67% Yes 7.5% 7.6% Agriculture non-cfl 21 51% 8.2% 10.2% 15 22% 9.0% 11.1% Commercial CFL 41 57% 9.2% 9.4% 41 55% 8.7% 8.9% No No Commercial non-cfl 24 67% 6.8% 9.8% 17 65% 10.1% 13.7% In the industrial and institutional sectors, close to 20 percent had the highest level of agreement with being more likely to implement additional efficiency outside a program. While this is a higher proportion than was found in the other sectors, roughly double that number (40 and 47 percent on average, respectively) strongly agreed with the other indicators. The agricultural sector had the strongest agreement (24 percent strongly agree) that the Focus experience had made customers more likely to consider renewable energy technology. This makes sense since one of the examples mentioned in the question, bioenergy, has applications in this sector. In the other sectors, the effect of Focus on interest in renewable technologies was much less than its effect on energy efficiency behaviors (excluding implementation) Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

23 4. THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR 4.1 INFLUENCE OF FOCUS AND OTHER FACTORS ON CUSTOMER ENERGY- EFFICIENCY DECISIONS Respondents were asked to rate the influence of several possible decision factors on their decision to implement the energy efficiency measures, on a scale from 1 (no influence) to 5 (a lot of influence). Factors rated were: Information, advice, or technical assistance you received from Focus on Energy staff Information, advice, or technical assistance you received from a company involved in the purchase and installation of the equipment (for example a distributor or contractor) Information you already had within your company Financial assistance or rebate from Focus Funding from some other external source. Figure 4-1 shows the level of influence of various factors on agricultural program participants decisions to implement the energy-efficiency measures they did. This question was asked only of customers who implemented measures other than CFLs. Figure 4-1. Influence on Energy-Efficiency Decision Agricultural Sector Non-CFL 100% 8% 90% 80% 17% 32% 70% 60% 67% 19% 58% 2% 1% None Low 50% 26% 96% Medium High 40% 6% Very High 30% 20% 2% 14% 1% 57% 28% 39% 10% 0% 17% 8% 4% Focus Staff Distr/Contrctr Info w/in Co Focus $ External $ Missing/blank bar indicates 0 responses reported in this category. 4-1 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

24 4. The Agricultural Sector The figure shows a relatively limited role for Focus staff: for about 2/3 of participants, information or assistance from Focus staff had no influence. On the other hand, the next largest group of customers is the 17 percent for whom Focus had a very high level of influence. A small number fell in the middle. Thus, there appear to be two different kinds of relationship to the program, one essentially invisible, one very strong. The strongest influence role in this sector is seen for information and assistance from vendors who were involved with the projects (distributors and contractors). About 3/4 of customers indicate one of the highest two levels of influence for these suppliers. These findings reflect the strong pre-existing relationships between distributors/contractors and their customers in this market and the program s strategy of leveraging those established relationships. Focus incentive money is the next most influential, though not as strongly influential as the suppliers. Two-thirds of participants ranked the influence of Focus funding in one of the highest two categories. Not surprisingly, information from within the company has little influence in this sector. Other external funds play a role for only a small fraction (4 percent) of customers, but for these customers, its influence is substantial. Customers indicated either no influence or very high influence for non-focus outside funds Comparison with Attribution Findings These findings on Focus influence are roughly consistent with the attribution rates reported previously. Attribution is determined from a sequence of questions focused on the decision process (the net-to-gross series) and not from this more general influence question. However, the two measures are different ways of looking at similar issues. As a basis for assessing the consistency of the influence responses with the attribution assessment, we can develop an overall influence rating. For this overall estimate, we assign full credit (attribution = 1) to customers reporting the highest level of influence to Focus incentives and high partial credit (attribution = 0.75) to those reporting the next highest level. On this basis, we obtain an influence rating of 60 percent. The non-cfl kwh attribution factor developed by the complete method for the same survey sample was 51 percent (Table 4-1). The complete attribution analysis provides less credit to the program if part of the equipment would have been installed without the program or if it would have been installed at a later date. The rough overall influence rating does not account for these gradations. In addition, a lot of influence, the highest score available on the survey, does not necessarily mean that the program is entitled to 100 percent of the credit for the measure, as given by this scoring. Thus, it is not surprising that the influence rating for Focus incentives is somewhat higher than the complete attribution estimate. The corresponding influence rating for program staff is only 25 percent. As discussed, Focus staff have relatively little direct involvement with customers in this program. As a result, we do not expect their influence to be indicative of the overall program effect. 4-2 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

25 4. The Agricultural Sector The kw and therm attribution factors were lower than that for kwh. These non-kwh factors are based on the smaller subsets of customers who had these measures. As a result, these factors are not as directly comparable with the influence rating based on all customers. The attribution and influence ratings are compared in Figure 4-2. Table 4-1. Attribution Factors CFL/Non-CFL Based on Samples from Participants Who Installed a Measure During the First Half of Year 4 Segment n Attribution Adjustment Factor kwh CFL Statistically Different From Non-CFL? a Standard Error Jul04- Extrap- Dec04 olated n Attribution Adjustment Factor kw CFL Statistically Different From Non-CFL? a Standard Error Jul04- Extrap- Dec04 olated Agriculture CFL 45 69% No 7.0% 7.1% 45 67% Yes 7.5% 7.6% Agriculture non-cfl 21 51% 8.2% 10.2% 15 22% 9.0% 11.1% Figure 4-2. Comparison of Attribution Factors and Influence Ratings Agricultural Non-CFL 100% 90% kwh Attn 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 51% 22% 37% 25% 60% kw Attn th Attn Focus Staff High Influence Focus $ High Influence 0% A more complete analysis of the relationship between individual survey questions and the complete attribution determination is currently underway. Nonetheless, the comparison does indicate a reasonable relationship between the influence and attribution findings. 4.2 CUSTOMER IMPRESSIONS OF FOCUS Agricultural customers with non-cfl measures reported favorable impressions of Focus (Figure 4-3). None ranked their impressions in the lower two categories. The majority, 58 percent, gave the program the highest overall rating. 4-3 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

26 4. The Agricultural Sector Figure 4-3. Impressions of Focus Agricultural Sector 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 58% 31% 11% 0% 0% Low High 5 For customers who received only a CFL, most had little familiarity with Focus and were therefore not asked about their impressions. For the very limited number who did answer the question, the impression was again favorable. 4.3 CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE WITH BUSINESS PROGRAM FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROCESSES Agricultural sector non-cfl participants experience with processes associated with financial assistance was generally favorable, but not overwhelmingly so (Figure 4-4). About 2/3 agreed that the application process did not take too long, and a similar fraction had no problem completing the application. Conversely, about 1/3 disagreed that the process didn t take too long, and about 1/3 had a problem completing the application. A slightly larger fraction indicated some suggestions about improving the application process. These are higher rates of problems than were reported in other sectors. The nature of the problems was not asked on the survey. Unlike customers in other sectors, the majority of agricultural customers (65 percent) had the application filled out by their vendor or (less commonly) by Focus staff. Thus, some problems may have been related to communications between the customer and vendor or to customers lack of interest in filling out the forms at all. A few customers indicated that it took too long to receive payment even though the average time to payment was shorter for this sector than for any of the others. Average time reported to receiving payments was 3.7 weeks. Only 4 percent of non-cfl agricultural program respondents indicated any problem receiving payments. 4-4 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

27 4. The Agricultural Sector Figure 4-4. Experience with Financial Assistance Processes Agricultural Sector 100% 96% 80% 60% 67% 66% 58% 40% 20% 0% Application didn't take too long No problem completing application No problem getting payment No suggestions for improving process 4.4 CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE WITH OVERALL BUSINESS PROGRAM SERVICES Overall satisfactions levels in the agricultural sector were consistent with the overall impression scores. Ninety-five percent indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied, and none indicated dissatisfaction (Figure 4-5). Reasons for satisfaction or dissatisfaction were coded from open-ended responses. Some customers provided multiple reasons. Since few customers reported dissatisfaction, there were no strong patterns of reasons to identify. Dominant reasons for satisfaction were they liked the money and liked the program representative (Figure 4-6). In this sector, neither the savings nor the information provided were cited by many participants as a reason for the high satisfaction. The value of the service is the financial assistance and the relationship. For each of these factors, the percent citing the factor as the reason for satisfaction was close to the percent who indicated a high or very high level of influence of that factor. 4-5 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

28 4. The Agricultural Sector Figure 4-5. Satisfaction with Overall Program Services Agricultural Sector 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% Not at all satisfied 6% 34% 61% Very satisfied Figure 4-6. Reasons for Satisfaction with Overall Program Services Agricultural Sector Liked the money 59% Liked the savings 2% Liked the information 2% Liked the program rep 30% Just liked the program overall 4% Prgm prfessionlly handled/promoted 1% Happy with results 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 4-6 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

29 4. The Agricultural Sector 4.5 BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING ENERGY-EFFICIENCY PROJECTS Reasons participants had not previously implemented the Focus measures were coded from open-ended responses. These reported reasons give some indication of the barriers being addressed by the program. However, off-the-cuff explanations of why someone didn t do something should not be over-interpreted. Among non-cfl agricultural participants, the most common set of reasons for not having done something earlier appeared to be variations on the theme that nothing needed to be done (Figure 4-7). This type of response includes not necessary, (23 percent) and replacing as needed, (19 percent), as well as timing (8 percent) and new to building (8 percent). A little over a quarter (28 percent) reported financial limitations far fewer than the fraction indicating high or very high influence of Focus incentives. Incentives can be effective in various ways whether or not financial limitations are identified as the primary reason for not implementing without the program. Figure 4-7. Reasons for Not Previously Implementing the Measure Agricultural Non-CFL Had it done already 0% Timing 8% New to building 4% Not necessary 23% Replacing as needed 19% Fuel prices were low 0% Lack of time 0% Financial limitations 28% Technology unavailable 0% Lack of savings info 0% Unable to identify measures 17% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% A direct indication of the lack of knowledge barrier was given by only 17 percent unable to identify measures. However, the perception of nothing needing to be done reflected in the majority response could result in part from lack of understanding of the value of applicable efficiency measures. 4-7 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

30 4. The Agricultural Sector For the agricultural sector CFL participants, the same three general categories of response predominated. (Figure 4-8) However, inability to identify measures and financial limitations both ranked higher (38 percent) compared to non-cfl participants. Replacement as needed, a natural approach for CFLs, was reported by 15 percent. Figure 4-8. Reasons for Not Previously Implementing the Measure Agricultural CFL Had it done already Timing New to building Not necessary 3% 0% 0% 0% Replacing as needed 15% Fuel prices were low Lack of time 0% 3% Financial limitations 38% Technology unavailable Lack of savings info 0% 3% Unable to identify measures 38% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% On the whole, the barriers found for this sector are consistent with those identified previously for this sector. In the January 2003 Market Effects report the most critical barriers found for the agricultural sector were 4 : Lack of time/not a priority/hassle or transaction costs Lack of capital/access to financing Lack of knowledge/information or search costs. The nothing needed to be done response could be interpreted as similar to the not a priority category. However, for this sector a large fraction of customers indicate that non-cfl efficiency measures won t be implemented unless there s already a reason to change out or add equipment. 4 State of Wisconsin, Department of Administration, Division of Energy. Business Programs Comprehensive Report: Volume II, Preliminary Market Effects Report Updated Final: January 31, Prepared by M. Goldberg, V. Goepfrich, C. Dyson, J. Fagan, T. Michelman, K. Agnew, and J. Erickson. 4-8 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06

31 4. The Agricultural Sector 4.6 LASTING EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATION Agricultural Sector participants generally agreed strongly or very strongly with most of the statements related to lasting effects of program participation (Figure 4-9). Eighty percent or more agreed that as a result of Focus participation they were more likely To use energy efficiency as a criterion for contractor selection, To have confidence in energy savings estimates provided to them, To use life cycle costing, and/or To ask contractors to look for energy efficiency opportunities. Figure 4-9. Agreement with Lasting Effects of Focus Agricultural Sector Strongly agree Strongly disagree Implement addl EE 1% 31% 50% 2% 17% Routinely manage energy 26% 21% 51% 1% EE criterion for contractor choice 44% 36% 20% Consider high eff bldg design 25% 34% 18% 7% 17% Consider renewable 24% 21% 39% 9% 6% Confidence in energy savings 44% 42% 14% 1% Eval EE cost eff 14% 42% 23% 16% 6% Life cycle cost 54% 38% 2% 6% Look for EE 31% 57% 6% 6% Id EE oppty 23% 25% 44% 7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Missing/blank bar indicates 0 responses reported in this category. Increased ability to do things on their own did not score as high. Only 40 to 60 percent agreed that they were: Better able to identify opportunities to improve energy efficiency Better able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of higher energy-efficiency options More likely to consider implementing a high-efficiency building design, and/or More routinely managing energy use or costs. A smaller fraction, 45 percent, agreed that they were more likely to consider employing a renewable energy technology such as bioenergy or solar energy. However, this level of agreement was much higher than in any other sector. This comparatively high effect on 4-9 Business Programs: Recent Customer Experience 4/7/06