nationalgridnewyork processevaluation

National Grid Downstate New York Commercial Energy Efficiency and Industrial Programs

Process Evaluation Report

February 10, 2012

Updated December 21, 2012

National Grid Downstate New York Commercial Energy Efficiency and Industrial Programs

Process Evaluation Report

February 10, 2012

Updated December 21, 2012

Copyright © 2010 Tetra Tech, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Prepared for: National Grid

Tetra Tech 6410 Enterprise Lane, Suite 300 | Madison, WI 53719 Tel 608.316.3700 | Fax 608.661.5181 www.tetratech.com

iii

New York Downstate Commercial Energy Efficiency and Industrial Programs: Process Evaluation Report 12/21/2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

I. Program and Evaluation Overview 1

II. Summary of Key Findings 3

a. Areas that are Working Well 3

b. Challenges to Program Success 4

III. Conclusion and Recommendations 5

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Program Background 1 1.2 Evaluation Methodology 8 1.3 Report Organization 12

2. Process Evaluation Detailed Findings 1 2.1 Summary of Key Findings 1 2.2 Program Administration and Processes 3 2.3 Customer awareness and marketing 5 2.4 Trade ally participation 11 2.5 Ease of Participation 12 2.6 Decision-making processes 15 2.7 Program Influence 19 2.8 Program Satisfaction 21 2.9 Customer Characteristics 26

3. Summary and Recommendations 1

iv


TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1-1. 2010 and 2011 Commercial Energy Efficiency and Industrial Program Progress ...................... 5

Table 1-2. Key Researchable Issues ............................................................................................................ 9

Table 2-1. How Customers First Heard of the Programs.............................................................................. 6

Table 2-2. Awareness of Programs Administered by Others........................................................................7

Table 2-3. Other Energy Efficiency Programs Mentioned ............................................................................ 7

Table 2-4. If Aware, Eligible for Programs Offered by Other Administrators ................................................ 8

Table 2-5. If Eligible, Investigated Programs by Other Program Administrators .......................................... 8

Table 2-6. Respondents Indicating Past Confusion....................................................................................10

Table 2-7. Preference of Program Approach..............................................................................................13

Table 2-8. Interest in On-bill Financing from National Grid.........................................................................14

Table 2-9. Interest in Low-interest Financing from Third Party...................................................................14

Table 2-10. Program Measures Installed in 2010.......................................................................................15

Table 2-11. Point in Decision to Purchase Equipment When Heard of Program .......................................16

Table 2-12. Condition of Replaced Equipment ...........................................................................................18

Table 2-13. Program Influence on Purchasing Equipment Outside Program.............................................20

Table 2-14. Factors Influencing Decision to Install New Equipment...........................................................20

Table 2-15. Overall Program Satisfaction Rating .......................................................................................21

Table 2-16. Reasons for Same or Increased Satisfaction Due to Program Participation...........................23

Table 2-17. Satisfaction with Program Aspects (on 0-to-10 scale, 10=extremely satisfied).......................24

Table 2-18. Program Change Suggestions.................................................................................................25

Table 2-19. Other Measures Respondents Would Like Included in the Program ......................................26

Table 2-20. Respondent Position in Company ...........................................................................................26

Table 2-21. Long Island CEEP Customer Characteristics..........................................................................28

Table 2-22. Long Island Industrial Customer Characteristics .....................................................................29

Table 2-23. New York City CEEP Customer Characteristics......................................................................30

Table 2-24. New York City Industrial Customer Characteristics.................................................................31

1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the findings and recommendations resulting from the 2010 process evaluation1 of National Grid’s Commercial Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) and Industrial Program in downstate New York. This report is one of a series of energy efficiency portfolio standard (EEPS) process evaluation reports of National Grid’s energy efficiency programs in New York.

Due to the similarities in program design and implementation, the process evaluations of both programs were done jointly. In this report, any differences between programs are noted.

I. PROGRAM AND EVALUATION OVERVIEW

The two programs target the non-residential customers in the Company’s downstate service territories (Brooklyn Union Gas Company d/b/a National Grid NY (New York City) and Key Span Gas East Corporation d/b/a National Grid (Long Island)).

Implementation plans were filed in late 2009 for the 2010 and 2011 program years. Based on the descriptions in those plans, the programs target customers in different gas consumption categories2, but the programs are otherwise very similar in design and operation. Program implementation began as of April 16, 2010, and applications received for prescriptive rebates and custom projects completed on or after this date counting toward the programs’ goals.

The programs’ implementation plans were updated on August 23, 2010 in response to a Commission Order issued on June 24, 2010, which made changes to the programs’ budgets, goals and eligible measures. High-efficiency heating and water heating measures were added to the list of eligible prescriptive measures at this time, and applications for these measures received on or after September 1, 2010 were counted toward the programs’ goals.

The Orders3 approving the programs specified that the Commercial Energy Efficiency Program target commercial customers of all sizes and small industrial customers using less than 12,000 dekatherms annually, while the Industrial Program targets industrial facilities that use more than 12,000 dekatherms annually. A recent Order4 recommends that National Grid combine its commercial and industrial programs in order to avoid the potential confusion caused by the 12,000 dekatherm division between the programs.

1 As this was an evaluation of the 2010 programs, we surveyed 2010 participants with completed projects. Due to the later timing of the contractor interviews (July and August 2011) we talked with contractors and other staff about their experiences during both 2010 and 2011 to investigate any changes that may have occurred. The nonparticipant survey also followed the participant survey by several months.

2 The Industrial program targets customers with more than 12,000 dekatherms of annual usage, while CEEP targets industrial customers below 12,000 dekatherms of usage and all commercial customers.

3 Case 07-M-0548, Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS), Order Establishing Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard and Approving Programs (issued June 23, 2008).Case 07-M-0548, Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS), Order Establishing Targets and Standards for Natural Gas Efficiency Programs (issued June 23, 2008).

4 Order Authorizing Efficiency Programs, Revising Incentive Mechanism, and Establishing a Surcharge Schedule. (Issued and Effective October 25, 2011).

Executive Summary. . .

2


The programs are designed to offer the following products and services:

• High-efficiency heating and water heating equipment

• Envelope measures in existing buildings

• Controls and operating systems in existing buildings

• Efficiency improvements of existing industrial processes

• Support for efficiency in expansions of existing industrial facilities

• Upgraded efficiency in design of construction projects.

Both programs offer rebates for prescriptive measures that include boilers, furnaces and other heating equipment, indirect water heaters, programmable thermostats, boiler reset controls, building shell insulation and pipe insulation. Industrial processes would typically be covered under the Industrial Program even if the customer is not classified as Industrial, provided that the customer meets the annual gas usage threshold of 12,000 dekatherms or greater. The Commercial Energy Efficiency Program also provides rebates for prescriptive measures that target food service businesses and other key customer groups. In addition, there are financial incentives available through both programs for custom measures with a limit of 50 percent of installed cost capped at a total incentive of $250,000.

Depending on the size of the customer and the nature of the custom project, technical support with financial assistance is available. Technical support varies by program but may take the form of customized energy audits, engineering scoping studies, full engineering feasibility studies, or other technical studies. Referrals to other programs are an important component of both programs.

A combination of internal program staff and external contractors are used to promote energy efficiency in the Commercial Energy Efficiency and Industrial Programs. The program is delivered using National Grid technical experts, account managers, and two vendors: EFI5, which processes rebates, and RISE Engineering, which serves as a customer contact center. Also involved are heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) contractors, plumbing contractors, and mechanical contractors.

In 2010, 369 customer projects were completed through the program. These accounted for 1,635,433 therm savings or 84 percent of the 2010 saving goals. This was below anticipated savings mainly because of a late program launch in April 2010.

As part of the process evaluation, Tetra Tech conducted interviews with multiple parties involved with the program.

• Fourteen downstate C&I program staff and three implementation staff interviews

• Nine in-depth interviews with installation contractors

• Sixty-eight quantitative participant surveys (2010 participants)

5 In November 2011, EFI was replaced by Helgeson (HEI) as the rebate processor for the CEEP and Industrial Program.


3


• Thirty qualitative nonparticipant surveys.

II. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

Overall feedback from all parties involved with the CEEP and Industrial Program indicate the program is successful despite working through some program changes.

a. Areas that are Working Well

Given the timing of an April 2010 internal reorganization at National Grid, the implementation start date of April 16, 2010, and the August 23 update to the implementation plans, the progress against the 2010 savings goals is very positive. Long Island CEEP was at 110 percent of goal in 2010 and both Industrial Programs were above 80 percent of goal. Only Long Island CEEP was well short of the targeted therm savings in 2010 (42 percent).

Awareness of programs administered by others is high; however, most are aware of programs offered by their electric utility as a form of supplemental support for energy efficiency programs and not due to a search for higher rebates. This is partially due to the close working relationship that National Grid account managers have with the electric utilities, especially LIPA, and the goal to serve the customer for the entire project and not just a particular piece of equipment.

The majority of participants agreed that paying 50 percent of project costs was a fair percentage. All of the Industrial program participants and most of the CEEP participants felt it was fair to split the project costs, indicating they did not expect to install equipment for free. Only one participant thought there should be no customer contribution.

Contractors are aware of the effect the rebates have on their ability to sell high efficiency equipment. Contractors see the value of the programs and are looking for information on program offerings to provide to their customers. One contractor said the rebates are “a central and vital part of our marketing effort”.

Participants report a high level of satisfaction with the program experience and National Grid as a result of participation. All but four of the Long Island CEEP participants, and all of the Industrial participants were satisfied with the program. Specific aspects of the program were also highly rated, most receiving mean ratings of eight or more on a zero to ten scale where ten is extremely satisfied. Almost half of the participants suggested no changes to the current programs.

There is little confusion about the differences in program offerings in downstate New York. Program staff report that customers are enthusiastic about National Grid offering energy efficiency programs in New York. And even though customers have more than one option for support, participants and nonparticipants generally appear to be clear on what is available. The few participants who were able to compare programs found National Grid’s just as easy, if not easier to use.

The program is influencing customer decision making regarding energy efficiency equipment. Inefficient equipment is being replaced through the program and survey responses indicate a portion of program participants are installing additional energy efficient equipment


4


outside the program. In addition, the various levels of technical assistance that customers are receiving are proving influential in the customer’s decision-making process.

b. Challenges to Program Success

Even with the successes across both programs and territories, there are still some challenges the programs face.

There is a large and diverse group of individuals involved in managing and delivering the programs. This can lead to communication challenges, especially when it comes to inform everyone of program changes or updates.

Delivery staff do not have easily accessible information on the status of customer progress in the programs. When we initially spoke with program delivery staff, tracking was done on more of an individual basis, not consistently within one system. This often created frustration as staff could not easily ascertain the progress of individual projects.

Some contractors felt the programs could improve the resources available to contractors who were interested in the programs. While some contractors have a trusted contact at National Grid, many others have not yet formed that relationship and feel they are missing out on program updates and information. Contractors are visiting National Grid’s website, but report having difficulty locating information or other resources that they may need such as program updates, eligibility requirements, forms, etc.

It is not clear that NYSERDA overlaps with CEEP and Industrial Program have been a problem in the downstate region. Although program staff voiced some concern early in the evaluation regarding the possible overlap in service to customers between NYSERDA and National Grid, this program evaluation and the benchmarking activity have found little evidence to verify that concern.

Participants were most likely to hear about the program from an account manager or independent contractor. While this is good news that the participants heard about the program from account managers and contractors, contractors felt that customers coming to them were not very knowledgeable about programs offered by National Grid.

Two-thirds of the nonparticipants we spoke with are unaware of the programs. One-third of nonparticipants had heard of the programs and they typically preferred websites as a source of information. In addition, several of those who had heard about the program did not hear through the same channels as participants, but from National Grid print media.

Almost half of the CEEP and Industrial participants, as well as nonparticipants, are interested in below-market rate on-bill financing from National Grid for energy efficiency projects. Only one-quarter of the participants and four of 30 nonparticipants said they would not use this financing option, typically because they either do not need or do not use financing, or because government regulations do not allow them to use it. The low-interest financing option through a third party was slightly less popular than the below-market option through National Grid.


5


Economic barriers are preventing customers from moving forward with recommended upgrades and short payback projects that are attractive are not eligible for program rebates. Both the current state of the economy and their internal business climate are the main reasons for hesitancy to commit to new projects.

Although there was little reported dissatisfaction from program participants, reasons for dissatisfaction were usually due to issues with rebate checks and paperwork requirements. While some of the less satisfied participants indicated they would like higher rebates, others mentioned the amount of time it took to receive the check and the rebate process in general as needing improvement. Some contractors also felt that for at least a few projects the actual rebate varied from what they had expected, which led to a loss of revenue for the contractor as it occurred after the project was completed.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall feedback from staff, contractors, and customers involved with the CEEP and Industrial Program indicate that after some program adjustments, such as a company reorganization which contributes to more communication and collaboration, full integration of the 2011 DSM programs into National Grid’s InDemand tracking system, and a late 2011 switch in rebate processors, the program is on the right track. The overall performance of the four programs was within 16 percent of the total 2010 goal. Participants are highly satisfied with their program experience and participation has improved their perception of National Grid.

At the same time, the program faces several internal challenges, most specifically those associated with effective outreach by National Grid staff and further inclusion of contractors in the program logistics. Below are recommendations to consider that address some of the opportunities identified above. Due to the timing of the data collection efforts, the period of time covered by the report is longer than what is typical for a process evaluation timeframe. Within that timeframe, National Grid had already implemented changes in program delivery. These changes are documented against the evaluation recommendations in Appendix H.

Increase the focus on program and coordination benefits in marketing of the National Grid programs. Program staff mentioned some difficulty producing marketing materials early in the program cycle. Because National Grid is essentially new to the New York market, it is important that they get the message out about the CEEP and Industrial Program offerings. Marketing should target both customers and trade allies. Providing National Grid staff and contractors with the tools they need to be able to talk to customers about the programs and how they would benefit (e.g., by doing X, you will be able to reduce your bottom line by Y) will increase customer awareness and participation. In order to maximize program participation, National Grid should highlight both their own program benefits and also the benefits of coordinating with the electric utilities for full project support. Tools the program has used already include in person meetings, e-mails, and mass mailings. Having case studies will also help market the program by showing real life examples of work that has been done, the available incentives and what the savings were. And any time the program can get trade allies together with customers they will both benefit.

Identify relevant trade allies and work to increase their involvement. Once the master list of trade allies is completely developed, work can start on identifying those who are most appropriate for outreach efforts. Outreach efforts should be targeted and tracked for effectiveness. Furthermore, the more National Grid can do to align trade allies to customers, the better the chances of pushing projects through. Outreach to trade allies should include more


6


program information and resources. Even though account managers are the first source of energy efficiency information for many customers, contractors are the second most mentioned source (first source for Long Island CEEP), which underscores the importance of ensuring that both those groups have the latest and most comprehensive information regarding the program to pass on to customers. Even with the new organizational structure in place to address outreach to commercial and industrial customers, National Grid sales staff will not be able to get to every customer as they make a decision on new projects. Therefore, it is beneficial to have the contractors also able to inform customers of program opportunities. At the time of the interviews, at least half of the contractors who provided feedback on the program were frustrated by the lack of program information available to them.

Add an energy efficiency program link to the Business Partner website. Contractors are visiting the National Grid website for information on programs but are finding it difficult to navigate and locate the forms they need. The area could be used to communicate program offerings and updates, post program documents including application forms, and list program contact information. It may also be an area to highlight tools they can use to estimate savings for customer projects by providing a link to savings calculators.

Simplify the path to energy efficiency information for commercial customers. Participants and nonparticipants both mentioned using websites to locate information on energy efficiency tips and programs. However, finding that information on the National Grid website can be a challenge. Once a customer selects the correct territory, they need to find the correct terminology to locate energy savings information which may require three to four links. The text we found under the “Economic Development & Energy Savings” link said “National Grid’s Economic Development team is ready to help your business expand and prosper. Energy savings programs are available in Massachusetts and New Hampshire” even if you have navigated to the Long Island gas site. Some other utility websites very clearly provide an energy efficiency link on their home page, or commercial or residential pages, that takes customers directly to information about their energy efficiency programs.

Provide a consistent National Grid point of contact for contractors, possibly within the Account Development department. Those contractors with the most positive views of the program typically had a reliable point of contact at National Grid who they could reach out to with questions. This option would improve the likelihood that contractors can immediately assist their customers and impact their decision regarding the installation of energy efficient equipment.

Continue to improve coordination with program administrators of electric programs. The most common reason for participants to reach out to other programs was to receive rebates for electric measures. We learned during the staff interviews that National Grid account managers work very closely with LIPA in Long Island and the same level of coordination should be attempted with ConEd. Consolidating projects for customers could result in a higher probability that they will complete projects through the program.

Keep all parties involved and informed. The delivery team for these programs is large, especially with the January 2012 reorganization involving account managers and sales reps. Ensuring that all those involved are aware of program goals, offerings, and progress will be a challenge. Periodic reporting and meetings with all parties can increase the engagement of all and involve everyone in ways to meet program goals.


7


Expedite the approval and rebating process wherever possible. Some contractors feel they are losing projects due to the length of time it takes for some project approvals or suggest they are losing money on projects when the rebate comes back different than originally communicated. For some contractors, the risk of losing money, particularly in a depressed economy, outweighs the benefits of providing their customers with discounted equipment. Accelerating the process would help minimize this barrier. Also, improving contractor relations and marketing will ensure that the contractors are more knowledgeable about the program’s policies, allowing them to avoid any potential difficulties associated with the rebate processes.

Maximize use of InDemand system to streamline communication of project status. Many staff involved with the programs in downstate NY mentioned difficulty gaining access to the status of projects throughout the process. The backfilling of all 2011 downstate program data into the system from the individual sources will improve tracking capabilities.

Once outreach has occurred, whether it is in the form of marketing to customers or trade allies, meetings with National Grid delivery staff, or contact initiated by the customer, there should be consistent tracking of those efforts. Reviewing projects by size, expected completion dates, or even looking at the likelihood of a customer moving forward with a project may help focus internal staff on priority cases which will help meet program goals.

Investigate options for offering on-bill financing at below-market rates. In the past two years the economy and ability to fund capital improvements have been the biggest barriers for commercial and industrial customers. National Grid should investigate the opportunities and complications of offering a financing option. There was significant interest from participants in below-market rate on-bill financing for energy efficiency projects—half of participants and nonparticipants indicated they were interested, and only four of the 30 nonparticipants were not at all interested. The rest would need to have more information regarding the details to decide. On-bill financing was more attractive to participants and nonparticipants than the third party option.

Fully leverage the experience of RISE. Even though the program has transitioned the customer outreach from RISE to National Grid account management and sales staff, RISE has valuable experience and ideas for moving energy efficiency projects through to completion. Hold brainstorming sessions with RISE to collaborate on ways to better reach the target market and serve customers as fully as possible.

1


1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of the 2010 process evaluation of National Grid’s Commercial Energy Efficiency Programs (CEE) and Industrial Programs in downstate New York. This report is one of a series of EEPS process evaluation reports of National Grid’s energy efficiency programs in New York.

1.1 PROGRAM BACKGROUND

The programs target the non-residential customers in the Company’s downstate service territories (The Brooklyn Union Gas Company d/b/a National Grid NY (New York City) and Key Span Gas East Corporation d/b/a National Grid (Long Island)). Implementation plans were filed in late 2009 for the 2010 and 2011 program years6. Based on the descriptions in those plans, the programs target customers in different gas consumption categories7, but the programs are highly similar in design and execution. Program implementation began as of April 16, 2010, with applications received for prescriptive rebates and custom projects completed on or after this date counting toward the programs’ goals.

The programs’ implementation plans were updated on August 23, 2010 in response to a Commission Order issued on June 24, 2010, which made changes to the programs’ budgets, goals and eligible measures. High-efficiency heating and water heating measures were added to the lists of eligible prescriptive measures at this time, and applications for these measures received on or after September 1, 2010 are counted toward the programs. Overall program goals for 2010 and 2011, along with actual activity, are shown in section 1.1.2.

The Orders8 approving the programs and targets specified that the CEE Programs target commercial customers of all sizes and small industrial customers using less than 12,000 dekatherms annually, while the Industrial Programs target industrial facilities that use more than 12,000 dekatherms annually. A recent Order9 combines National Grid’s small commercial and industrial programs with its large industrial programs in program years 2012–2015.

The programs are designed to offer the following products and services:

• High-efficiency heating and water heating equipment

• Envelope measures in existing buildings

• Controls and operating systems in existing buildings.

6 Industrial program implementation plans were filed on November 17, 2009 and CEE program

implementation plans were filed on December 22, 2009. Both were updated on August 23, 2010. 7 The Industrial program targets customers with more than 12,000 dekatherms of annual usage, while

CEEP targets industrial customers below 12,000 dekatherms of usage and all commercial customers. 8 Case 07-M-0548, Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS), Order Establishing Energy Efficiency

Portfolio Standard and Approving Programs (issued June 23, 2008). Case 07-M-0548, Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS), Order Establishing Targets and Standards for Natural Gas Efficiency Programs (issued June 23, 2008).

9 Order Authorizing Efficiency Programs, Revising Incentive Mechanism, and Establishing a Surcharge Schedule. (Issued and Effective October 25, 2011). The changes established in this order were not part of the 2010 process evaluation.

1. Introduction. . .

2


• Efficiency improvements of existing industrial processes

• Support for efficiency in expansions of existing industrial facilities

• Upgraded efficiency in design of new construction projects.

Both programs offer rebates for prescriptive measures that include boilers, furnaces and other heating equipment, indirect water heaters, programmable thermostats, boiler reset controls, building shell insulation and pipe insulation. Industrial processes would typically be covered under the Industrial Program even if the customer is not a typical manufacturing facility, provided that the customer meets the annual gas usage threshold of 12,000 dekatherms or greater, has a central plant and is not one of a list of excluded building types (educational facilities, office buildings, retail buildings, multifamily housing, nursing facilities, hotels, and governmental and municipal facilities). The 12,000 dekatherm delineation has been removed for the 2012–2014 program years.

The CEE Programs also provide rebates for prescriptive measures that target food service businesses and other key customer groups. In addition, there are financial incentives available through both programs for custom measures with a limit of 50 percent of installed cost capped at a total incentive of $250,000.

A combination of internal program staff and external contractors are used to promote energy efficiency in the CEE and Industrial Programs. Depending on the size of the customer and the nature of the custom project, technical support with financial assistance is available. Technical support varies by program but may take the form of customized energy audits, engineering scoping studies, full engineering feasibility studies, or other technical studies. Referrals to other programs are an important component of both programs.

1.1.1 Program Staffing Roles

There is a large and diverse group of individuals involved in managing and delivering the programs. An internal reorganization occurred in April 2010 that shifted responsibilities for program delivery from the program managers to sales staff. After the reorganization, there was one program manager focused on the downstate CEE and Industrial Programs as well as the Multifamily Program. The program manager is responsible for program design, implementation, management, and delivery of the programs throughout National Grid’s downstate territories. The program manager also works with regulatory staff and the Public Service Commission (PSC), collaborates with the Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) through a National Grid representative, and communicates with vendors such as RISE and EFI10 that handle savings analysis and rebate processing.

In addition to the program manager for the CEE and Industrial Programs, there are many other internal staff members involved and instrumental in the delivery of the programs. During the early stages of the evaluation in 2011, the delivery staff was as follows:

• Delivery managers oversee staff for specific managed customer segments, either large or small/medium in each territory and get the word out through various customer touch

10 In November 2011, EFI was replaced by Helgeson (HEI) as the rebate processor for the CEE and Industrial Programs.


3


points as a supplement to marketing department efforts. Account managers report to these delivery managers.

• Account managers deal with managed customers on all issues, including energy efficiency and oil to gas conversion. They provide many types of promotional and educational opportunities to inform customers. Sales Representatives are mainly responsible for the small, non-managed businesses. They work with the customer to identify energy efficiency opportunities, gather information, and provide that information to RISE.

• Technical Support Consultants work with the team as energy efficiency experts. Each serves a different service territory. The Technical Support Consultants support delivery staff as they serve customers and get involved in more complex projects to guide them through the process for equipment and rebates.

• Marketing supports both downstate and upstate programs. Marketing staff work with account managers and other program staff to develop materials and methods to best reach customers with information regarding the program. Methods include direct mail, telemarketing, print ads, and radio ads.

• National Grid’s New York Trade Ally Group is responsible for all communications with trade allies, including architects, designers, suppliers, and installers for both upstate and downstate NY.

• Program vendors RISE and EFI. RISE handles customer intake, savings analysis, and reporting. Since the 2010 National Grid reorganization, all customers are referred to RISE from account managers and sales reps. EFI processes prescriptive rebates and reports back to RISE. Installations are done by contractors who were interviewed under a separate activity.

• Analysts involved with the InDemand system which is National Grid’s internal system where all the application and program efforts are captured. The system was available in upstate NY first, rolled out in NYC in January 2011, and Long Island was transitioned to InDemand late in 2011. All data from 2011 is now housed in the InDemand system.

Late in 2011, National Grid reorganized staff for a second time. The most significant change involved account management and sales staff. The changes made during the reorganization were substantial and resulted in major shifts in responsibilities for some National Grid staff. In addition to their new roles with the CEEP and Industrial Program, some staff retained their original role with the addition of the program responsibilities and may have multiple goals and priorities. However, the reorganization has allowed National Grid staff to increase coordination efforts with RISE and consider a broader range of ideas and viewpoints or experience when designing and delivering the programs. Below is the new structure effective January 1, 2012:


4


1.1.2 Program Objectives and Achievements to Date

Given the timing of an April 2010 internal reorganization at National Grid, the implementation start date of April 16, 2010, and the August 23 update to the implementation plans, the progress against the 2010 savings goals is very positive.

Through the end of 2010, completed customer projects accounted for 78 percent of the 2010 New York City therm savings goals and 95 percent of the 2010 Long Island therm savings goal. The 2010 program achievements for the CEE and Industrial Programs can be found in Table 1-1, below. In addition to positive results in 2010, the progress table also showed continued improvement in 2011 against targets.


5


Table 1-1. 2010 and 2011 Commercial Energy Efficiency and Industrial Program Progress11

Year Metric Long Island CEEP

Long Island

Industrial

New York City

CEEP

New York City

Industrial Total

Actual participation 209 53 63 44 369

Annual therm savings goals 311,950 405,000 432,509 783,000 1,932,459

Actual therm savings 343,170 340,378 181,926 769,959 1,635,4332010

Percent of goal 110% 84% 42% 98% 84%

Actual participation 251 21 100 10 382

Annual therm savings goals 419,137 405,000 514,009 783,000 2,121,146

Actual therm savings 522,752 348,379 709,316 803,229 2,383,6762011

Percent of goal 125% 86% 138% 103% 113%

1.1.3 Program Logic Model

A program logic model is a visual representation of the programs’ theory12 that illustrates a set of interrelated program activities that combine to produce a variety of outputs that lead to key short-, mid- and long-term outcomes. A logic model can lead to a cost-effective determination of program effectiveness.

Logic models can be linked to performance indicators in order to provide on-going feedback to program managers. The models flow from top to bottom and are typically organized according to five basic categories:

Program inputs/resources: Financial, staffing, and infrastructure resources that support the activity.

Program activities: Overarching activities that describe what the program is doing. Examples include marketing, rebate processing, etc.

Outputs: Metrics resulting from the activities. These tend to be measurable “bean counting” results (e.g., provide outreach events at five community fairs).

Short- to medium-term outcomes: Expected outcomes resulting from program activities, with goals attached to those outcomes when possible. Examples include: target energy savings, recruitment into the program, etc.

Long-term outcomes: Ideal, sustainable outcomes resulting from program activities, such as “all eligible customers participate in program” and “increase customer awareness of program offerings.”

Going across the logic model, from left to right, the main activities identified for the 2010–2011 Commercial Energy Efficiency and Industrial programs were to (1) revise program infrastructure, (2) conduct marketing and promotion to customers, (3) provide technical assistance and

11 Figures were pulled from the 2010 Energy Efficiency Programs Annual Report, March 15, 2011. 12 A program’s theory articulates what the program is designed to accomplish and through what means.


6


equipment installation, and (4) administer rebates and incentives. These activities are defined by their inputs and outcomes in the logic model in Figure 1-1, below.


7


Figure 1-1. National Grid New York State 2010-2011 CEEP and Industrial Program Logic Model (Downstate)

Inputs/ Resources Sufficient budget is allocated Trained Account Managers Engineering firm (RISE) Rebate processor (EFI)

Program Team(National Grid, RISE, EFI*)

National Grid Marketing Department

Referrals from Account Managers

Perscriptive Rebate applications (EFI)

Installation contractors Custom Applications (Rise and National Grid)

ActivitiesRevise Program Infrastructure

Conduct Marketing and Promotion to Customers

Technical Assistance and Equipment Installation

Administer Rebates and Incentives

Outputs

Train Account Management staff on program offerings

Target communications, including bill inserts, direct mail, program brochures, website, and in-person through National Grid staff

Customers receive recommendation on custom energy efficiency improvements they can make to their businesses

Process customer prescriptive rebate and custom incentive applications

Program measures, rebates, marketing strategy and technical assumptions developed, refined and documented.

National Grid Account and Program Managers will work with local contractors to promote program

Service providers are knowledgeable about available rebates and program guidelines

Implementer validates 10% of customer applications

Tracking system developed and appropriate information is requested, captured and entered

Account Managers work with customers on EE improvements along with gas conversion projects

Businesses install qualifying energy efficient equipment

Short to medium term outcomes Develop a system for accurate

and efficient reporting

Increase awareness in NYC and Long Island of energy efficiency programs

Increase awareness among contractors, engineering firms, and equipment vendors of the existence of programs for C&I customers

Therm savings are identified

Resources are available to provide services to customers

Long term outcomes Energy saving goals of the

program are achieved within budgetary constraints

Widespread knowledge of the financial and environmental benefits of energy efficiency

Increased penetration of energy efficiency equipment among commercial and industrial customers

Continued sales of energy efficiency products in the absence of utility rebates

*EFI replaced by HEI in November 2011


8


The first activity in the above program logic model is developing a program infrastructure. National Grid selected two vendors, EFI and RISE, to assist in the implementation of the program. EFI’s main responsibility is to process rebates received for the program, report the information back to National Grid, and distribute rebate checks to customers in a timely manner. RISE processes custom measures and reports project status (prescriptive and custom combined) to National Grid on a monthly basis. National Grid’s program managers work closely with both vendors to ensure the program is running smoothly and to achieve the desired program goals.

National Grid account managers (and now sales staff) are the key delivery mechanism for program outreach to customers. National Grid also works with local contractors and provides general program marketing.

The third activity in the logic model involves technical assistance and equipment installation. During this phase, customers install program eligible equipment, regardless of whether or not they receive technical assistance.

EFI was initially brought in to assist with the last activity in the logic model, administering rebates and incentives, but was replaced by HEI in November 2011 for processing prescriptive applications. RISE and National Grid staff handle all of the custom applications.

1.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Several data collection activities occurred in order to address the key researchable issues identified in the evaluation planning stage. As this was an evaluation of the 2010 programs, we surveyed 2010 participants with completed projects. Due to the later timing of the contractor interviews (July and August 2011) we talked with contractors and other staff about their experiences during both 2010 and 2011 to investigate any changes that may have occurred.

The nonparticipant survey followed the participant survey and contractor interviews by a few months as the evaluation team waited for regulatory guidance on the nonparticipant survey effort. While the nonparticipant effort was originally prohibited in New York due to privacy issues, the Evaluation Advisory Group (EAG) received approval to allow evaluators to conduct nonparticipant surveys in May 2011 (this approval letter can be found in Appendix G).

First we outline the key researchable issues and then describe the data collection activities employed to gather data in attempt to address the key researchable issues.

1.2.1 Key Researchable Issues

The researchable issues identified for the process evaluation are in Table 1-2, below, and organized around the main research topics.


9


Table 1-2. Key Researchable Issues

Research Topic Researchable Question How effective is the program marketing? What activities are most effective in providing program information? What are the differences by customer group/program (small/medium commercial vs. large industrial customers, government vs. non-government)?

How do participants most commonly hear about, and become involved in, the program? What marketing and outreach efforts are most successful in generating customer leads? Does the overlap with other internal and external programs help or hinder the success of these programs?

Customer Awareness and Marketing

What is the customer awareness and understanding of National Grid programs compared with other downstate New York offerings?

How effective is the collaboration between all parties (i.e., National Grid, account managers, energy efficiency consultants, contractors, vendors, etc.)?

Is the training to National Grid staff, vendor staff and trade allies sufficient? If not, what additional training and education support can be provided?

Do program manager and trade allies feel they have sufficient staffing resources to deliver the program? What additional information or resources are needed?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using internal versus external technical resources for studies and analysis?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a vendor such as RISE Engineering for technical services, customer intake, reporting, etc.?

Program Administration, Processes and Resources

Is there evidence of conflict between implementation of National Grid’s programs and NYSERDA’s programs in this sector, particularly in new construction? Is there potential for collaboration?

Are there any internal or external barriers to trade allies effectively delivering the program? Are program requirements clearly understood and correctly implemented? Trade Ally

Participation Why should trade allies become involved with the program? How can the program reach out to trade allies?

What are the characteristics of the participating customer population and how does that compare to the eligible population? Are there any groups not reached by the program that also have financial and efficiency needs?

What barriers exist for customers’ participation in the program? What prevents them from moving forward with projects?

Ease of Customer Participation

Are the incentive levels adequate? What are the effects of the eligibility criteria (ex. >6 month payback) on participation?

How is the program working? How could it be improved? What enhancements are needed in the design and delivery of the program? Program

Satisfaction Are customers and trade allies satisfied with the program? What do they believe could be offered to improve program services?

Which measures have been installed and what type of equipment did it replace? How are they accepted and valued by the customer? Do measures remain installed and, if not, why not?

Did the technical assistance provide information which prompted important energy savings projects? How important was the technical assistance in their decision to participate? The program incentive? Does participation affect participants’ perception of the utility and, if so, how?

Customer Characteristics and Decision Making Processes

Why do customers decide not to install measures after receiving technical assistance? What new measures are of interest to customers?


10


Research Topic Researchable Question Is the program delivering the intended benefits to participants and are they achieving planned energy impacts? Is the referrals process working effectively in identifying appropriate customers for other programs?

Is the appropriate information being collected to support future evaluation activities (i.e., impact evaluation)?

Are program goals set appropriately?

Will the program be on target to reach its savings and spending goals? Why or why not?

Program Performance Indicators

Are there differences in participation by technology? If so, what is driving those differences?

1.2.2 Data Collection

Program and implementation staff

Tetra Tech conducted 14 interviews with internal downstate CEE and Industrial program staff and three interviews with program implementation staff between November 2010 and January 2011. National Grid provided a list of internal staff that had key responsibilities with the program in a variety of different roles. Roles of internal program staff interviewed included:

• The program manager and evaluation manager

• Two account managers

• Two technical representatives

• One sales representative

• Two delivery managers

• Three marketing staff

• Two InDemand staff

• Three of the implementation staff from RISE Engineering and EFI.

The in-depth interviews covered a variety of topics depending on each interviewee’s role within the program. Topics covered included roles and responsibilities, customer outreach and interaction, trade ally outreach and interaction, barriers to program uptake, and satisfaction with the program.

Participating customers

This evaluation also included quantitative surveys with 68 of the 160 participating customers from 2010 who had installed measures to capture customer perceptions of and experiences with the program, awareness and attitudes of energy efficiency, and participation in programs administered by other organizations and utilities. Participant surveys were conducted in June 2011.

Files containing data related to participating gas customers from Long Island and New York City were provided by National Grid. National Grid provided Tetra Tech with files containing participating Long Island and New York City customers. Customer participation was indicated by


11


codes such as EEP-COC (Commercial Custom), EEP-INP (Industrial Prescriptive), and EEP_MFC (Multifamily). All customers with an EEP-MFC flag were dropped for this evaluation and will be included in a separate evaluation effort

After identifying “multiples” (contacts responsible for more than one location in the database), we had 45 cases available for NYC and 115 cases available for LI. We were able to complete 15 interviews for NYC and 53 interviews for LI (representing 43 percent of the 2010 unique participants). These results within program territories should be considered qualitative, as the count for any given program within a territory is relatively small, making it difficult to confidently extrapolate the findings to the populations within each program territory. The detailed response rate can be found in Appendix F.

Tetra Tech conducted a simultaneous survey of commercial and industrial customers in National Grid’s upstate service territory for a separate process evaluation. In comparison to the upstate commercial data collection effort, the downstate effort experienced twice as many nonworking phone numbers (i.e., disconnected, no phone number, fax/data lines) as upstate and more companies not at the address listed. Both allude to more turnover in downstate businesses than in upstate which contributed to challenges completing the target number of surveys.

Nonparticipating customers

In addition to customers participating in the program, the evaluation team also conducted interviews in September 2011 with customers who have not participated in a National Grid energy efficiency program between 2007 and 201013, in order to obtain feedback for comparison purposes. In total, 30 interviews were completed with nonparticipants out of a goal of 100 completes. The results from these 30 interviews should be treated as qualitative given the limited number of responses, which makes it difficult to extrapolate to the population. A detailed response rate for the nonparticipant effort can be found in Appendix F.

National Grid provided the evaluation team with the population of nonparticipants for each of the CEEP and Industrial program territories. Tetra Tech took a random sample of records from each and mailed an advance letter explaining the study to each business. Attempts were made to locate company, address and phone numbers for sampled records if none were provided. This effort was halted given the large amount of missing information, and the calling continued with a decision to focus on records with available contact information only.

Extensive efforts were made to complete interviews. Interviews were conducted during normal business hours, local time, and attempts were also made on weekend and early evening to try to reach respondents with varying business hours and at less busy times.

Additional efforts to increase response to the survey effort included asking respondents if they would like a faxed copy of the advance letter to show National Grid sponsorship of the program and research as well as revisions to the survey introduction to emphasize the importance of the study and how the results would be used. Despite all this, a high proportion of the nonparticipant customers still refused to respond to the survey.

13 Nonparticipants were National Grid customers who did not participate in a program over the past five years, as National Grid had interim programs in effect between September 2007 and April 2010.


12


Contractors

Overall, 113 unique records were provided for the purpose of interviewing New York City and Long Island contractors. Of these, we completed nine interviews in July and August 2011 with contractors that had a variety of experiences with the program, anywhere from very familiar to still trying to figure out how to get involved. A brief summary of call dispositions is provided in Appendix F.

National Grid submitted the sample for the participant survey to Tetra Tech early in 2011. The sample file contained contact information for a list of contractors, as well as contractors attached to each participant project. We performed internet look-ups in attempt to find updated contact information for the contractors attached to participant records if they did not appear in the list of contractors with contact information.

We completed contractor interviews over the course of a few months due to factors such as difficulty scheduling interviews and severe storms in the New York area. Because of the initial difficulty in scheduling interviews, we hypothesized that the contractors were too busy to complete the interviews. However, later in the field period we still encountered problems scheduling and completing interviews. The reason for contractors’ reluctance to participate in an interview is likely caused by their overall level of business—it was consistently difficult to find a good time for the interview.

1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION

The next section of this report presents the results of the process evaluation. Section 4 discusses key conclusions and recommendations. The technical appendices contain the evaluation data collection instruments and detailed survey response rates.

1


2. PROCESS EVALUATION DETAILED FINDINGS

This section presents the findings of the process evaluation of the downstate CEE and Industrial Programs. First, we highlight key findings from the process evaluation. These are followed by detailed findings in the following categories:

• Program administration and processes

• Customer awareness and marketing

• Trade ally participation

• Ease of participation

• Customer characteristics and decision-making processes

• Program satisfaction.

2.1 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

There are many areas of the CEE and Industrial Programs that went well in 2010. Given the late launch of the program in April 2010, there are some positive findings from the evaluation.

2.1.1 Areas that are Working Well

Given the timing of an April 2010 internal reorganization at National Grid, the implementation start date of April 16, 2010, and the August 23 update to the implementation plans, the progress against the 2010 savings goals is very positive. Long Island CEEP was at 100 percent of goal in 2010 and both Industrial Programs were above 80 percent of goal. Only Long Island CEEP was well short of the targeted therm savings in 2010 (42 percent).

Awareness of programs administered by others is high; however, most are aware of programs offered by their electric utility as a form of supplemental support for energy efficiency programs and not due to a search for higher rebates. This is partially due to the close working relationship that National Grid account managers have with the electric utilities, especially LIPA, and the goal to serve the customer for the entire project and not just a particular piece of equipment.

The majority of participants agreed that paying 50 percent of project costs was a fair percentage. All of the Industrial program participants and most of the CEEP participants felt it was fair to split the project costs, indicating they did not expect to install equipment for free. Only one participant thought there should be no customer contribution.

Contractors are aware of the effect the rebates have on their ability to sell high efficiency equipment. Contractors see the value of the programs and are looking for information on program offerings to provide to their customers. One contractor said the rebates are “a central and vital part of our marketing effort”.

Participants report a high level of satisfaction with the program experience and National Grid as a result of participation. All of the CEE and Industrial Program participants were satisfied with the program with the exception of four Long Island CEEP participants. Specific

2. Process Evaluation Detailed Findings. . .

2


aspects of the program were also highly rated, most receiving mean ratings of eight or more on a scale of zero to ten, where ten is extremely satisfied. Almost half of the participants suggested no changes to the current programs. In addition, 96 percent were just as or more satisfied with National Grid after their program experience.

There is little confusion about the differences in program offerings in downstate New York. Program staff report that customers are enthusiastic about National Grid offering energy efficiency programs in New York. And even though customers have more than one option for support, participants and nonparticipants generally appear to be clear on what is available. The few participants who were able to compare programs found National Grid’s just as easy, if not easier to use.

The program is influencing customer decision making regarding energy efficiency equipment. Inefficient equipment is being replaced through the program and survey responses indicate a portion of program participants are installing more energy efficient equipment outside the program. In addition, the various levels of technical assistance that customers are receiving are proving influential in the customer’s decision-making process.

2.1.2 Challenges to Program Success

Even with the successes across both programs and territories, there are still some challenges the programs face.

There is a large and diverse group of individuals involved in managing and delivering the programs. This can lead to communication challenges, especially when it comes to informing everyone of program changes or updates.

Delivery staff do not have easily accessible information on the status of customer progress in the programs. When we initially spoke with program delivery staff, tracking was done on more of an individual basis, not consistently within one system. This often created frustration as staff could not easily ascertain the progress of individual projects. However, this is likely to improve now that all downstate data are located in the InDemand system.

Some contractors felt that National Grid could improve the resources available to contractors who were interested in the programs. While some contractors have a trusted contact at National Grid, many others have not yet formed that relationship and feel they are missing out on program updates and information. Contractors are visiting National Grid’s website, but report having difficulty locating information or other resources that they may need such as program updates, eligibility requirements, forms, etc.

It is not clear that overlaps between the CEE and Industrial Programs and programs offered by NYSERDA have been a problem in the downstate region. Although program staff voiced some concern early in the evaluation regarding the possible overlap in service to customers between NYSERDA and National Grid, this program evaluation and a related statewide EEPS program benchmarking activity have found little evidence to verify that concern.

Participants were most likely to hear about the program from an account manager or independent contractor. While it is good news that the participants heard about the program from account managers and contractors, many contractors felt that customers coming to them were not very knowledgeable about programs offered by National Grid.


3


Two-thirds of the nonparticipants we spoke with are unaware of the programs. One-third of nonparticipants had heard of the programs and they typically preferred websites as a source of information. In addition, several of those who had heard about the program did not hear through the same channels as participants, but from National Grid print media.

Almost half of the CEEP and Industrial Program participants, as well as nonparticipants, are interested in below-market rate on-bill financing from National Grid for energy efficiency projects. Only one-quarter of the participants and 4 of 30 nonparticipants said they would not use this financing option, typically because they either do not need to do not use financing, or because government regulations do not allow them to use it, which was presented as utility-offered financing at a below-market interest rate that could be repaid through their electric or gas bill. The low-interest financing option through a third party was slightly less popular than the below-market option through National Grid.

Economic barriers are preventing customers from moving forward with recommended upgrades and short payback projects that are attractive are not eligible for program rebates. Both the current state of the economy and their internal business climate are the main reasons for hesitancy to commit to new projects.

Although there was little reported dissatisfaction from program participants, reasons for dissatisfaction were usually due to issues with rebate checks and paperwork requirements. While some of the less satisfied participants indicated they would like higher rebates, others mentioned the amount of time it took to receive the check and the rebate process in general as needing improvement. Some contractors also felt that for at least a few projects the actual rebate varied from what they had expected, which led to a loss of revenue for the contractor as it occurred after the project was completed.

2.2 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND PROCESSES

This section presents the findings from the interviews and surveys for topics related to program team structure and collaboration, program tracking and information, training, and tools and resources for program delivery.

2.2.1 Program Team Structure and Collaboration

The reorganization appears to be working effectively. Collaboration between all parties (i.e., National Grid, account managers, energy efficiency consultants, contractors, vendors, etc.) is reported to be working better than expected. Program staff were initially concerned about the reorganization early in 2010. However, many staff felt the reorganization would be good for the customer, as they will not be approached by multiple people for different reasons. This structure allows the account managers to provide an overall solution for customers, which may include fuel conversion, energy efficiency, as well as other services. In addition, all customers, managed and unmanaged, will have one consistent point of contact, which will make it easier for the customer to work through the program.

There is also collaboration in downstate New York between National Grid and LIPA, and between National Grid and ConEd to provide more comprehensive services to customers looking for both gas and electric energy saving equipment. If National Grid staff is talking to a customer about gas, they will also get the appropriate utility involved for electric savings.


4


The evaluation activities are showing mixed results from the change to account managers for customer outreach. While account managers may not have the energy efficiency experience that RISE has, they are more invested in the customer relationship. Almost one-third of the participants heard about the program from their account managers. In contrast, half of the nonparticipants who had heard about the programs indicated their source of information was National Grid print media such as direct mailings and e-mail newsletters, which were not mentioned by any of the participants.

Although RISE staff is often more knowledgeable about energy-efficiency options, they do not have as many opportunities to access National Grid customers and they may have no previous relationship with the customer. With the recent decrease in account management staff, National Grid will need to closely monitor customer contact and outreach efforts.

2.2.2 Program Tracking and Information

Delivery staff do not have easily accessible information on the status of customer progress in the program. Many of the interviewees, regardless of their role in the program, mentioned early in the evaluation process that they were often frustrated at the lack of information they could access regarding the status of a customer request or project. In addition, with a program that is just starting, priorities may shift frequently and communication may not keep up with changes.

National Grid had been discussing whether or not to integrate their program tracking into their InDemand system downstate for a few years prior to the evaluation effort. In an effort, separate from this evaluation, to improve the program tracking consistency and communication, all 2011 downstate participant records were transferred to the InDemand system by the end of 2011.As the transfer was occurring in conjunction with the 2010 evaluation, we found that tracking was done on an individual basis and not consistently within one system, making it difficult for program staff and implementers to review projects and be proactive in shepherding projects through the system. This situation will likely improve now that the transfer is complete.

2.2.3 Program Overlap with other Program Administrator Programs

It is not clear that other program overlaps with CEEP and the Industrial Program have been a problem in the downstate region. Initial staff interviews indicated there may be competition for the same customers from NYSERDA and other program administrators although specific examples were not identified. During multiple interviews, staff expressed concerns about competition for customers from NYSERDA programs. In some cases, the staff felt that NYSERDA had an advantage in being able to offer rebates for specific equipment or at higher incentive levels. We were not able to identify projects for downstate NY where the customer decided to go with another program instead of National Grid’s offering.

A separate study was conducted by Tetra Tech for the New York Evaluation Advisory Group (EAG) to enumerate and compare energy efficiency program offerings by the New York Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS) Program Administrators (PAs).The review of energy efficiency programs for EAG found that there is overlap in program offerings for National Grid and NYSERDA on the mid-size and large commercial customer group; however, this problem was found primarily in the upstate area.


5


2.3 CUSTOMER AWARENESS AND MARKETING

This section provides findings on the effectiveness of program marketing by examining program awareness levels and sources of program awareness.

2.3.1 Contractor Awareness of the CEE and Industrial Programs

Contractors had varied opinions on the effectiveness of program communication, and many felt that customers were often not aware of program offerings. Trade allies are typically an important link to customers and often help drive customers to a program and impact program success. But based on feedback from the contractor interviews, program communication appears inconsistent. Those contractors who are satisfied with the program as a whole appear to be satisfied with the communication protocols of the program and may have a trusted contact to call. With regards to how they learned about the program offerings, one contractor stated, “if a customer asks me for a price on something, I will usually just contact a representative and then they will tell me what they are offering. That’s generally the way it works for me.”

However, other contractors struggle to find information and as a result they report that they are not fully aware of program offerings. One contractor suggested that the program send out an updated list of what is offered, through regular e-mail communications, so contractors are aware of program changes.

Many contractors also report that they find customers to be unfamiliar with the programs. Increasing marketing and communication efforts to both contractors and customers will eventually yield better participation counts and savings achievements, as both customers and contractors become more informed about potential opportunities to reduce the incremental costs associated with upgrading to high efficiency equipment.

2.3.2 Customer Awareness of the CEE and Industrial Programs

Participants were most likely to hear about the program from an account manager or from independent contractors. One-third of the nonparticipants had heard of the program and they typically preferred websites as a source of information. Nine of the 30 nonparticipants we interviewed had heard of the CEE or Industrial Programs, typically through a National Grid print source. Consistent with the current program design, participants most frequently reported hearing of the program from their National Grid account manager as did a couple nonparticipants who had heard of the program. While account managers were an initial source of program information for a large number of customers overall, more of the Long Island CEEP participants heard about CEEP from independent contractors.

Several of the Long Island participants categorized under “Other” in Table 2-1 were looking for gas conversion information when they heard about the program, which means they also likely heard about the program from an account manager. New York City CEEP participant responses categorized under “Other” included information sources such as Southwest Brooklyn Industrial Development Corporation, outside companies, a manufacturer, and National Grid Energy Services. One New York City Industrial participant mentioned EWVIDCO (a one-stop resource for industrial businesses in Northern Brooklyn) as how they first learned about the program.


6


Although none of the participants indicated they learned about the programs through National Grid print media, five of the nonparticipants mentioned National Grid direct mailings and e-mail newsletters.

Table 2-1. How Customers First Heard of the Programs

Long Island CEEP

Long Island

Industrial

New York City

CEEP

New York City

Industrial Overall

Downstate Nonparticipant

Downstate National Grid account manager

6 8 4 2 20 2

Independent contractor 12 3 1 1 17 1

Other 4 2 5 1 12 1

Friend/business person 6 0 1 0 7 1

National Grid website 3 1 1 1 6 0

Participation in another program

4 0 0 0 4 0

National Grid call center (BSC)

4 0 0 0 4 0

Television 4 0 0 0 4 0

Radio 3 0 1 0 4 0

National Grid staff 2 0 0 0 2 1

Conference/trade show/expo

2 0 0 0 2 0

Newspaper 1 0 0 0 1 0

National Grid direct mailing

0 0 0 0 0 3

National Grid e-mail newsletter

0 0 0 0 0 2

National Grid utility bill insert

0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 38 13 11 4 66 10

Nonparticipants were asked about their preferred energy efficiency information resources. Overall, websites were a common resource for information, although the specific website used varied widely. National Grid was the most common, a few mentioned NYSERDA, one used DOE, one ENERGY STAR, one used ConEd, and a few were unspecified.

Vendor and contractor recommendations were also important resources for energy efficiency information. A few of the nonparticipants had no resource preference or have not been looking into energy efficiency to have a preference.

2.3.3 Awareness of Programs Administered by Others

Awareness of programs administered by other Program Administrators is high, although most are aware of programs offered by their electric utility as a form of supplemental support for energy efficiency programs and not due to a search for higher rebates.


7


According to program staff interviews, National Grid account managers in the downstate territories of Long Island and New York City work closely with electric customers of LIPA and ConEd on comprehensive plans for energy efficiency upgrades as National Grid is only providing gas to those customers. NYSERDA is able to offer energy efficiency rebates to the same National Grid gas customers.

In the customer surveys, we asked both participants and nonparticipants about their awareness of energy efficiency programs offered to businesses by entities other than National Grid. About half of participants and slightly less than half of nonparticipants are aware of other entities' energy efficiency programs. The New York City participants and nonparticipants we spoke with were more likely to say that they had heard of other programs than not.

Table 2-2. Awareness of Programs Administered by Others

Long Island CEEP

Long Island

Industrial

New York City

CEEP

New York City Industrial

Overall Downstate

Nonparticipant Downstate

Aware 13 7 9 4 33 12

Unaware 26 6 2 0 34 18

Total 39 13 11 4 67 30

As we might expect, Long Island participants and nonparticipants most often mentioned awareness of the LIPA programs and New York City participants mentioned ConEd programs. Seven participants and three nonparticipants have heard of NYSERDA programs. Other responses included awareness of program including LEED, ENERGY STAR, a small business program, and a solar program. Although 12 nonparticipants were aware of other programs, one-quarter of them could not remember the program name.

Table 2-3. Other Energy Efficiency Programs Mentioned

Long Island CEEP

Long Island

Industrial

New York City

CEEP


Overall Downstate

LIPA 8 5 0 0 13

NYSERDA 1 3 2 1 7

Do not recall name 3 0 3 0 6

ConEd 0 0 4 2 6

NYPA 1 1 1 0 3

ESCOs 1 0 0 0 1

Other federal programs 0 0 0 1 1

Other 3 2 2 2 9

Total 13 7 9 4 33

For those who indicated that they were aware of other entities' programs, most of the participants and all of the nonparticipants said they were eligible to participate in these other programs (Table 2-4). About half of the eligible participants had spoken with someone about participating in another administrator’s program. The programs that participants had most frequently spoken with included NYSERDA (three respondents), LIPA (three respondents), and


8


ConEd (three respondents). One respondent mentioned NYPA, and three did not recall with whom they had spoken.

Table 2-4. If Aware, Eligible for Programs Offered by Other Administrators

Long Island CEEP

Long Island

Industrial New York City CEEP

New York City

Industrial Overall


Downstate Do not recall name

1 1 2 0 4 0

Eligible 11 3 7 4 25 10

Not eligible 1 2 0 0 3 0

Total 13 6 9 4 32 10

Roughly half of the participants and nonparticipants eligible to participate in another administrator’s program chose to talk with them about their programs, with nearly no variation by territory. Both Long Island and New York City Industrial customers who participated in other programs tended to investigate programs provided by their electricity supplier, a few of them in order to run projects concurrently with their National Grid gas project.

Table 2-5. If Eligible, Investigated Programs by Other Program Administrators

Long Island CEEP

Long Island

Industrial

New York City

CEEP


Overall Downstate

Nonparticipant Downstate

Yes 5 2 2 2 11 5

No 6 1 5 2 14 5

Total 11 3 7 4 25 10

A desire for higher rebates was not the main reason mentioned for choosing another program over National Grid’s program. Most of the participants who were also involved with another program were supplementing support from National Grid on a more comprehensive projector getting assistance for a project that National Grid did not support, as discussed in detail below.

Three Long Island CEEP participants received assistance from another program or tax credits in addition to National Grid assistance. Just one received assistance from NYSERDA for more efficient pumps. A Long Island Industrial participant received assistance from LIPA for an electric project, as did a Long Island Industrial nonparticipant who understood that National Grid did not offer lighting rebates.

A New York City CEEP participant said that “National Grid didn't have a comparable program. They didn't have a gas program for what we were doing.” New York City Industrial participants went with ConEd for electrical projects, while nonparticipants we spoke with were not familiar with National Grid offerings.

The main reasons for choosing National Grid over another program administrator again depended upon what type of project the business was working on and who could provide financial support. One New York City Industrial participants did mention comparing NYSERDA and National Grid rebates and finding National Grid to be higher.


9


Long Island CEEP participants:

Because they are the local energy supplier, they have presence in the area, large corporation.

It was the only program available to us.

Money, it was a grant given to me. It allows payback to fall within criteria.

National Grid was the only one offering a program for this

Needed gas to make this whole thing fly. Wanted to get rid of certain things.

Long Island Industrial participants:

They are our provider, pretty much our only choice.

LIPA had no program eligible for the insulation that was needed for the project.

New York City CEEP participants:

Because of the operation of the equipment with gas.

Knew National Grid and went with it because we're comfortable and the rebate was fantastic.

We felt it had a better financial base for us, better rebate, lower energy cost.

New York City Industrial participants:

It was the best one available and only one that I was aware of for that particular kind of insulation.

National Grid explained the rebate program and what the rebates were. Looked at NYSERDA's, and National Grid's was higher.

Most participants in National Grid’s CEE and Industrial Programs felt that what National Grid offered for energy efficiency support was comparable to or better than the alternative offerings with which they were familiar. Again, in many cases the customers are not selecting one or the other, but taking advantage of multiple programs to make projects more viable financially.

Long Island CEEP customers:

Everyone's been helpful (LIPA, NYSERDA, National Grid). Without help, we wouldn't have done a lot of this stuff.

I would compare other as LEED is better. They give you more rebates and incentive for measures. National Grid is concerned with just heat.

Theirs (LIPA solar) was smoother, easier and they funded it.

National Grid is much better (LIPA).


10


Long Island Industrial customers:

Very similar (NYSERDA), just different aspects like electricity or gas.

Different, (NYPA, LIPA) covers different, they're all valuable.

New York City CEEP customers:

(ConEd, NYSERDA) Comparable.

New York City Industrial customers:

National Grid is easiest to work with (ConEd, NYSERDA).

Similar but National Grid a bit more comprehensive and covers more (NY Industrial Retention Network).14

2.3.4 Understanding Programs

When asked about confusion between National Grid's offerings and the offerings of other entities, participants and nonparticipants generally reported that the differences are clear. At the same time, contractors were generally unable to discuss comparisons.

Very few of the 33 participants indicated any confusion with which entities provided services, which entities were affiliated with National Grid, and which could provide the best service fit. Confusion was slightly higher for nonparticipants, especially regarding whether entities were affiliated with National Grid and which one could provide services that best fit their needs.

Table 2-6. Respondents Indicating Past Confusion

Past confusion with…

Long Island CEEP

Long Island

Industrial

New York City

CEEP

New York City

Industrial Overall

Downstate

Non-participant Downstate

services different entities offered

2 0 1 1 4 2

whether entities were affiliated with National Grid

1 1 3 0 5 4

which entity could provide services that best fit needs

2 0 1 0 3 4

Total 13 7 9 4 33 12

The two Long Island CEEP participants resolved the confusion over which entity and program best fit their needs by speaking with someone from National Grid and considering their needs in comparison with the programs available. The one New York City CEEP participant resolved the

14 The New York Industrial Retention Network (NYIRN) is an economic development organization established in 1997 to strengthen New York City's manufacturing sector and promote sustainable development. In 2010, NYIRN consolidated with the Pratt Center for Community Development and is now a project of the Pratt Center. More information can be found at http://prattcenter.net/nyirn.


11


confusion by speaking with someone from National Grid and doing more research on their own. In comparison, nonparticipants who encountered confusion regarding which services best met their needs discontinued pursuing the options instead of further researching them.

The confusion did not send them in any consistent direction—for some participants the confusion did influence their decision, but others said it did not. Only one nonparticipant said the confusion did not affect their selection between National Grid and another program.

Compared with customers, contractors we spoke with were fairly unfamiliar with the National Grid offerings to commercial and industrial customers. In fact, those we spoke with were generally unaware of any rebates available in downstate New York. The contractors who did have a good understanding of programs available to commercial and industrial customers typically had a specific contact they could reach out to for information.

Contractors who have encountered difficulties with the program suggested the program select a liaison to work with the contractors or help point them in the right direction. Several contractors encountered difficulties establishing and maintaining program relations. An interviewee explained his problematic encounter, saying, “I got interviewed by two guys… to go into the program and never heard back from them. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I even called them a couple of weeks later and they told me they’d have an answer in a week. I never heard back from them.” One contractor suggested that the program provide “a more centralized way of how you communicate with the company. You know, you call them up, you e-mail them, and there is somebody who responds to that and somebody who actually follows up and gets back to you.” If the program focuses on cultivating contractor relations, the positive relationship the program has with the contractors will likely extend towards the contractors’ customers, resulting in increased program participation.

2.4 TRADE ALLY PARTICIPATION

Trade allies tend to break into two different viewpoints—companies with positive interactions with the program and those who have experienced difficulties. General problems encountered include problems navigating the utility website to determine if a customer is eligible for a program rebate, being unclear about which pieces of equipment are eligible, and where to go to find any basic program information.

Multiple respondents expressed their frustration regarding navigating the National Grid website and finding which rebates are available for which customers. Contractors use these rebates as sales tools and, when they cannot find the appropriate information, they find that they are unable to take advantage of the program. One respondent recommended the program develop a program website or program materials that are comprehensive and easy to navigate for the everyday user, saying “it is very frustrating trying to navigate through the complicated maze of program websites to find the rebates. It is really frustrating because those websites are potentially huge sales tools and I’m not able to use them because it is so complicated and not user-friendly.” In addition, more program marketing could be targeted towards contractors, as they are also a large source of information for the customer.

Many of the contractors report that they do (or did) fill out the majority of the rebate forms. Several found the process tedious. One said the primary difficulty is “just to find the forms, knowing which ones to print out, it’s not concrete. Every time I want to go get information on the rebates and stuff, I have to try to find the site. It’s just not that easy.” Another stopped working with the program because they felt “that the paperwork was a deterrent to try to get you to not


12


collect the rebates. It was more like a punishment than a way to collect money. It was extensive and ridiculous and nothing ever came from it.” Clarifying the rebate application process and making it easier to locate the appropriate application forms for both the contractors and the participants would be an improvement. Furthermore, offering reliable resources to contractors, such as dedicated program staff trained to assist contractors or participants through the rebate application process, will make the process more palatable for participating contractors.

Contractors are aware of the effect the rebates have on their ability to sell high efficiency equipment. One contractor said that “the rebates are a central and vital part of our marketing efforts. I would hate to send out a prospecting letter to customers without including the dangle of a rebate opportunity where it applies. I definitely do mention it because our two heaters are all high enough efficiency so that they would qualify for the rebate, no questions asked.” The continuation of the rebates is important to contractors, as they often leverage the rebate during the sales process to make the estimate more appealing to the customer.

Several contractors reported that the program, after filling out the rebate form, awarded the customer a different amount than originally advertised by the program, which aggravated the customer. They suggested that the program should make the rules of participation, as well as the rules for reimbursement, more transparent and easy for the contractor to check.

The implementation of a pre-approval process might encourage more participation because it will serve as an insurance policy for contractors. One contractor said, “I don’t bother trying to get the rebates for them because, for me, I’m just more concerned with lowering their operating costs than trying to get them some money that is promised to them that they will never see.”

Another contractor understood that the program offers a pre-approval process and suggested that the program expedite that approval process, saying that they feel the customer has time to shop around for another contractor with the two to four week approval process. For some contractors, the risk of losing money, particularly in a depressed economy, outweighs the benefits of providing their customers with discounted equipment. Also, improving contractor relations and marketing will ensure that the contractors are more knowledgeable about the program’s policies, allowing them to avoid any potential difficulties associated with the rebate processes.

There were several instances where contractors thought the program could improve the resources available to participating contractors. One contractor suggested the program pursue developing a tool that helps the contractors project the estimated savings that would result from the installation of more energy efficient equipment, allowing them to also manipulate different circumstances, such as price increases in energy.

2.5 EASE OF PARTICIPATION

2.5.1 Program Approach

The majority of participants prefer the existing self-directed program approach compared to a turn-key approach, while the nonparticipants showed no clear preference. Participants and nonparticipants were asked whether they preferred a turn-key program approach or the existing, more self-directed approach. The turn-key approach was defined as “a program that does everything for you. Program staff come in and identify all opportunities, install the equipment, and remove the old equipment. All the customer does is agree to the installation


13


and pay a portion of the cost.” The existing approach was described as the current CEE and Industrial Programs, where “the customer is allowed to select the contractor who does the work and apply for a rebate.”

Given those definitions, almost two-thirds of participants reported preferring the existing approach. Nonparticipant preferences vary more between approaches.

Table 2-7. Preference of Program Approach

Long Island CEEP

Long Island


New York City

Industrial Overall


Downstate Turn-key approach

14 3 2 0 19 11

Existing approach

22 9 9 4 44 11

No preference

3 1 0 0 4 6

Total 39 13 11 4 67 28

The big draw for the turn-key approach for nonparticipants is the ease of use which is confirmed by participants who prefer that approach. However, some nonparticipants may have an oversimplified impression that it takes all the work out of their hands.

It’s easier; I don’t have to do anything.

It is harder to blame multiple parties. We know who is responsible.

I don’t have time to research contractors.

I can focus on my business instead of the improvements.

It seems to be more streamlined.

Participants and nonparticipants who prefer the existing, more self-directed approach overwhelmingly mentioned the ability to choose their contractor as the reason.

I've used our contractor for over 30 years, [they are] reliable and experienced.

We're a school and we have certain insurance requirements and would have to take this route. Another contractor would undergo a background check.

Get to pick your own contractor and get the best deal.

Control when work is done. It had to be delicately timed since we’re open 24/7. A lot of the contractors had to be available on off hours.

We prefer to do it ourselves whenever possible. It's hard to have an outside contractor do stuff when you already have contractors here doing work.


14


2.5.2 Financing

Several contractors mentioned that if the program were to pursue reducing the interest rates available through their financing options, it would likely increase participation rates. One interviewee mentioned that “the interest rate for the projects National Grid will finance, it is way too high. There needs to be very low interest. I don’t want to say put into the utility bill, but, you know, very minimal interest charge.”

About half of both the participants and nonparticipants indicated they would be interested in below-market interest rate financing through National Grid that allowed them to repay their part of the project cost through their National Grid gas bill. One-quarter of participants said they would not use it, and the rest said it would depend on other factors. Only 4 of the 30 nonparticipants interviewed said they would not be interested. Nonparticipant interest was greatest in New York City, where 7 of the 9 said they would use the option, compared with 7 of the 21 Long Island nonparticipants. Ten of the 21 Long Island nonparticipants answered “It depends”.

Table 2-8. Interest in On-bill Financing from National Grid

InterestedInterest depends

on features Not

interested Total

Participants 32 19 17 68

Nonparticipants 17 13 5 35

Participants who indicated their use of financing would depend on other factors (19 participants) mentioned the rate of payback (4), the interest rate (3), the decision of management (3), and the size of the project (2) as factors that would influence their decision to use utility-provided financing. Responses included in "Other" were that the participant could not make that decision, the decision would be dependent on the entire package or project, or the participant does not pay the gas bill (their tenant does).

Participants who said they would not be interested in financing through National Grid (17) most frequently reported that they simply do not use financing (7) or do not need financing (5). Three indicated that they could not use it due to government regulations, and one said that it was not in their control.

The option of receiving low-interest financing from a third party (not their utility) was slightly less popular than the below-market interest rate financing through National Grid. One-third of the participants and two-fifths of the nonparticipants expressed interest; while another one-third of participants and nonparticipants said that it would depend on other factors. Participants who said they would not be interested in receiving financing from a third-party most frequently stated that they did not use financing in general (9 of 20). Participants also said that the decision was not in their control (three), they did not need financing (two), they preferred internal financing (one), or government regulations would prevent them from using such financing (one).

Table 2-9. Interest in Low-interest Financing from Third Party

InterestedInterest depends

on features Not

interested Total

Participants 23 24 21 68

Nonparticipants 15 11 9 35


15


Participants most frequently mentioned that their decision to use third-party financing depended on the payback rate (five). They also mentioned their management, the type of project, or the interest rate of the loan (4 participants each, out of 22 total) as factors on which their decision would depend. Two also said it would depend on the third party that was providing the financing.

2.6 DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

In downstate New York, program installations completed through the CEE and Industrial Programs are typically HVAC or Insulation projects by quantity and include custom projects when reviewing therm savings.

Table 2-10. Program Measures Installed in 2010

Long Island CEEP

Long Island

Industrial

New York City

CEEP


Overall Downstate Surveyed

Overall Downstate Population

Surveyed therm

savings

Population therm

savings

Controls 1 0 0 0 1 2 44,504 73,352

Cooking 1 0 1 0 2 13 1,952 37,651

HVAC 15 6 6 4 31 53 504,469 1,371,804

Insulation 26 5 5 0 36 98 111,643 500,004

Windows 0 1 0 0 1 3 62,968 76,954

Custom 0 2 1 0 3 11 110,191 571,754

Total (Unique customers)

40 13 11 4 68 167 835,727 2,631,518

Several of the researchable issues dealt with the customer decision-making process regarding energy efficient equipment purchases, so the participant and nonparticipant surveys include questions about several factors that commercial and industrial customers take into account when deciding on a project and the influence of program incentives, such as15:

• Timing of equipment purchase

• Influence of the National Grid programs and other financing options

• Customer contribution requirement

• Barriers to equipment purchase

• Influence of technical assistance.

15 Because this was a process evaluation and did not include any program impacts, we did not calculate free-ridership or net-to-gross for measures or programs. Information on decision making is used qualitatively to inform program managers regarding how the program influences customers’ purchasing decisions.


16


2.6.1 Timing of Equipment Purchase

It appears there is some level of free-ridership but too few cases to draw any conclusions. The one controls participant and the two cooking equipment participants had not been thinking about new equipment before they heard about the National Grid programs. The one window participant had decided to purchase the windows before hearing about the program.

As might be expected, participants who implemented custom projects had already been thinking about purchasing some type of equipment before they heard about the program.

Table 2-11. Point in Decision to Purchase Equipment When Heard of Program

HVAC Insulation

Already been thinking about purchasing some type of equipment 16 12

Began collecting information about equipment 4 7

Decided to buy equipment 8 8

Had not been thinking about it 2 8

Other 1 1

Total 31 36

2.6.2 Influence of the National Grid Programs and Other Financing Options

Although participants were in different stages of decision making when they learned of the program, it is important to understand what they think they would have done in the absence of the program. Participants were asked to indicate, on a zero to ten scale, where zero is not at all likely and ten is very likely, their likelihood of purchasing equipment within a year without the National Grid rebate.

The CEEP participants who received controls and cooking equipment through the program would not have made the purchase without the program. Those three projects were done to reduce operating costs and energy bills.

The one Long Island Industrial customer who purchased windows through the program was somewhat likely (5 on a 0-to-10 scale) to have purchased the windows without the National Grid rebate, as the project was the result of updating and expanding the facility.

Three-quarters of the HVAC projects were completed in an effort to reduce operating costs and energy bills. About one-third would have implemented the project anyway, but almost 20 percent would not have without the program.

Insulation projects were completed for a variety of reasons. Just over one-third were due to updating or expanding facilities and another one-third were done to reduce operating costs and energy bills. About one-third would have implemented the project anyway, but almost 20 percent would not have without the program.

The few participants who also received financial assistance from other sources usually valued those sources as more influential than National Grid’s in their decision to make improvements. Participants received additional incentives outside the National Grid program for just six of the 74 pieces of equipment. The one window participant received a federal tax


17


credit in addition to the National Grid incentive for their project. The additional assistance for HVAC projects includes significant amounts in state tax credits, LIPA incentives, NYSERDA incentives, ConEd incentives, and assistance from other sources such as the Suffolk County Industrial Development Authority and banks. Without this additional assistance, four of the five companies said they would not have proceeded with the projects. It is unclear whether this HVAC equipment was part of a larger project receiving additional incentives.

2.6.3 Customer Contribution Requirement

The majority of participants agreed that paying 50 percent of project cost was a fair percentage. Participants who had installed custom equipment through the program (25) were asked whether they felt that National Grid's requirement that participants pay at least 50 percent of project cost was a fair requirement. All of the Industrial Program participants and most of the CEEP participants felt that is was a fair requirement (20 of 25). When asked to explain, most simply responded that they felt it was fair to split the cost (15). Two others indicated that it would depend on the cost of the equipment.

We don't look to get anything free, but the support is valuable and follow up makes it appealing.

Getting incentives on improvements helps to want to continue working and getting involved in the programs.

Companies should have at least 50 percent stake in the program.

If you don't put money in then there is no incentive to make sure equipment works.

Five participants felt that the 50 percent requirement was not fair. Three said that they felt National Grid should cover all of the costs, while one said that National Grid should pay more of the costs. Those who said that they felt the 50 percent requirement was unfair were asked to provide what percentage of customer contribution they felt would be fair. One respondent said there should be no customer contribution, two said 20 percent would be fair, and one said 40 percent would be fair, with the qualification that “some big projects need more than 50 percent and some little projects don’t.”

Inefficient equipment is being replaced and persistence is high. Sixty percent of the new equipment was a replacement of existing equipment. The majority of the old equipment was working but was inefficient (30 of 44 pieces). Only one insulation participant could confirm that a portion of the insulation had been removed. Two others were unsure of the equipment status. The rest all verified that their equipment was still installed and operating.


18


Table 2-12. Condition of Replaced Equipment

Controls Cooking HVAC Insulation Other Windows Total

Replaced existing equipment

0 1 21 20 1 1 44

Working properly 0 0 4 1 1 0 6

Working but in need of repair (e.g. inefficient)

0 1 13 15 0 1 30

Not working but repairable 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Not working, not repairable 0 0 2 3 0 0 5

Total projects 1 2 30 31 3 1 68

2.6.4 Barriers to Participation

Economic barriers prevent customers from moving forward with recommended improvements and short payback periods for projects that are attractive to customers are not eligible for program incentives. Several staff indicated that the lagging economy is making it difficult for account managers and sales representatives to sell energy efficiency projects when commercial customers are working hard just to stay in business. To add to the difficulty for sales staff, gas prices have decreased which is increasing the length of payback for energy efficiency projects. Customers are looking at projects with the quickest payback, but any project with a payback of less than six months (industrial) or one year (commercial) is not eligible for the program.

Of the 15 participants who received technical assistance, 3 said that they had not moved forward with one or more of the recommendations suggested by the contractor. All three participants said that they did not move forward with the recommendations because the equipment was too expensive. One also said that they had to prioritize projects and could not move forward with the recommendations at that time.

There were seven nonparticipant customers who responded to the question about why they had not taken advantage of the National Grid programs to install energy efficient equipment. Four of the seven did not know that programs were available. Another nonparticipant had trouble “finding the time that doesn't interfere with service. And start-up cost.” Two others said they had no need for new equipment; one specifying that they already installed new equipment four years ago.

2.6.5 Technical Assistance

The level of technical assistance varied across participants, but it was influential in their decision making. Custom projects may receive technical assistance through the programs. Technical support varies by program but may take the form of customized energy audits, engineering scoping studies, full engineering feasibility studies, or other technical studies.

Twenty out of the 68 participants we spoke with had received some form of technical assistance. The type of assistance they received varied. One-half of those receiving technical assistance reported the assessment covered the entire building while the rest only had certain equipment reviewed. Many were looking for ways to reduce operating or energy costs and a few others were taking advantage of the service National Grid provided through the program.


19


Participants who received technical assistance through the program received a report detailing the energy savings as well as the estimate incentive amount. Only half of them remember seeing this report. However, of those who did remember seeing the report, seven of the eight remembered seeing the energy savings estimate. Two said that the savings estimate was higher than they had expected. One said it was about equal to their expectation, and one said it was lower. The other three did not know or did not remember.

Participants had similar reactions to the incentive amounts in the reports. Three of the seven said that the incentive amount on the report was lower than what they had expected; two thought it was higher. One respondent thought it was about the same, and one did not know or did not remember.

Participants were asked to rate the influence of the technical assistance on their decision to participate in the program on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being not at all important and ten being very important. On average, respondents gave a rating of 7.4. Ratings were almost two points higher for Industrial participants, indicating that technical assistance was slightly more influential for Industrial Program participants than for CEEP participants.

2.7 PROGRAM INFLUENCE

2.7.1 Spillover

A significant number of participating customers have installed additional equipment which was influenced by their participation in the CEEP and Industrial Program. Twenty-seven of the 68 participants indicated that they had purchased other types of energy-efficient equipment since their participation in the CEEP and Industrial Programs16.

Most frequently, participants reported installing lighting equipment (10 of 27), motors or drives (6), cooling equipment (6), or boilers (5) outside the program. The majority of participants did not receive a rebate for the additional equipment they installed. A few received a rebate through another National Grid program and a few others received rebates from other fuel providers.

Participants were asked to rate the influence of the CEEP and Industrial Programs on their decision to install equipment outside the program on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all influential and 10 is very influential. Five participants did not give the program any credit for influencing their decision and eight gave a rating of ten. On average, the mean rating was 6.4. What is more interesting is that over half (12) said the program had a high level of influence (ratings of 8 to 10) on their decision to purchase additional energy saving equipment outside the program.

16 Because this was a process evaluation and did not include any program impacts, we did not calculate spillover for measures or programs. Information on decision-making is used qualitatively to inform program managers regarding how the program influences customers’ purchasing decisions.


20


Table 2-13. Program Influence on Purchasing Equipment Outside Program

Long Island CEEP

Long Island


New York City

Industrial Overall

Downstate

0 No Influence 2 2 1 0 5

3 1 0 0 0 1

5 1 0 0 0 1

7 0 0 1 0 1

7.5 0 0 0 1 1

8 2 1 1 0 4

10 Total Influence 5 0 3 0 8

Total 11 3 6 1 21

Mean 6.7 2.7 7.5 7.5 6.4

Finally, participants who installed equipment outside of the program were asked to rate various factors that may have influenced their decision to install the equipment. They were asked to rate these factors on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all influential and 10 is very influential. The three most highly rated factors were the energy savings of the equipment (mean of 9.3), the operating cost of equipment (mean of 9.2), and the efficiency level of the equipment (mean of 8.7).

Table 2-14. Factors Influencing Decision to Install New Equipment

Mean rating N

Energy savings of equipment 9.28 23

Operating cost 9.20 20

Efficiency level of equipment 8.70 23

Initial purchase cost 8.43 23

Compatibility with existing equipment 8.24 21

Rebate from utility or other source 7.96 23

Length of payback period 7.91 23

Recommendation of contractor or supplier 7.28 23

Compatibility with business design 7.19 21

Recommendations of others that had experience with equipment 6.55 19

2.7.2 Business Impacts for Contractors

Contractors who are familiar with the programs find the incentives to be a beneficial sales tool. When asked to identify the effects the program has on their businesses, contractors with higher program satisfaction levels feel the program positively impacts their businesses. When asked to elaborate, one contractor said, “because before we did anything [with the program], we would lose all the jobs because we would take our customers and tell them to call National Grid and then National Grid would send a contractor out and we would never hear from the customer again. Now we’re keeping the jobs.” The program serves as an incentive to install energy efficient equipment and those contractors who are familiar with program requirements and operations have been successful in leveraging the program incentive to encourage energy efficiency upgrades.


21


2.8 PROGRAM SATISFACTION

2.8.1 Overall Satisfaction

Overall satisfaction with the CEE and Industrial Programs was very high. The New York City program participants were generally more satisfied after participating in the program than the Long Island program participants. Reasons given for not increasing their satisfaction mainly involve the paperwork requirements. As shown in Table 2-15, the majority of participants (54 of 68) indicated that they were very satisfied with their experiences with the program and another ten reported that they were somewhat satisfied.

Four Long Island CEEP participants said they were somewhat dissatisfied with the program. The dissatisfaction was primarily due to issues with the rebate checks they received either being late, bouncing, or less than expected. One participant was overwhelmed by the paperwork required.

Table 2-15. Overall Program Satisfaction Rating

Long Island CEEP

Long Island

Industrial

New York City

CEEP

New York City

Industrial Overall

Downstate

Very satisfied 32 10 8 4 54

Somewhat satisfied 4 3 3 0 10

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 0 0 0 0 0

Somewhat dissatisfied 4 0 0 0 4

Very dissatisfied 0 0 0 0 0

Total 40 13 11 4 68

When those who were satisfied or very satisfied were asked to give reasons for their satisfaction rating, participants most frequently stated that the project went smoothly (22), they have a good relationship with National Grid staff (12), or the energy savings recognized after the program (10). Eight participants each mentioned that the rebate and the program met all of their expectations as reasons for their satisfaction. One participant said that he found this program easier to use than others in which he had participated.

Ninety-six percent of participants were just as or more satisfied with National Grid as their energy provider as a result of participation in the CEE and Industrial Programs. The New York City program participants were typically more satisfied as a result of the program than the Long Island program participants.


22


Figure 2-1. Satisfaction with National Grid as an Energy Provider as a Result of the Program

Only three of the Long Island CEEP participants said they were less satisfied with National Grid after participating in the CEEP program. Their reasons included the feeling that National Grid was not providing enough in rebates, that their rebate check bounced, and there is no one else to choose from.

On the other hand, the majority of the participants who were just as or more satisfied as a result of participation provided many reasons for their satisfaction. The first three reasons mentioned did not include the rebate. Sixteen were pleased with the program results. Another 13 thought National Grid’s service was exceptional and 11 appreciated National Grid’s commitment to energy efficiency.

A few participants mentioned they experienced some difficulty with the program, but they were still just as satisfied as before their participation. Issues centered on the amount of paperwork involved in applying for the rebates. For one participant, the rebate amount offset the work, resulting in no change in overall satisfaction with National Grid.


23


Table 2-16. Reasons for Same or Increased Satisfaction Due to Program Participation

Long Island CEEP

Long Island


New York City

Industrial Overall

Downstate

Pleased with program results 11 2 3 0 16

National Grid's service was exceptional

5 4 2 2 13

National Grid's commitment to energy efficiency

7 1 1 2 11

Rebate offered 4 3 2 1 10

Experienced difficulty with program

2 1 2 0 5

Improved relationship with National Grid

2 1 2 0 5

Level of satisfaction unchanged by program

4 0 0 0 4

Rebate amount 2 1 1 0 4

Program staff 0 1 0 1 2

Energy savings 0 0 0 1 1

Cost of National Grid service 0 1 0 0 1

Total 34 12 10 4 60

Just over two-thirds of participants have recommended the program to others. The proportion was closer to three-quarters for CEEP and New York City Industrial participants. However, only five of the 12 Long Island Industrial participants said they recommended the program to others.

2.8.2 Satisfaction with Specific Program Aspects

Specific aspects of the programs were also highly rated and almost half of the participants would change nothing about the programs. The aspect with the lowest mean rating was the time it took to get the rebate check and the most frequently mentioned changes involved the rebates – either the amount, time to receive, or process.

In addition to satisfaction with the program overall and with the company as a result of the program, participants were also asked to rate their satisfaction with several program aspects on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being not at all satisfied and 10 being extremely satisfied.

Nearly all of the aspects received a mean rating above eight. The three most highly rated factors are the equipment installed (mean of 9.5), the installation inspection by the utility (mean of 9.5), and the quality of the equipment installations (mean of 9.4). The program aspect with the lowest rating was the satisfaction with the time it took to receive the rebate check (mean of 7.9). In general, New York City Industrial participants appear to be more satisfied with individual program aspects than others.


24


Table 2-17. Satisfaction with Program Aspects (on 0-to-10 scale, 10=extremely satisfied)

Long Island CEEP

Long Island


New York City

Industrial

Overall Mean Rating N

Satisfaction with equipment installed

9.3 9.7 9.6 10.0 9.5 65

Satisfaction with installation inspection by a utility representative

9.4 9.6 9.3 9.7 9.5 21

Satisfaction with quality of equipment installation

9.4 9.3 9.3 10.0 9.4 60

Satisfaction with engineering study

9.5 9.0 -- 9.0 9.3 4

Satisfaction with why National Grid handled questions

8.9 9.1 9.3 9.8 9.1 64

Satisfaction with promptness of the engineering study

8.5 9.0 -- 8.5 8.6 4

Satisfaction with promptness of the audit /inspection of old equipment

8.3 9.0 -- 8.5 8.5 5

Satisfaction with type/variety of equipment eligible for program

8.7 8.0 8.1 8.8 8.5 58

Satisfaction with the usefulness of information provided about program

8.0 8.8 8.2 9.3 8.3 65

Satisfaction with rebate application process

8.4 8.1 7.3 9.9 8.3 63

Satisfaction with incentive available from National Grid

7.7 9.1 7.7 9.8 8.1 65

Satisfaction with audit 7.8 9.0 -- 8.5 8.1 6

Satisfaction with time it took to get a rebate check

7.8 8.3 7.4 9.5 7.9 63

2.8.3 Quality Control

Although the program is designed to check ten percent of completed projects, almost half of the participants said they had some sort of follow-up visit and found it useful. About half of respondents indicated that a quality control or follow-up visit occurred as part of the program process. Industrial Program participants were more likely to mention the follow-up visit than CEEP participants. Slightly over half of the participants who had a follow-up visit


25


thought it had been conducted by National Grid staff. Another one-quarter thought it had been conducted by an independent contractor.

Almost all (29 of 31) of the participants receiving follow up visits were happy with the quality control or follow-up visit that occurred. Specific reasons for their satisfaction with the quality control included assurance that the equipment was properly installed (nine participants), the exceptional job done by the quality control staff (four participants), the person was knowledgeable and professional (four participants), they appreciated the attention given to the project after completion (three participants), and the process was simple (two participants). The two unhappy participants were not specific about their reasons for dissatisfaction regarding the follow up visit.

2.8.4 Program Changes

When asked which aspects of the program they would change, almost half of participants responded with "nothing". Fourteen asked for larger rebates, 9 suggested reducing the amount of time it took to receive the rebate, and another 5 suggested improving the rebate process.

Table 2-18. Program Change Suggestions

Long Island CEEP

Long Island


New York City

Industrial Overall

Downstate

Nothing to change 14 9 4 2 29

Increase amount of rebate 10 1 2 1 14

Reduce amount of time it takes to receive rebate

8 0 1 0 9

Other 3 2 0 1 6

Improve the rebate process 2 1 1 1 5

Include more measures /equipment through program

1 1 1 0 3

More advertising of program 2 0 0 0 2

More oversight/QC of installation

2 0 0 0 2

Conduct technical assistance quicker

1 0 1 0 2

More helpful/responsive program staff

0 0 2 0 2

Offer financing options 1 0 0 0 1

Improve rebate incentive forms

0 0 1 0 1

Provide a more comprehensive audit

1 0 0 0 1

Total 39 13 11 4 67

A majority of respondents did not have any suggestions for additional measures that should be included in the program (48 of 66). There was no single suggested measure addition that stood out as important to participants, although many had their personal preferences.


26


Table 2-19. Other Measures Respondents Would Like Included in the Program

Long Island

CEEP

Long Island

IndustrialNew York City CEEP

New York City

Industrial Overall

Downstate

None 25 11 9 3 48

Other 6 1 0 1 8

HVAC equipment 3 1 0 0 4

Solar equipment 1 0 1 0 2

Window equipment 2 0 0 0 2

Electrical equipment 0 0 1 0 1

Insulation 0 1 0 0 1

Controls 1 0 0 0 1

Total 38 13 11 4 66

2.9 CUSTOMER CHARACTERISTICS

Many of the participants we spoke with were the ultimate decision makers at the company, the CEO, President, or Owner. Several others indicated they were the facilities engineer, operations/facility/general manager, director, or vice president. Nonparticipant respondents follow a similar pattern.

Table 2-20. Respondent Position in Company

Long Island CEEP

Long Island


New York City

Industrial Overall


Downstate

CEO/President 8 2 3 0 13 7

Business owner 11 0 3 0 14 6

Facilities Engnr 2 3 1 2 8 2

Operations Mgr 4 1 0 1 6 0

Director 3 1 0 0 4 0

Vice President 0 3 1 0 4 0

Facility manager 0 2 1 0 3 2

General manager 2 0 0 1 3 3

Project manager 0 0 1 0 1 0

Maintenance manager

0 1 0 0 1 0

Administrator 1 0 0 0 1 0

Energy Mgmt staff

1 0 0 0 1 1

Landlord/property manager

1 0 0 0 1 1

Purchasing agent/buyer

0 0 0 0 0 2

Other 7 0 1 0 8 7

Total 40 13 11 4 66 30


27


2.9.1 Long Island CEEP Customers

Participating Long Island CEEP customers tend to represent a wide variety of business types, including large and small offices, warehouses, and retailers. Nonparticipant business types followed a similar pattern. Participants are more likely to have a large roster of employees. On average, participating businesses reported that they employ an average of 106 full-time employees, 45 part-time employees, and eight seasonal employees. Nonparticipants averages are similar; 96 full-time employees, 17 part-time employees, and 2 seasonal.

When asked to identify the companies’ property ownership status, Long Island CEEP participants tend to own their properties (85 percent), whereas half of nonparticipant companies own the properties and half lease the facility. Nearly all of the participating facility interviewees and nonparticipants indicated that their company has pursued at least some energy efficiency improvements, if not implemented nearly every energy-efficiency upgrade.


28


Table 2-21. Long Island CEEP Customer Characteristics

Participant Nonparticipant

Large office 6 0

Warehouse 6 2

*Retail - business unspecified 5 0

Small office 4 0

Auto repair 3 0

Secondary school 3 1

Other 2 3

University 2 0

*Nursing home 2 1

*Government facility 2 0

*Sport/Activity center 2 2

Full service restaurant 1 2

Light industrial 1 2

Religious 1 0

Hotel 0 1

Elementary school 0 2

Motel 0 1

Small retail 0 1

Business Type

Total N=40 N=18

Single establishment business/organization

22 11

Branch office 5 0

Other 4 0

Educational facility 3 3

One of a chain of establishments 1 2

Headquarters of business/organization 1 0

Federal government facility 1 0

State government facility 1 0

Local government facility 1 0

Franchise 0 2

*Religious assembly 1 0

Business Ownership Category

Total N=40 N=18

*Refers to a coded category that did not appear on the original survey

2.9.2 Long Island Industrial Customers

Participating Long Island Industrial customers tend to represent warehouses and industrial applications. Comparatively, nonparticipants identified themselves as a warehouse and two greenhouses.


29


As with the commercial sector, participants are more likely to have a large roster of employees. On average, participating businesses reported that they employ an average of 987 full-time employees, 203 part-time employees, and 5 seasonal employees. Nonparticipants have fewer employees, averaging 24 full-time employees, 4 part-time employees, and one seasonal employee.

LI Industrial customers, regardless of program participation, tend to own their facilities. Nearly all of the participating facility interviewees indicated that their company has pursued at least some energy efficiency improvements, if not implemented nearly every energy efficiency upgrade possible. All three nonparticipants indicated that they have pursued some, but not all energy-efficiency improvement opportunities.

Table 2-22. Long Island Industrial Customer Characteristics


Warehouse 4 1


Large office 2 0

Heavy industrial 2 0

Hospital 1 0

Community college 1 0

Motel 1 0

*Greenhouse 0 2

Business Type

Total N=13 N=3


5 3

Branch office 4 0




Total N=13 N=3

2.9.3 New York City CEEP Customers

Participating New York City CEEP customers tend to represent a wide variety of smaller businesses, including nursing homes, schools, and light industrial. Nonparticipants also followed this trend. Participants are more likely to have a large roster of employees, though this difference is less significant than observed in Long Island. On average, participating businesses reported that they employ an average of 93 full-time employees, 25 part-time employees, and no seasonal employees. Nonparticipants averaged 47 full-time employees, 1 part-time employee, and 1 seasonal employee.

New York City CEEP customers, regardless of program participation, tend to own their facilities. Nearly all of the participating facility interviewees indicated that their company has pursued at least some energy efficiency improvements, if not implemented nearly every energy efficiency upgrade. While a few of the nonparticipants indicated that they have pursued some, but not all energy-efficiency improvement opportunities, two said they have done nothing about energy efficiency improvements.


30


Table 2-23. New York City CEEP Customer Characteristics


*Nursing home 2 0

Other 1 2

Elementary school 1 0

Grocery 1 0


Multifamily low-rise 1 0

Secondary school 1 0

Small retail 1 0

Warehouse 1 0

*Retail - business unspecified 1 0

Full service restaurant 0 1

Multi story retail 0 1

Business Type

Total N=11 N=5


5 4


Headquarters of business/organization 2 0


Other 0 1


Total N=11 N=5

2.9.4 New York City Industrial Customers

Participating New York City Industrial customers tend to represent retail and industrial applications. Nonparticipants identified themselves as assembly, light industrial, and warehouse facilities. As with the commercial sector, participants are more likely to have a large roster of employees. On average, participating businesses reported that they employ an average of 165 full-time employees, 11 part-time employees, and no seasonal employees. Nonparticipants have fewer employees, averaging 21 full-time employees and no part-time or seasonal employees.

Nonparticipating New York City Industrial customers tend to own their facilities, whereas participating New York City Industrial customers reported a variety of property ownership statuses. Nearly all of the participating facility interviewees indicated that their company has pursued at least some energy efficiency improvements, if not implemented nearly every energy efficiency upgrade. Nonparticipants are more likely to indicate that they have pursued some, but not all energy efficiency improvement opportunities.


31


Table 2-24. New York City Industrial Customer Characteristics


*Retail-business unspecified 2 0

Heavy industrial 1 0


Assembly 0 2

Other 0 0

Warehouse 0 1

Business Type

Total N=4 N=4

Single establishment business/organization 4 4


Franchise 0 0


Total N=4 N=4

1


3. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall feedback from staff, contractors, and customers involved with the CEE and Industrial Programs indicate that after some program adjustments, such as a company reorganization which contributes to more communication and collaboration, full integration of the 2011 DSM programs into National Grid’s InDemand tracking system, and a late 2011 switch in rebate processors, the program is on the right track. The overall performance of the four programs was within 16 percent of the total 2010 goal. Participants are highly satisfied with their program experience and participation has improved their perception of National Grid.

At the same time, the program faces several internal challenges, most specifically those associated with effective outreach by account managers and further inclusion of contractors in the program logistics. Below are recommendations to consider that address some of the opportunities identified. Due to the timing of the data collection efforts, the period of time covered by the report is longer than what is typical for a process evaluation timeframe. Within that timeframe, National Grid had already implemented changes in program delivery. These changes are documented against the evaluation recommendations in Appendix H.

Increase the focus on program and coordination benefits in marketing of the National Grid programs. Program staff mentioned some difficulty producing marketing materials early in the program cycle. Because National Grid is essentially new to the New York market, it is important that they get the message out about the CEEP and Industrial Program offerings. Marketing should target both customers and trade allies. Providing National Grid staff and contractors with the tools they need to be able to talk to customers about the programs and how they would benefit (e.g., by doing X, you will be able to reduce your bottom line by Y) will increase customer awareness and participation. In order to maximize program participation, National Grid should highlight its own program benefits, as well as the benefits of coordinating with the electric utilities for full project support. Tools the program has used already include in person meetings, e-mails, and mass mailings. Having case studies will also help market the program by showing real life examples of work that has been done, the available incentives and what the savings were. And any time the program can get trade allies together with customers they both will benefit.

Identify relevant trade allies and involve them. Once the master list of trade allies is completely developed, work can start on identifying those who are most appropriate for outreach efforts. Outreach efforts should be targeted and tracked for effectiveness. Furthermore, the more National Grid can do to align trade allies to customers, the better the chances of pushing projects through. Outreach to trade allies should include more program information and resources. Even though account managers are the first source of energy efficiency information for many customers, contractors are the second most mentioned source (first source for Long Island CEEP), which underscores the importance of ensuring that both those groups have the latest and most comprehensive information regarding the program to pass on to customers. Even with the new organizational structure in place to address outreach to commercial and industrial customers, National Grid sales staff will not be able to get to every customer as they make a decision on new projects. Therefore, it is beneficial to have the contractors also able to inform customers of program opportunities. At the time of the interviews, at least half of the contractors who provided feedback on the program were frustrated by the lack of program information available to them.

3. Summary and Recommendations. . .

2



Simplify the path to energy efficiency information for commercial customers. Participants and nonparticipants both mentioned using websites to locate information on energy efficiency tips and programs. However, finding that information on the National Grid website can be a challenge. Once a customer selects the correct territory, they need to find the correct terminology to locate energy savings information which may require three to four links. The text we found under the “Economic Development & Energy Savings” link said “National Grid’s Economic Development team is ready to help your business expand and prosper. Energy savings programs are available in Massachusetts and New Hampshire” even if you have navigated to the Long Island gas site. Some other utility websites very clearly provide an energy efficiency link on their home page, or commercial or residential pages, that takes customers directly to information about their energy efficiency programs.

Provide a consistent National Grid point of contact for contractors, possibly within the new Account Development department. Those contractors with the most positive views of the program typically had a reliable point of contact at National Grid who they could reach out to with questions. This option would improve the likelihood that contractors can immediately assist their customers and impact their decision regarding the installation of energy efficient equipment.




Maximize use of InDemand system to streamline communication of project status. Many staff involved with the programs in downstate NY mentioned difficulty gaining access to the

3. Summary and Recommendations. . .

3


status of projects throughout the process. The backfilling of all 2011 downstate program data into the system from the individual sources will improve tracking capabilities.

Once outreach has occurred, whether it is in the form of marketing to customers or trade allies, meetings with National Grid delivery staff, or contact initiated by the customer, there should be consistent tracking of those efforts. Reviewing projects by size, expected completion dates, or even looking at the likelihood of a customer moving forward with a project may help focus internal staff on priority cases which will help meet program goals.

Investigate options for offering on-bill financing at below-market rates. In the past two years the economy and the ability to fund capital improvements have been the biggest barriers for commercial and industrial customers. National Grid should investigate the opportunities and complications of offering a financing option. There was significant interest from participants in below-market rate on-bill financing for energy efficiency projects—half of participants and nonparticipants indicated they were interested, and only four of the 30 nonparticipants were not at all interested. The rest would need to have more information regarding the details to decide. On-bill financing was more attractive to participants and nonparticipants than the third party option.


1


APPENDIX A: PROGRAM MANAGER INTERVIEW GUIDE

Interview Objectives:

• Gather program background, design, and administration process information

• Characterize program operations including staffing, outreach activities and marketing, types of customers participating and not participating, and role of the trades

• Address researchable issues that should be incorporated into evaluation activities

• Identify areas that need improvement

• Identify program activities, inputs (resources), outputs, short to medium term outcomes and long term outcomes to develop the program logic model.

Note: This is a semi-structured guide and questions will be asked as applicable to interviewees' role in the program.

A. Describe your role at the utility and with the program

1) Responsibilities or role regarding the program • When they became involved • How have responsibilities/role changed over time • On average, what percent of your workload is spent on the program monthly?

2) Who do you interact with (others) regarding the program? • Other National Grid Energy staff, third-party contractors, trade allies,

customers • Roles and responsibilities of these other persons • Success of interactions; suggestions for improvements

B. Program Design and Marketing

1) Please provide an overview of the programs, including measures installed and incentive strategy.

2) What are the target markets for the program you manage? Any specific commercial and industrial sectors?

Probe for eligibility requirements for each program (com/ind, large/mid-sized, hospital collaborative initiative).

3) Were you involved in the program design? Who was involved in the program design process?

4) Is this program an extension of an interim program or an extension of a program in another state? If so, how does it differ? Probe for NYSERDA program impacts.

5) (If an extension) Did the interim (other state) program meet its goals? Were there any lessons learned from the interim (other state) program that have been integrated

A:.Program MANAGER Interview Guide. . .

2


in this current program’s design? What program design recommendations do you have for the 2012 – 2015 filing?

6) (Review program goals) Are these goals still accurate? (If not) What are the revised goals?

7) How are program goals communicated internally and externally?

8) What marketing activities are being used to reach the different target markets? How effective have each of these methods been in identifying and enrolling potential participants? Why?(Get examples)

9) What are major barriers to participation (both customers and trade allies)? • why do you think some choose to participate or not participate? • are there any specific types of customers/trade allies that face more barriers

than others (e.g., retailers for small business classes, lower income customers)

• are the marketing efforts designed to build on customers’ reasons for participation and minimize reasons for nonparticipation? if so, how?

10) What are the most popular measures? Why do you think this is? Are there measures that you think should be added to or removed from the program?

11) Do the incentive levels seem appropriate? If not, why not? What, if any, changes in the incentive levels do you think may be needed? Probe for any shifts to do custom jobs “to get the job” or the incentive differences and what going custom means for administration.

12) How are program costs being tracked?(Probe: Examples of costs are staff resources, incentives, program partners support (co-op ads, spiffs), and marketing materials.) Has the program budget changed? If so, why?

13) How are program results being tracked?

C. Program Operations

1) What are the participation steps from the customer’s perspective? How long does it take before the customer receives the rebate check?

2) What parties are involved in administering and/or serving customers through the program? (probe for account reps, trade allies, third-party contractors, etc.) What do they do?

3) Describe your communications and working relationship with trade allies. (If not revealed above, distinguish between the different trade ally groups involved.)

4) What support is provided through the program to trade allies? In what areas could this be improved?

5) (If operate in multiple locations) Are there any differences in program operations by location? How about by fuel area (electric, gas and dual)? Do you see opportunities


3


for gas and electric savings? Any differences in trade ally participation or customer participation? Do you cross-promote with or refer customers to other programs, if so which ones (CEEP, Industrial, EI, SBS, Commercial HEHE, Multifamily)?

6) (If multiple locations and no differences in program design but denotes differences in performance) Have there been any efforts to identify why there is a difference in program performance? If so, what has been done?

7) The process evaluation will explore customer satisfaction. Are there any specific components of customer satisfaction that we should make sure to include in the survey (participation process, program application, measure performance, confusion with the program, etc.)?

8) What aspects of the program implementation are working well? Which are not working well?

9) What do you see as future challenges to the program for the 2012-2015 programs? What needs to be clarified or delineated? Should anything be removed?

D. Evaluation

1) What are your needs from this evaluation?

2) What do you hope to learn from the evaluation?

3) (Probe if not mentioned in 1 or 2) Do you have any specific questions that you want to make sure are included in primary data collection activities with market actors. Probe about trade ally interviews and participant and non-participant surveys.

E. Other Suggestions for Improvement • marketing • staffing • resources • training • quality control • program tracking system

F. Inputs for Logic Model

The program logic model is a visual representation of the program's theory. The program theory articulates what the program is trying to achieve, through what interventions, and with respect to which market actors.

We will draft the program logic model from program documentation. The next set of questions will be used to review the logic model draft with program managers and confirm the model as well as identify any omissions or changes that should be addressed.

1) What are the primary activities the program is expecting to conduct?(Interviewer note: Probe about activities with trade allies, other stakeholders and customers as applicable. If needed give examples such as recruitment and training of contractors, recruiting customers and installing high efficiency equipment.)


4


2) For each of the activities we just discussed, what are the outputs of the activities? Outputs are direct, immediate results from the activity and often can be contract metrics for the program. Examples include number of trade allies participating as program partners, number of incentive equipment or marketing activities conducted.

3) Now for each program activity and corresponding output, what are the expected outcomes? For example, how do you expect the program to influence trade allies business practices? How is the program expected to influence customer awareness and behaviors?(Probe to distinguish outcomes that are in the program’s control from those that are not)

4) Now for each of the outcomes we just discussed, can you tell me if you think this will be a near-term outcome of the program in the next six to 12 months or if this is a longer-term outcome of the program?

5) Now I would like to step back through each program activity with you and discuss the resources that are needed to support each program activity we talked about.(Interviewer note: Walk them through each program activity.) Examples of resources are staff resources, incentives, program partners and marketing materials.

6) What are other key outputs you have developed for the program that we have not already discussed? Examples include a tracking system or application materials.

1


APPENDIX B: PROGRAM STAFF INTERVIEW GUIDE

Note: This semi-structured interview guide is for interviews with National Grid staff other than program managers– technical staff, Energy Efficiency Consultants (EEC), account executives and Business Development staff. There are varying degrees to which the positions work with the program. Interviewees will be asked questions as applicable to their interaction with the program.

Roles and Responsibilities

1. Could you please describe your position within National Grid?

Role in Program and Background Information

2. What types of services do you provide?

3. What is your role in relation to commercial and industrial (C&I) energy efficiency programs (CEEP/Industrial) and the Energy Initiative (EI) Program specifically? What percentage of your time is devoted to working with these programs compared to your regular/normal account management responsibilities?

4. Do you have experience providing services to C&I customers in the past or in other states?

5. Which programs are you working with National Grid on delivering? Probe if involved in SBS?

6. When did you become involved with the [programs named by respondent]?

7. Could you tell me if you are familiar with the goals of this/these programs and how you help to meet these goals?

8. Who do you regularly work with regarding the National Grid EI programs? Probe about interaction with other National Grid staff, third-party technical vendors and trade allies.

9. How would you describe your working relationship with these staff? What are their roles? Probe for:

i. number of people

ii. their position

iii. their responsibilities

iv. communications and coordination

v. information/training

10. What training/information have you received to prepare you for this job? What additional training/information do you think would be useful or help you improve?

Customer Outreach and Interactions

11. Do you feel you have a clear idea of the program's target market and how to reach this market? What activities have you been doing to promote the program?

B:.Program Staff Interview Guide. . .

2


12. What type of customers do you think are the best target for the program (business type, size, profit/non-profit)?Why?

a. How do you identify and market to target customers? b. How effective do you feel your marketing efforts have been in reaching different

types of target C&I customers? (if “not effective”) What barriers have inhibited you from effectively reaching those customers?

c. What do you think would be the "ideal" way to market this program to customers? Why?

13. In what capacity do you interact with customers (i.e. field complaints, requests, questions, outreach, technical assistance, etc.)?

14. What parties do you work with that are involved in administering and/or serving customers through the program? (probe for account reps, trade allies, third-party contractors, etc.) Interviewer note: specific questions for trade ally interactions are below for staff who work with trade allies

15. What are frequent questions or concerns you receive about the program from your customers? How do you address these? What do you see as the primary barriers to customer participation? What messages do you feel are most successful in encouraging customers to move forward with program participation? What other funding sources impact participation (NYSERDA, ARRA, stimulus, etc.)

16. How do you communicate with customers? Do you use e-mails, collateral/marketing materials or anything else when dealing with customers? Do you direct them to any websites? Which method do you think is most effective?

17. Do customers understand the purpose of the program and who is sponsoring it? Is there any confusion with other energy efficiency programs and sponsors in New York? If so, how do you address this confusion?

18. Are there any internal confusion or coordination issues with other National Grid programs (e.g., CEEP/Industrial, EI, Multifamily, SBS, and Commercial HEHE)? What internal synergies are there with other National Grid programs?

19. What percent of customers are not interested in participating in the program? What are the main reasons they choose not to participate? Probe: are there external factors (e.g., the economy) holding customers back?

20. What feedback have you received from customers about the program?

21. How does the program incentive affect customer decisions regarding choosing efficient equipment and/or participating in the program? Do you have to switch from prescriptive to custom work to win a project?

22. In your opinion, are customers aware of the energy savings and bill reductions that will stem from the program? Payback time frame? How about available incentives and rebates? What are their sources for this type of information? Are there differences in how the paybacks are set?

23. In your opinion, are the bill reductions, payback periods, and incentives viewed as sufficient by a significant fraction of customers?

24. Do you feel you have a clear idea of the program's target markets and how to reach these

B:.Program Staff Interview Guide. . .

3


markets? What activities have you been doing to promote the program?

25. [Downstate] Probe for New York City vs. Long Island and commercial vs. industrial customers.

Trade Ally Outreach and Interactions

26. In what capacity do you interact with trade allies (i.e. field complaints, requests, questions, outreach, technical assistance, etc.)? How does this differ by gas EI and electric EI?

27. What are frequent questions or concerns you receive about the program from trade allies? What do you see as the primary barriers to trade ally participation?

28. How do you communicate with trade allies? Which method do you think is most effective?

29. What kind of training and information do you provide trade allies? Are there information/training gaps that you see?

30. Are there any trade ally confusion or coordination issues with other National Grid programs? Other energy efficiency programs in New York? Are there synergies with other National Grid programs or other New York energy efficiency programs?

31. What percent of trade allies are not interested in participating in the program? What are the main reasons they choose not to participate?

32. What feedback have you received from trade allies about the program?

Satisfaction with Program

33. Overall, how satisfied do you feel customers and trade allies are with the program? Why do you think that is the case?

34. What do you feel are the major strengths and weaknesses of the program?

35. How could the program be more effective? What other program improvements would you suggest?

36. How is the program doing toward goal in 2010? How well do you think the program will do in 2011?

37. [Downstate] Probe for New York City vs. Long Island and commercial vs. industrial customers.

38. What are the biggest challenges that the program faces? What can be done to overcome these challenges?

39. If you could change one thing about the program, what would it be? Probe for items that need to be changed for the 2012-2015 filing (what don’t they want to stuck with, what tools need to be included, etc.)

1


APPENDIX C: CONTRACTOR INTERVIEW GUIDE

Company Characteristics

F1. To get us started, could you briefly tell me a little bit about your business (or position)? What types of services do you offer? Probe for number of projects completed or equipment installed by type in 2010.

F2. In which parts of New York State do you primarily conduct commercial/industrial work?

F3. What percent of your 2010 projects/equipment sold were in National Grid’s Long Island or NYC service territories? What percent qualified for National Grid’s rebates/financing?

F4. What proportion of your work is for commercial customers versus industrial customers? What specific types of customers do you serve (restaurants, offices, manufacturing, etc.)?

F5. How many employees (full-time equivalents) does your company employ?

F6. Are you a subsidiary or branch of a bigger company? (Other options: franchise, dealer, manufacturers rep, etc.).

Program Awareness

A0. Have you heard of National Grid’s Commercial Energy Efficiency and Industrial programs which provide technical assistance and rebates for installation of energy efficient equipment? (SKIP to B1 if NO)

A1. Please describe for me your participation (or involvement or role) in the Commercial Energy Efficiency and Industrial programs?

A2. How did you first hear about the program?

A3. When did you first get involved with the program? What made you decide to get involved?

A4. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is ‘not at all active’ and 5 is ‘very active’, how would you characterize your participation level in the programs in the past 12 months? Why do you report that level of activity?

Program Steps – Participating contractors

E1. Which program staff do you work with frequently? How would you describe your interactions with program staff (minimal, helpful, very involved, probe to characterize)?

E2. Do you feel adequately informed of program offerings? How would you like to be better informed of program offerings? What about program changes?

E3. Do you receive any training or education from National Grid regarding the program?

E4. Are there types of workshops or training events you would like to see National Grid sponsor to help you in your work in through program? Probe to characterize current state of on-the-job training.

C:.Contractor Interview Guide. . .

2


E5. What is the process for completing work through the program? How does this process work for you? What would you like to see improved?

E6. Do you offer technical assistance or audits to your commercial/industrial customers?

E7. Have any of your customers taken advantage of technical assistance through the program? How often does the technical assistance or audit result in equipment installation? What types of projects?

E8. What influence do you think technical assistance has on customers’ decisions to install energy efficient equipment?

E9. Do you use the program rebates in your marketing efforts? How do customers find out about the rebates? What percent come to you already aware of the rebates?

E10. Do you fill out the rebate applications for customers? Under what circumstances do you? If not - Why don't you?

E11. Are there any changes you would you like to see the rebate offerings?

Program barriers – All contractors

B1. What are barriers your customers face when they consider installing energy efficient equipment? What are their key considerations?

B2. How large a role does building ownership versus leasing play in the decision?

B3. Do you feel you have any influence on the customer's decision to purchase energy efficient equipment? How are you able to influence them?

B4. What is the most valuable sales tool you have for getting your customers to participate in the program? What additional tools could National Grid provide you with to better sell the program to your customers?

B5. What percent of those you follow-up with complete the job with you? What do you think are reasons customers go forward with the job or not go forward with the job?

B6. What percent of your total work in the commercial sector does work through the program represent? (Of your work in the commercial sector, what percent are participating in the program?)

B7. Has your participation in (or involvement with) the program affected your business practices? How?

B8. Probe specifically about changes in sales practices as well as technical techniques and practices

B9. What are your plans for future participation in the program (increase/decrease/remain the same?) Why? What could National Grid do to make you more involved in the program?

C:.Contractor Interview Guide. . .

3


B10. What do you think are the main benefits your customers receive by participating in the program?

B11. What do you think could be done to increase the amount of equipment purchased through the program?

B12. What energy efficiency technologies are your customers most interested in?

B13. When customers are looking for assistance with energy efficiency projects, are they ever confused about what different programs offer (i.e. LIPA, NYSERDA, and ConEd)? What is confusing? Who are they getting information from?

B14. What effect do these other programs have on your ability to sell work to your customers?

B15. Are you aware of other National Grid Energy Efficiency Programs? Which ones? Do you have any involvement with these programs – why or why not?

B16. Are there any groups of your customers that are not served by the National Grid programs? Why not?

B17. Are there other types of residential energy efficiency programs you wish National Grid sponsored?

Program satisfaction – Participating contractors

S1. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is ‘not at all satisfied’ and 5 is ‘very satisfied’, how satisfied are you overall with your experience with the Commercial Energy Efficiency and Industrial programs? Why do you give this rating?

S2. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is ‘not at all difficult’ and 5 is ‘very difficult’, how would you rate the program’s administrative burden (e.g., requirements, paperwork) for you? Why do you give this ranking?

S3. What do you think is working best in the Commercial Energy Efficiency and Industrial Programs?

S4. What do you think is most in need of improvement?

S5. What is the primary benefit you receive from participating in these programs?

Thank you for your time. Those are all the questions I had for you.

1


APPENDIX D: CUSTOMER SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Key Research Questions: Customer Awareness and Marketing

• How is the program promotion working? What improvements can be made? What are the differences by sector and by size of customer? What tools are most effective?

• How does the program’s promotion coordinate with the other National Grid programs and other organization’s programs in New York? Does the overlap with other internal and external programs help or hinder the success of these programs?

• What marketing and outreach efforts are most successful in generating customer leads?

Ease of Participation/Administrative Processes • What are the characteristics of the participating customer population and how does

that compare to the eligible population? Are there any groups not reached by the program?

• Who was the customer’s initial point of contact for program information? Were they knowledgeable about the program?

• Are program requirements clearly understood? Are the procedures for application and rebates easy to follow?

• Was the application and rebate processed in a timely manner? If received an audit or technical study, was the turnaround time acceptable?

• What barriers exist for customers’ participation in the program? • Is there confusion between National Grid’s programs and NYSERDA’s programs?

Program Satisfaction • How is the program working? What enhancements are needed in the design and

delivery of the program? • Are customers satisfied with the program? What specific program components

have the most and least customer satisfaction? • What do customers and trade allies believe could be offered to improve program

services? • Does participation affect participants’ perception of the utility and, if so, how?

Customer Characteristics and Decision Making Processes • Which measures have been installed and what type of equipment did it replace?

How are they accepted and valued by the customer? • Do measures remain installed and, if not, why not? • Why do customers decide not to install measures after receiving technical

assistance? • Did the technical assistance provide information which prompted important energy

savings projects? How important was the technical assistance in their decision to

National Grid

New York Energy Initiative and Downstate C&I Commercial High-Efficiency Heating and Water Heating

Process Evaluation for Large and Mid-sized Commercial Customers Participant and Nonparticipant Survey

D:.Customer Survey Instrument. . .

2


participate? Who provided the technical assistance and were they knowledgeable?

• Was the program incentive adequate? Were other program incentives available from National Grid or from other entities for the same measures or equipment?

Program Performance Indicators • Is the program delivering the intended benefits to participants and are they

achieving planned energy impacts? • Is the appropriate information being collected to support future evaluation activities

(i.e., impact evaluation)? • Are there differences in participation by technology? If so, what is driving those

differences? If the sample is available, this questionnaire will be used to interview five different groups of customers:

• 1 – Unaware Nonparticipants. Those who were contacted by National Grid staff but may not recall hearing about the program.

• 2 – Aware Nonparticipants. Those who heard of program but have not utilized the program (did not receive technical assistance, did not install equipment).

• 3 – TA Participants. Those who received some form of technical assistance but installed no equipment.

• 4 – Full Other Participants. Those who completed a project through another program. • 5 – Full National Grid Participants. Those who installed measures with National Grid,

with or without technical assistance.


3


C1 Hello, my name is [interviewer name], and I'm calling on behalf of National Grid. May I

speak with [named respondent]?

1 Yes 2 No [If named respondent is not available: ask for another person who is familiar with the business’ energy use.]

Prompts if needed: [I'm not selling anything, I'd just like to ask you some questions about your experience with the [PROGRAM] offered by National Grid. I'd like to assure you that your responses will be kept confidential and your name will not be revealed to anyone. For quality and training purposes this call will be recorded.] [Why are you conducting this study: Studies like this help National Grid better understand customer satisfaction with, and need for, energy efficiency programs?] [Timing: This survey should take approximately 20 minutes of your time. Is this a good time for us to speak with you? IF NOT, SET UP CALL BACK APPOINTMENT OR OFFER TO LET THEM CALL US BACK AT 1-800-454-5070] [Sales concern: I am not selling anything. This information will help National Grid best design and deliver energy efficiency programs to assist commercial and industrial customers. Your responses will be kept confidential by our firm. If you would like to talk with someone about this study, feel free to call Melissa Piper of National Grid at (315) 428-5002 C2 I'm with Tetra Tech, an independent research firm. We are speaking with businesses

about the [PROGRAM] program offered to commercial/industrial customers by National Grid.

Through the [Program], business customers are offered prescriptive and custom incentives to help purchase and install energy efficient equipment and systems for their facilities.

According to our records, your business/facility [BUSINESS NAME] at [ADDRESS] in [CITY] … Installed equipment through the program.

Is this information correct? 1 Yes [SKIP TO INTRO2] 2 No 8 Don’t know

Introduction


4


C3 Is it possible that someone else in your business would be familiar with the [program name] program, the technical assistance, audit, engineering study or the equipment that was installed?

1 Yes 2 No [THANK AND TERMINATE] 8 Don’t know [THANK AND TERMINATE]

C4 May I please speak with that person? 1 Yes [BEGIN THE SURVEY AGAIN [C2] WITH NEW R] 2 No [THANK AND TERMINATE] 8 Don’t know [THANK AND TERMINATE]

INTRO2:

[if needed: I’m with Tetra Tech, an independent research firm.] First, I’d like to assure you that I'm not selling anything. You may remember receiving a letter explaining the purpose of this call. We are talking to National Grid customers to understand their views on energy efficiency and participation in National Grid’s energy efficiency programs. The results of the survey will be used to make improvements to the programs that National Grid offers in the state of New York. Your responses will be kept confidential. For quality and training purposes this call will be recorded. [IF PARTICIPANT OR RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE] I’d just like to ask you some questions about your experience with the [program name] program offered by National Grid. The information you provide will help National Grid to improve its programs.


5


C5 Please tell me which of the following best describes your status in regards to the [PROGRAM] program? 1 Never been contacted or have ever heard of program 2 Heard of program but have only talked with an account manager or other National Grid staff 3 No equipment installed, received technical assistance 4 Installed equipment AND received technical assistance 5 Installed equipment, have NOT received technical assistance 6 No project with National Grid, completed through another program outside of National Grid

Unaware Nonparticipant: C5 = 1 Aware Nonparticipant: C5 = 2 TA Participant: C5 = 3 Full Other Participants: C5 = 6 Full National Grid Participants: C5 = 4,5 Commercial HeHe (C5=5) C6 [if C5 > 2] Were you involved in the decision of whether or not to participate in making

[this/these] energy saving improvements to this facility? [if C5 = 1 or 2] Are you involved in the decision of whether or not to participate in making

energy saving improvements at your facility?

1 Yes 2 No 8 Don’t know

C7 [if C5 > 2] Who else within your company or outside your company was involved in the

decision-making process of whether or not to participate? (PROBE: IF MORE THAN ONE DECISION MAKER, ASK R WHO WAS

RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE ULTIMATE DECISION) [if C5 = 1 or 2] Who else within your company or outside your company is involved in the

decision-making process of whether or not to participate in energy-saving programs?

1 No one else 2 (SPECIFY):

Name Phone number Probe for role:


6


A1 [if C5 > 1] How did you hear about the [program name] Program?

[DO NOT READ; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY] (Probe: Anywhere else?)

1 National Grid Account manager 2 National Grid call center – Business Solutions Center (BSC) 3 National Grid staff (other than account manager or BSC) 4 National Grid utility bill insert 5 National Grid e-mail newsletter 6 National Grid website 7 Direct mailing from National Grid 8 From participation in another National Grid program [SPECIFY PROGRAM] 9 Contractor, independent (e.g., lighting contractor) (SPECIFY) 10 Contractor hired by National Grid (e.g. RISE, ERS etc.) (SPECIFY) 11 Conference/trade show/expo 12 Chamber of Commerce meeting or newsletter 13 Newspaper 14 Radio 15 Television 16 Friend/business person [Probe: Did this friend/business person also participate in

the program?] 17 Haven’t heard of it before this survey 18 Other [SPECIFY]

A2 [if aware: C5>1]Are you aware of other National Grid energy efficiency programs offered

to commercial and industrial customers in the state of New York? [if not aware: C5 = 1]Are you aware of any National Grid energy efficiency programs

offered to commercial and industrial customers in the state of New York? 1 Yes (Which ones?) 2 No [SKIP TO PP0] A3 Have you participated in any other energy-efficiency programs offered by National Grid? 1 Yes [Which programs? Small Business, Comm HeHe, Other (specify)] 2 No [SKIP TO A5] 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO A5] A4 [if aware: C5 > 1] In your opinion, how does the [program name] program compare to

other National Grid programs in which you’ve participated? [RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE]

National GridProgram Awareness (all)


7


A5 [EI only] [if aware: C5>1] Did you consider participating in a different National Grid program for this project?

1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO PP0] A5a [EI only] Which other National Grid programs did you consider participating in? [RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] A6 [EI only] [NG participants C5 = 4, 5] What was the main reason for choosing the

[program name] program over [fill with A5a]? [RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE]

If (C5 <> 2,3,4) SKIP TO IF2 If (C5=5) SKIP TO PP15 PP0 [if C5 =3,4] What level of technical assistance from National Grid did your business

receive through the [program name] program? (READ LIST; Select all that apply)

1 [DO NOT READ] Did not receive any form of technical assistance [SKIP TO PP4] 2 Walk-through energy audit (a walk-through and report) 3 Engineering study (a full study of a facility to identify energy-savings measures

and project savings) 4 Custom audit (engineering analysis to determine therm savings) 5 Custom review (when a previously completed study by a different engineering

firm is reviewed) 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO PP4]

PP1 [if C5 =3,4] Did they look at the entire building or only certain equipment? (Select one)

1 The entire facility 2 Only certain equipment (specify-What equipment? Lighting equipment, lighting

controls, electric motors, electric process measures, other) 8 Don’t know

Program Participation (TA participants and full National Grid participants and unaware nonparticipants)


8


PP2 [if C5 =3,4] What is the main reason your company was interested in receiving technical assistance through the [program name] program?

[DO NOT READ; SELECTONLY ONE]

1 Wasn't interested--someone approached us about it 2 Looking for ways to reduce operating/energy costs 3 Wanted to know what we could do to save energy 4 It was available at a discounted rate through the program 5 I like to take advantage of National Grid program offers 6 Needed the work done anyway/already planned it (technical assistance required

for incentive) 7 Other [SPECIFY] 8 Don’t know

PP3 [if C5 =3,4] What are other reasons your company was interested in receiving

technical assistance through the [program name] program? [DO NOT READ; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

1 Wasn't interested--someone approached us about it 2 Looking for ways to reduce operating/energy costs 3 Wanted to know what we could do to save energy 4 It was available at a discounted rate through the program 5 I like to take advantage of National Grid program offers 6 Needed the work done anyway/already planned it (technical assistance required

for incentive) 7 Other [SPECIFY] 8 No other reasons

PP4 (If C5 = 3,4)What is the main reason your company [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT:] was interested in [IF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ONLY:] was considering Obtaining energy-saving equipment through the [program name] program? [DO NOT READ; SELECT ONE]

1 Wasn't interested--someone approached us about it 2 Wanted to reduce operating/energy costs 3 The equipment and installation was incentivized 4 I like to take advantage of National Grid offers 5 Needed the work done anyway/already planned it 6 Other[SPECIFY]


9


PP5 (If C5 = 3,4) What were other reasons your company [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT:] was interested in [IF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ONLY:] was considering Obtaining energy-saving equipment through the [program name] program? [DO NOT READ; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

1 Wasn't interested--someone approached us about it 2 Wanted to reduce operating/energy costs 3 The equipment and installation was incentivized 4 I like to take advantage of National Grid offers 5 Needed the work done anyway/already planned it 6 Other[SPECIFY] 7 No other reasons

PP6 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 3 or 4] The program representative

who visited your site presented your company with a report about the energy savings and incentives you could expect to receive from National Grid by installing the recommended measures. Do you recall seeing this report?

1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO PP11] 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO PP11]

PP7 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 3 or 4] Part of the report included

information on how much energy savings there would be based on the new equipment. Do you recall seeing the energy savings estimate?


PP8 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 3 or 4] Was the estimate of energy

savings higher than you expected, about what you expected, or lower than what you expected?

1 Higher than expected 2 About what I expected 3 Lower than expected 8 Don’t know

PP9 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 3 or 4] Another part of the report

detailed the eligible incentives for the new equipment. Do you recall seeing the incentives estimate?



10


PP10 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 3 or 4] Were the eligible incentives

from National Grid higher than you expected, about what you expected, or lower than what you expected?


PP11 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 3 or 4] On a zero to ten scale, with

zero being not at all important and ten being very important, how important was the technical assistance in your decision to participate in the National Grid program?

_____ 0 to 10 55 Technical assistance was required 88 Don’t know 99 Refused

PP12 [IF C5 = 2,3]

What is the main reason you have not installed any energy-efficient equipment through the program at this time?

[DO NOT READ; SELECT ONLY ONE]

1 Your experience with the representative responsible for the technical assistance [SPECIFY]

2 The type of equipment recommended 3 The estimated energy savings from the recommended equipment was too small 4 Don’t trust that we will see the estimated energy savings from the recommended

equipment 5 Potential disruption to our business 6 The internal approval process for the funding of the contribution 7 Don't feel savings justify cost 8 Have had problems with energy-efficient equipment in the past 9 Found the [technical assistance] report hard to understand 10 The rebate available from the utility was too small 11 Payback period too long 12 Installed through a different program 13 State of the economy 14 Other reason [SPECIFY]


11


PP13 [IF C5 = 2,3] Are there any other reasons you have not installed any energy-efficient equipment through the program at this time? [DO NOT READ; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

0 No other reasons 1 Your experience with the representative responsible for the technical assistance

[SPECIFY] 2 The type of equipment recommended 3 The estimated energy savings from the recommended equipment was too small 4 Don’t trust that we will see the estimated energy savings from the recommended

equipment 5 Potential disruption to our business 6 The internal approval process for the funding of the contribution 7 Don't feel savings justify cost 8 Have had problems with energy-efficient equipment in the past 9 Found the [technical assistance] report hard to understand 10 The rebate available from the utility was too small 11 Payback period too long 12 Installed through a different program 13 State of the economy 14 Other reason [SPECIFY]

PP14 [IFC5 = 2,3] What could National Grid or the program have done to increase the

likelihood that you would install the recommended equipment?

[RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] PP15 [ONLY IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT C5 = 4, 5]Has anyone conducted any follow-up

visits or quality control checks on the equipment installed in your business?

1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO IF2] 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO IF2]

PP15A Who conducted these follow-up visits or quality control checks?

Was it a....[READ]

1 National Grid staff member 2 Contractor hired by National Grid (e.g., RISE, ERS, etc.) 3 Independent contractor 4 Other [SPECIFY]


12


PP16 [ONLY IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT C5 = 4, 5] Were you satisfied with the follow-up visit or quality control process?

1 Yes [PROBE: Why?]

2 No [PROBE: Why not?] 8 Don’t know

IF2 These next few questions ask about the customers’ portion of the cost and available

financing. IF2a [FOR CUSTOM PROJECTS] Do you think that National Grid’s [program name] program

requirement that your company pay at least 50 percent of the project cost is appropriate?

1 Yes [PROBE: Why do you say that?] [ SKIP TO IF4] 2 No [PROBE: Why do you say that?] 8 Don’t know [ SKIP TO IF4] IF3 [FOR CUSTOM PROJECTS; if IF2a = 2] Assuming a customer contribution is required,

what percent of the project cost do you think would be appropriate to ask customers to contribute?

_____ Percent of cost 888 Don’t know 999 Refused IF4 If the utility was able to provide financing at below-market interest rate that could be

repaid through your [EI: electric or gas; CI: gas; Com HeHe: gas] bill to cover your part of project costs, would your business use this financing?

1 Yes [SKIP TO IF5] 2 No 3 Depends [SKIP TO IF4b] IF4a Why not?

[RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] SKIP TO IF5 IF4b What does it depend on?

[RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE]

Program Incentives and Financing (all)


13


IF5 If the utility was able to arrange for financing at below-market interest rate through a third party, would your business use this financing to pay your part of the project cost?

1 Yes [SKIP TO SAT1] 2 No 3 Depends [SKIP TO IF5b] IF5a Why not?

[RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] SKIP TO SAT1 IF5b What does it depend on?


IF (C5 <> 3,4,5) SKIP TO O1 SAT1 [if C5 = 3, 4, 5] Overall, how satisfied are you with your experiences with the [program

name] Program to date? Are you.?[READ LIST]

1 Very dissatisfied 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 3 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 4 Somewhat satisfied 5 Very satisfied 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO SAT2]

SAT1a Why do you say that?


Satisfaction with Program (TA participants and Full National Grid participants)


14


SAT2 For the following questions, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with each aspect of the services you received through the [program name] Program so far. On a scale of zero to ten, with zero being "Not at All Satisfied" and ten being "Very Satisfied," how satisfied were you with the?

[programming note: need an NA option for those statements that may not apply] [RECORD RESPONSE. IF ANSWER < 5, PROBE WITH: Why do you say that?]

a. [IF RECEIVED TA, PP0=2, 3, 4, 5] Promptness of the audit or inspection of your old equipment

b. [IF RECEIVED TA, PP0=2, 3, 4, 5] Quality of the audit c. [IF RECEIVED TA, PP0=3] Promptness of the engineering study d. [IF RECEIVED TA, PP0=3] Quality of the engineering study e. [C5=3, 4, 5] Type/variety of equipment eligible for the program f. [C5=3, 4, 5] The way National Grid or [trade ally] handled your questions g. [C5=3, 4, 5] The amount of incentive available from National Grid h. [C5=3, 4, 5] Usefulness of information provided about the program [ONLY IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT] i. [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, C5=4, 5] Quality of work of the person who

installed your equipment j. [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, C5=4, 5] The equipment installed k. [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, C5=4, 5] Rebate application process l. [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, C5=4, 5] Length of time it took to get a rebate

check m. [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, C5=4, 5] [IF PP15 = 2 OR DK, SKIP] Inspection of

the installation by a utility representative SAT3 Which features of the program, if any, would you change?[DO NOT READ;SELECT ALL

THAT APPLY][PROBE:Is there anything else you would change?]

1 Wouldn't change anything/keep program as is 2 More oversight/quality control of installation 3 Improve quality of equipment 4 Conduct technical assistance quicker 5 Provide more direct utility involvement 6 Include measures at no cost 7 Include more measures or equipment through the program 8 Provide a more comprehensive audit 9 Provide technical assistance at no cost 10 More helpful/responsive program staff 11 Increase amount of rebate 12 Offer financing options 13 More advertising of program 14 Other [please describe]


15


SAT4 What other energy efficiency equipment measures do you feel should have been recommended and installed through the program?


SAT5 As a result of your involvement with the [program name] Program, would you say you

are more satisfied, just as satisfied, or less satisfied with National Grid as your energy provider?

1 More satisfied 2 Just as satisfied 3 Less satisfied 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO SAT7]

SAT6 Why do you say that?

[RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] SAT7 Have you recommended the program to others?


[IF R ONLY RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, SKIP TO NEXT SECTION.] [ASK FOLLOWING QUESTIONS P1-P17 FOR EACH MEASURE TYPE INSTALLED] IF (C5 <> 4,5) SKIP TO O1 P1 [IF C5 = 4,5,] Now I would like to ask about your decision-making process for each type

of equipment you installed.

Our records indicate the [MEASURE TYPE] you installed through this program included: [SHOW SPECIFIC MEASURES]

Is that correct?

1 Yes 2 No [Skip to next measure or P19 if last measure] 8 Don’t know

Decision-Making Processes (Full National Grid participant)


16


P2 Our records also show that you received a rebate for [MEASURE TYPE]. Is this correct?


P3 At what point in your decision to purchase [MEASURE TYPE] were you when you found

out about the rebate offered through the program? [READ LIST AND INDICATE RESPONSE]

1 Already been thinking about purchasing some type of [MEASURE TYPE] 2 Began collecting information about [MEASURE TYPE] 3 Decided to buy [MEASURE TYPE] 4 Had not been thinking about it 5 Other [SPECIFY]

P4 Did this equipment replace existing equipment?


P5 (If P4=1) What was the condition of the old equipment? [READ LIST AND INDICATE

RESPONSE]

1 Working properly 2 Working but in need of repair (e.g., inefficient) 3 Not working but repairable 4 Not working, not repairable 8 Don’t know

P8 What percent of the [measure] you received through the program is currently in use?

[ENTER RESPONSE IN WHOLE NUMBER]

_____ 0 to 100 % [IF 100% SKIP TO P13] 888 Don’t know 999 Refused


17


P9 Why isn’t your business using all the [measure]? [DO NOT READ; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

1 Was never installed 2 Was removed 3 Doesn’t fit properly 4 Don’t know how to operate 5 Dissatisfied with performance 6 Other (specify)

P9a [IF P9 = 2] Why was the new equipment removed?

[RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] P13 On a zero to ten scale, with zero being not at all likely and ten being very likely, how

likely is that you would have bought the same [MEASURE] within a year of when you purchased it if you had not received the rebate [(if PP0 = 2 or 3) and technical assistance] from National Grid?

_____ 0 to 10 88 Don’t know 99 Refused

P13a Other than the rebate, what is the main reason you chose to install [measure]? [DO NOT

READ; SELECT ONE]

1 Recommended by contractor/vendor 2 Wanted to reduce operating costs / reduce electric bill 3 Updating / expanding facility 4 Current equipment did not work 5 Other (specify)

P14 Did you receive additional financial assistance, rebate or tax incentive from a source

other than the [program name] Program to purchase the [MEASURE]?

1 Yes 2 No [Skip to next measure or P19 if last measure] 8 Don’t know [Skip to next measure or P19 if last measure]


18


P15 Who did you receive it from? [READ LIST; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

1 Dealer 2 Manufacturer 3 Local government 4 State tax credit 5 Federal tax credit 6 NYSERDA 7 Other utility [SPECIFY] 8 Other [SPECIFY] 9 Don’t know

P16 About how much was the additional financial assistance?

[RECORD TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR; IF MORE THAN ONE WAS MENTIONED, RECORD TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALL ASSISTANCE]

_____ Dollars 8888 Don’t know 9999 Refused

P17 On a zero to ten scale, with zero being not at all likely and ten being very likely, how

likely is that you would have bought the same [MEASURE] if you had not received this other financial incentive?


P19 [IF C5 = 4] Were there recommendations that you did not move forward with?

1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO O1]

P20 Why did you choose not to move forward with those recommendations? [DO NOT

READ; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

1 Rebate amount was too low 2 Equipment too expensive 3 Had to prioritize projects 4 Current equipment working fine 5 Other (specify)


19


O1 When it comes to energy and energy efficiency, businesses in New York are often

approached by multiple companies. O1A Are you aware of any energy efficiency programs for businesses offered by entities other

than National Grid in New York State?

1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO OP7] 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO OP7]

O2 What other entities are you aware of that offer energy efficiency programs? (DO NOT

READ; SELECT ALL MENTIONED)

1 LIPA (Long Island Power Authority) 2 ConEd (Consolidated Edison) 3 NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) 4 NYSEG (New York State Electric & Gas) 5 NYPA (New York Power Authority) 6 Central Hudson 7 ARRA funded programs 8 ESCOs (energy service companies) 9 Other federal programs [SPECIFY] 10 Other [SPECIFY] 11 Don’t know

O3 Are you eligible to participate in programs offered by these other entities?


OP1 [participants: C5 = 4, 5] Did you talk with any of these other organizations about their

energy efficiency programs before making the decision whether to participate in National Grid’s [program name] program?

1 Yes (Specify which one(s)?) 2 No [SKIP TO OP4]

Other organization Program Awareness (all)

Decision-Making Processes – Other entities (all)


20


OP2 Have you participated in any programs for businesses from entities other than National Grid?

1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO OP4] 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO OP4] OP2a In which programs from other entities have you participated? [RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] OP3 What was the main reason for choosing another program over a National Grid

program(s)? [RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] OP4 [participants: C5 = 4, 5] For this project, what was the main reason for choosing National

Grid over other program(s)? [RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] OP5 [participants: C5 = 4, 5] In your own words, how would you compare offerings from the

other entities with the National Grid’s programs? [RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] OP6 At any time, was there any confusion within your company in regards to … a. What services different entities provided? b. Whether these entities were affiliated with National Grid? c. Which entity could provide services that best fit your needs?


OP6r [if Yes to any in OP6] How was this confusion resolved?



21


OP6i [if Yes to any in OP6] Did the confusion influence which program was chosen?


OP7 [all] Some energy efficiency programs offered by utilities offer a turn-key approach. By

this we mean the program does everything for you. Program staff come in and identify all opportunities, install the equipment and remove the old equipment. All the customer does is agree to the installation and pay a portion of the cost.

Others like the [program name] program allows the customer to select the contractor who does the work and apply for a rebate.

Assuming the cost to you would be the same, which of these would you prefer; a more turn-key approach or an approach like the [program name] program?

1 Turn-key approach 2 Existing approach 3 No preference [IF C5=4 OR 5 SKP SP1, ELSE SKP NP1] 8 Don’t know [IF C5=4 OR 5 SKP SP1, ELSE SKP NP1]

OP8 Why do you prefer this approach?


IF (C5 <> 4, 5) SKIP TO NP1 SP1 [participants: C5 = 4, 5] Since participating in National Grid’s [program name] Program,

have you purchased any other type of energy efficient or ENERGY STAR rated equipment?

1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO F1] 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO F1]

Other Equipment Purchases (Full National Grid participants)


22


SP2 What high efficiency equipment have you purchased? [SELECT ALL THAT APPLY; READ LIST IF NEEDED]

1 Lighting 2 Lighting controls 3 Electric process measures 4 Motors / variable speed drives 5 Boilers 6 Furnaces 7 Water heater 8 Other electric equipment [SPECIFY] 9 Other gas equipment [SPECIFY]

SP3 [ASK FOR EACH MEASURE IN SP2]Did you receive a rebate from National Grid or any

other organization for [this/any of these] equipment? (Select all that apply)

1 No rebate 2 Yes, National Grid 3 Yes, NYSERDA 4 Yes, another organization [SPECIFY] 5 Yes, another fuel provider [SPECIFY] 8 Don’t know

SP4 On a scale of zero to ten, with zero being no influence and ten being total influence, how

much influence did your participation in the [program name] Program have on your decision to purchase this high-efficiency equipment?



23


SP5 Businesses consider many different factors when deciding which equipment to purchase. On a scale of zero to ten, with zero being "not at all important," and ten being "very important," how important are each of the following in your firm's decision of which equipment to purchase?[SPECIFY FOR EACH ITEM]

a. Compatibility with existing equipment b. Initial purchase cost c. Operating cost d. Length of payback period e. Recommendation of contractor or supplier f. Efficiency level of equipment g. Rebate from utility or other source h. Recommendations of others that had experience with equipment i. Compatibility with business design j. Energy savings of equipment

IF (C5 <> 1,2,3,6,7) SKIP TO F1 NP1 [C5 = 1, 2, 3, 6] Have you purchased any type of energy efficient or ENERGY STAR

rated equipment in the last 2 years?


NP2 What high efficiency equipment have you purchased? [SELECT ALL THAT APPLY; READ LIST IF NEEDED]


Recent Equipment Purchases (all except Full National Grid participants)


24


NP3 [ASK FOR EACH MEASURE IN NP2]Did you receive a rebate from National Grid or any other organization for [this/any of these] equipment? (Select all that apply)

1 No rebate 2 Yes, National Grid 3 Yes, NYSERDA 4 Yes, another organization [SPECIFY] 8 Don’t know

NP4 Businesses consider many different factors when deciding which equipment to

purchase. On a scale of zero to ten, with zero being "not at all important," and ten being "very important," how important are each of the following in your firm's decision of which equipment to purchase?[SPECIFY FOR EACH ITEM]


NP5 What could National Grid or the program do to increase the likelihood that you would

participate in the [program name] program?



25


We’re almost done, I just have a few questions about your business's general characteristics. F1g [gas only] What is the majority of the space at this location used for? [DO NOT READ LIST]

1 Assembly 2 Auto repair 3 Big box retail 4 Community college 5 Fast food 6 Dormitory 7 Elementary school 8 Full service restaurant 9 Grocery 10 Heavy industrial 11 Hotel 12 Hospital 13 Industrial refrigeration 14 Large office 15 Light industrial 16 Motel 17 Multi story retail 18 Multifamily high-rise 19 Multifamily low-rise 20 Religious 21 Secondary school 22 Small office 23 Small retail 24 University 25 Warehouse 26 Other [SPECIFY]

Firmographics (all)


26


F1e [electric only] What is the majority of the space at this location used for? [DO NOT READ LIST]

1 Assembly 2 Auto 3 Big box 4 College dormitory 5 Community college 6 Elementary school 7 Fast food 8 Full service restaurant 9 Grocery 10 High school 11 Heavy industrial 12 Hospital 13 Hotel 14 Large office 15 Large retail 16 Light industrial 17 Motel 18 Multifamily high-rise 19 Multifamily low-rise 20 Refrigerated Warehouse 21 Religious 22 Single family residence 23 Small office 24 Small retail 25 University 26 Warehouse 27 Other [SPECIFY]

F2 Is this business a non-profit organization?



27


F3 Which of the following options best describes your business/organization's ownership category? Is it? [READ LIST]

1 One of a chain of establishments 2 Franchise 3 Single establishment business/organization 4 Branch office 5 Headquarters of business/organization 6 Federal government facility 7 State government facility 8 Local government facility 9 Educational facility 10 Other [SPECIFY]

F4 How many more years does your business plan to be at this location?

____ Years 777 Indefinite 888 Don’t know 999 Refused

F5 Approximately how many full-time, part-time, and seasonal employees, including

yourself, work at this location?

_____ Full time employee [30+ hours per week] _____ Part-time _____ Seasonal employees 8888 Don’t know 9999 Refused

F6 Does your business own or lease the space you occupy/manage at this location?

1 Own all 2 Lease all 3 Own some and lease some 4 Manage property 5 Other 8 Don’t know 9 Refused


28


F7 Overall, which of the following statements best describes your business's energy efficiency efforts at this location? [READ LIST] 1 [nonparticipants only, C5=1,2,3,7] We have not done anything to save energy at

this location 2 We have not done much to save energy 3 We have made some energy efficiency improvements 4 We have done everything or almost everything that we can

F8 Finally, in terms of revenues, over the last two years, has your business increased,

decreased, or remained about the same?

1 Increased 2 Decreased 3 Stayed the same 8 Don’t know

F9 What is your title?

1 CEO/President 2 Business owner 3 General manager 4 Facilities engineer 5 Maintenance manager 6 Office manager 7 Administrator 8 Energy management staff 9 Purchasing agent/buyer 10 Landlord/property manager 11 Operations manager 12 Other [SPECIFY]

F10 Lastly, I’d like to get your name and contact information if we have additional questions.

Your contact information will not be associated with your responses provided in this survey.

1 Collect contact information:

Name: ________________________ Phone: ________________________ 2 Refused to provide contact information

1


APPENDIX E: NONPARTICIPANT SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Key Research Questions:

Customer Awareness and Marketing

• How is the program promotion working? What improvements can be made? What are the differences by sector and by size of customer? What tools are most effective?

• How does the program’s promotion coordinate with the other National Grid programs and other organization’s programs in New York? Does the overlap with other internal and external programs help or hinder the success of these programs?

• What marketing and outreach efforts are most successful in generating customer leads?

Ease of Participation/Administrative Processes

• What are the characteristics of the participating customer population and how does that compare to the eligible population? Are there any groups not reached by the program?

• Who was the customer’s initial point of contact for program information? Were they knowledgeable about the program?

• Are program requirements clearly understood? Are the procedures for application and rebates easy to follow?

• Was the application and rebate processed in a timely manner? If received an audit or technical study, was the turnaround time acceptable?

• What barriers exist for customers’ participation in the program?

• Is there confusion between National Grid’s programs and NYSERDA’s programs?

Program Satisfaction

• How is the program working? What enhancements are needed in the design and delivery of the program?

National Grid

New York Energy Initiative and Downstate C&I

Process Evaluation for Large and Mid-sized Commercial Customers

Participant and Nonparticipant Survey

E:.Nonparticipant Survey Instrument. . .

2


• Are customers satisfied with the program? What specific program components have the most and least customer satisfaction?

• What do customers and trade allies believe could be offered to improve program services?

• Does participation affect participants’ perception of the utility and, if so, how?

Customer Characteristics and Decision Making Processes

• Which measures have been installed and what type of equipment did it replace? How are they accepted and valued by the customer?

• Do measures remain installed and, if not, why not?

• Why do customers decide not to install measures after receiving technical assistance?

• Did the technical assistance provide information which prompted important energy savings projects? How important was the technical assistance in their decision to participate? Who provided the technical assistance and were they knowledgeable?

• Was the program incentive adequate? Were other program incentives available from National Grid or from other entities for the same measures or equipment?

Program Performance Indicators

• Is the program delivering the intended benefits to participants and are they achieving planned energy impacts?

• Is the appropriate information being collected to support future evaluation activities (i.e., impact evaluation)?

• Are there differences in participation by technology? If so, what is driving those differences?

If the sample is available, this questionnaire will be used to interview five different groups of customers:

• 1 – Unaware Nonparticipants. Those who were contacted by National Grid staff but may not recall hearing about the program.

• 2 – Aware Nonparticipants. Those who heard of program but have not utilized the program (did not receive technical assistance, did not install equipment).

• 3 – TA Participants. Those who received some form of technical assistance but installed no equipment.

• 4 – Full Other Participants. Those who completed a project through another program.


3


• 5 – Full NGRID Participants. Those who installed measures with National Grid, with or without technical assistance.

C1 Hello, my name is [interviewer name], and I'm calling on behalf of National Grid. May I speak with [named respondent] or the facilities/building manager, operations manager, maintenance manager, owner, or general manager?

1 Yes

2 No [If named respondent is not available: ask for another person who is familiar with the business’ energy use.]

INTRO 1

[READ IF NEEDED]

I'm not selling anything, I'd just like to ask you some questions about your awareness of or experiences with the program offered by National Grid. I'd like to assure you that your responses will be kept confidential and your name will not be revealed to anyone.

For quality and training purposes this call will be recorded.

[Why are you conducting this study:] Studies like this help National Grid better understand customer satisfaction with, and need for, energy efficiency programs.

[Timing:] This survey should take approximately 15 minutes of your time.

Is this a good time for us to speak with you? IF NOT, SET UP CALL BACK

APPOINTMENT OR OFFER TO LET THEM CALL US BACK AT 1-800-454-5070

[Sales concern:] This information will help National Grid best design and deliver energy efficiency programs to assist commercial and industrial customers. Your responses will be kept confidential by our firm. If you would like to talk with someone about this study, feel free to call Melissa Piper of National Grid at (315) 428-5002.

Introduction


4


INTRO 2

I'm with Tetra Tech, an independent research firm. I'm not selling anything. We have been hired by National Grid to talk with customers to understand your views on energy efficiency and National Grid's energy efficiency programs.

Their records show you have not yet participated and National Grid would like to learn more about ways to better serve you.

Before we start, I would like to inform you that your responses will be kept confidential and for quality and training purposes this call will be recorded.

[If needed: You may recall receiving a letter explaining the purpose of this call. We can send or fax you another copy of the letter to verify the purpose of the study.

The results of the survey will be used to make improvements to the programs that National Grid offers in the state of New York.]

1 Continue (skip to C2) 2 Need to send/fax letter 3 Disposition screen

C2 We are speaking with businesses about the [PROGRAM] program offered to commercial/industrial customers by National Grid.

Through the [Program], business customers are offered prescriptive and custom incentives to help purchase and install energy efficient equipment and systems for their facilities.

According to our records, your business/facility [BUSINESS NAME] at [ADDRESS] in [CITY] …is eligible to participate in the program but has not in the past 2 years.

Is this information correct?

1 Yes (aware, eligible, haven’t participated in past 2 years) [SKIP TO c5A] 2 No, we have participated [SKIP TO c5A] 3 No, we are not eligible for National Grid programs (e.g., not in service territory)

[Terminate AAPOR=4704] 4 Unaware of eligibility for National Grid program [SKIP TO c5A] 5 Ineligible- resident [AAPOR=4703] 8 Don’t know (incorrect contact) [BACK TO C1]

C3 Is it possible that someone else in your business would be familiar with the [program name] program, the technical assistance, audit, engineering study or the equipment that was installed?

1 Yes


5


2 No [THANK AND TERMINATE] 8 Don’t know [THANK AND TERMINATE]

C4 May I please speak with that person?

1 Yes [BEGIN THE SURVEY AGAIN [C2] WITH NEW R] 2 No [THANK AND TERMINATE] 8 Don’t know [THANK AND TERMINATE]

C5a Have you ever heard of the National Grid [progname] program?

1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO C6]

C5b Have you received any technical assistance, such as an energy audit or engineering study, from National Grid?

1 Yes 2 No

C5c Have you installed energy efficient equipment and received a rebate from National Grid’s [progname] program or from another organization?

1 National Grid 2 Other organization 3 None [never installed equipment through ANY program]

C5 Please tell me which of the following best describes your status in regards to the [PROGRAM] program?

[Participant: READ ALL OPTIONS]

[Nonparticipant: options are coded based on responses to C5a to C5c per the table above]

1 Never been contacted or have never heard of program 2 Heard of program but have only talked with an account manager or other

National Grid staff 3 No equipment installed, received technical assistance or audit from National Grid 4 Installed equipment AND received technical assistance from National Grid 5 Installed equipment, have NOT received technical assistance from National Grid


6


6 No project with National Grid, completed through another program outside of National Grid [SPECIFY]

7 [nonparticipant option only] I have received technical assistance from National Grid but have installed equipment through another program [SPECIFY]

Unaware Nonparticipant: C5 = 1 Aware Nonparticipant: C5 = 2 TA Participant (touched): C5 = 3 Full Other Participants: C5 = 6 Full National Grid Participants: C5 = 4,5

Terminate if C5 = 4 or 5 for nonparticipant effort NG TA and other participant: C5=7

C6 [if C5 > 2] Were you involved in the decision of whether or not to make [this/these] energy saving improvements to this facility?

[if C5 = 1 or 2] Are you involved in the decision of whether or not to make energy saving improvements at your facility?


C7 [if C5 > 2] Who else within your company or outside your company was involved in the decision-making process of whether or not to participate?

(PROBE: IF MORE THAN ONE DECISION MAKER, ASK R WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE ULTIMATE DECISION)

[if C5 = 1 or 2] Who else within your company or outside your company is involved in the decision-making process of whether or not to participate in energy-saving programs?

(DO NOT READ) (SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

1 No one else 2 President/CEO 3 Board of Directors

4 Facilities Manager 5 Other senior leaders

6 Owner 7 Other (specify)

C8 What barriers do you face, either internal or external to your company, when deciding whether or not to implement energy efficiency projects?


7


(Probe for initial barriers as well as any barriers that occur while moving through the participation process)

(SELECT ALL THAT APPLY)

1 Initial capital (funds) needed for the work 2 Management cooperation

3 Staff resources to manage the project

4 The economy

5 Our budgeting cycle

6 Finding a qualified contractor

7 Other (specify)

A1 [if C5 > 1] How did you hear about the [program name] Program?

[DO NOT READ; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY] (Probe: Anywhere else?)

1 National Grid Account manager 2 National Grid call center – Business Solutions Center (BSC) 3 National Grid staff (other than account manager or BSC) 4 National Grid utility bill insert 5 National Grid e-mail newsletter 6 National Grid website 7 Direct mailing from National Grid 8 From participation in another National Grid program [SPECIFY PROGRAM] 9 Contractor, independent (e.g., lighting contractor) (SPECIFY) 10 Contractor hired by National Grid (e.g. RISE, ERS etc) (SPECIFY) 11 Conference/trade show/expo 12 Chamber of Commerce meeting or newsletter 13 Newspaper 14 Radio 15 Television 16 Friend/business person [Probe: Did this friend/business person also participate in

the program?] 17 Haven’t heard of it before this survey 18 Other [SPECIFY]

A2 [if aware: C5>1]Are you aware of other National Grid energy efficiency programs offered to commercial and industrial customers in the state of New York?

National Grid Program Awareness (all)


8


[if not aware: C5 = 1]Are you aware of any National Grid energy efficiency programs offered to commercial and industrial customers in the state of New York?

1 Yes (Which ones?) 2 No [SKIP TO A7]

A2a Have you contacted National Grid about participating in any of these other energy efficiency programs?

1 Yes 2 No [Why not?] [SKIP TO A7] 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO A5]

A2b [IF A2a=1] What was the outcome of that contact?


A2c [IF A2a=1] Did you experience any challenges or difficulties in understanding what National Grid could offer?

1 Yes [explain] 2 No 8 Don’t know

A3 Have you participated in any other energy-efficiency programs offered by National Grid?

1 Yes [Which programs? Small Business, Commercial HEHE, Other (specify)] 2 No [SKIP TO A5] 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO A5]

A4 [if aware: C5 > 1 and A3=1] In your opinion, how does the [program name] program compare to other National Grid programs in which you’ve participated?


A5 [EI only] [if aware: C5>1] Did you consider participating in a different National Grid program for this project?

1 Yes


9


2 No [SKIP TO A7]

A5a [EI only] Which other National Grid programs did you consider participating in?


A6 [EI only] [NG participants C5 = 4, 5] What was the main reason for choosing the [program name] program over [fill with A5a]?


A7 [if C5 < 4] When looking for information on energy efficiency programs and services, which sources do you prefer? (DO NOT READ; Select all that apply)

1 Contractor recommendations 2 Vendor recommendations

3 National Grid website

4 NYSERDA website

5 Department of Energy (DOE) website

6 ENERGY STAR website

7 Other website (specify) 8 Other (specify)

If (C5 <> 2,3,4,7) SKIP TO IF2

If (C5=5) SKIP TO PP15

PP0 [if C5 =3,4,7] What level of technical assistance from National Grid did your business receive through the [program name] program? (READ LIST; Select all that apply)

1 [DO NOT READ] Did not receive any form of technical assistance [SKIP TO PP4] 2 Walk-through energy audit (a walk-through and report)

3 Engineering study (a full study of a facility to identify energy-savings measures and project savings)

Program Participation (TA participants and full National Grid participants and unaware nonparticipants)


10


4 Custom audit (engineering analysis to determine therm savings) 5 Custom review (when a previously completed study by a different engineering firm

is reviewed) 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO PP4]

PP1 [if C5 =3,4,7] Did they look at the entire building or only certain equipment? (Select one)

1 The entire facility 2 Only certain equipment (specify-What equipment? Lighting equipment, lighting

controls, electric motors, electric process measures, other) 8 Don’t know

PP2 [if C5 =3,4,7] What is the main reason your company was interested in receiving technical assistance through the [program name] program?

[DO NOT READ; SELECTONLY ONE]

1 Wasn't interested--someone approached us about it 2 Looking for ways to reduce operating/energy costs 3 Wanted to know what we could do to save energy 4 It was available at a discounted rate through the program 5 I like to take advantage of National Grid program offers

6 Needed the work done anyway/already planned it (technical assistance required for incentive)

7 Other [SPECIFY] 8 Don’t know

PP3 [if C5 =3,4,7] What are other reasons your company was interested in receiving technical assistance through the [program name] program?

[DO NOT READ; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

1 Wasn't interested--someone approached us about it 2 Looking for ways to reduce operating/energy costs 3 Wanted to know what we could do to save energy 4 It was available at a discounted rate through the program 5 I like to take advantage of National Grid program offers

6 Needed the work done anyway/already planned it (technical assistance required for incentive)

7 Other [SPECIFY] 8 No other reasons


11


PP4 (If C5 = 3,4,7)What is the main reason your company

[IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT:] was interested in

[IF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ONLY:] was considering

Obtaining energy-saving equipment through the [program name] program?

[DO NOT READ; SELECT ONE]

1 Wasn't interested--someone approached us about it 2 Wanted to reduce operating/energy costs 3 The equipment and installation was incentivized 4 I like to take advantage of National Grid offers 5 Needed the work done anyway/already planned it 6 Other [SPECIFY]

PP5 (If C5 = 3,4,7) What were other reasons your company

[IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT:] was interested in

[IF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ONLY:] was considering

Obtaining energy-saving equipment through the [program name] program?


1 Wasn't interested--someone approached us about it 2 Wanted to reduce operating/energy costs 3 The equipment and installation was incentivized 4 I like to take advantage of National Grid offers 5 Needed the work done anyway/already planned it 6 Other[SPECIFY] 7 No other reasons

PP6 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 3,4,7] The program representative who visited your site presented your company with a report about the energy savings and incentives you could expect to receive from National Grid by installing the recommended measures. Do you recall seeing this report?



12


PP7 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 3,4,7] Part of the report included information on how much energy savings there would be based on the new equipment. Do you recall seeing the energy savings estimate?


PP8 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 3,4,7] Was the estimate of energy savings higher than you expected, about what you expected, or lower than what you expected?


PP9 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 3,4,7] Another part of the report detailed the eligible incentives for the new equipment. Do you recall seeing the incentives estimate?


PP10 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 3,4,7] Were the eligible incentives from National Grid higher than you expected, about what you expected, or lower than what you expected?


PP11 [IF RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: C5 = 4] On a zero to ten scale, with zero being not at all important and ten being very important, how important was the technical assistance in your decision to participate in the National Grid program?

0 to 10 55 Technical assistance was required 88 Don’t know 99 Refused


13


PP12 [IF C5 = 2,3,7] What is the main reason you have not installed any energy-efficient equipment through the program at this time?

[DO NOT READ; SELECT ONLY ONE]

1 Your experience with the representative responsible for the technical assistance [SPECIFY]

2 The type of equipment recommended 3 The estimated energy savings from the recommended equipment was too small

4 Don’t trust that we will see the estimated energy savings from the recommended equipment

5 Potential disruption to our business 6 The internal approval process for the funding of the contribution 7 Don't feel savings justify cost 8 Have had problems with energy-efficient equipment in the past 9 Found the [technical assistance] report hard to understand 10 The rebate available from the utility was too small 11 Payback period too long 12 Installed through a different program 13 State of the economy 14 Other reason [SPECIFY]

PP13 [IF C5 = 2,3,7] Are there any other reasons you have not installed any energy-efficient equipment through the program at this time?


0 No other reasons 1 Your experience with the representative responsible for the technical assistance

[SPECIFY] 2 The type of equipment recommended

3 The estimated energy savings from the recommended equipment was too small 4 Don’t trust that we will see the estimated energy savings from the

recommended equipment 5 Potential disruption to our business 6 The internal approval process for the funding of the contribution 7 Don't feel savings justify cost 8 Have had problems with energy-efficient equipment in the past 9 Found the [technical assistance] report hard to understand 10 The rebate available from the utility was too small 11 Payback period too long 12 Installed through a different program 13 State of the economy 14 Other reason [SPECIFY]


14


PP14 [IFC5 = 3,7] What could National Grid or the program have done to increase the likelihood that you would install the recommended equipment?

[Probes: Was there anything related to information or education, personal assistance, financial assistance, or timing that could have been better? Please describe]


PP15 [ONLY IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT C5 = 4, 5]Has anyone conducted any follow-up visits or quality control checks on the equipment installed in your business?

1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO IF2] 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO IF2]

PP15A Who conducted these follow-up visits or quality control checks?

Was it a....[READ]

1 National Grid staff member 2 Contractor hired by National Grid (e.g., RISE, ERS, etc.) 3 Independent contractor 4 Other [SPECIFY]

PP16 [ONLY IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT C5 = 4, 5] Were you satisfied with the follow-up visit or quality control process?

1 Yes [PROBE: Why?] 2 No [PROBE: Why not?] 8 Don’t know


15


IF2 These next few questions ask about the customers’ portion of the cost and available financing for purchasing energy efficient equipment.

IF2a [FOR CUSTOM PROJECTS] Do you think that National Grid’s [program name] program requirement that your company pay at least 50 percent of the project cost is appropriate?

1 Yes [PROBE: Why do you say that?] [ SKIP TO IF4] 2 No [PROBE: Why do you say that?] 8 Don’t know [ SKIP TO IF4]

IF3 [FOR CUSTOM PROJECTS; if IF2a = 2] Assuming a customer contribution is required, what percent of the project cost do you think would be appropriate to ask customers to contribute?

___ Percent of cost 888 Don’t know 999 Refused

IF4 If the utility was able to provide financing at below-market interest rate that could be repaid through your [EI: electric or gas; CI: gas; Com HeHe: gas] bill to cover your part of project costs, would your business use this financing?

1 Yes [SKIP TO IF5] 2 No 3 Depends [SKIP TO IF4b]

IF4a Why not?

[RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] SKIP TO IF5

IF4b What does it depend on?


Program Incentives and Financing (all)


16


IF5 If the utility was able to arrange for financing at below-market interest rate through a third party, would your business use this financing to pay your part of the project cost?

1 Yes [SKIP TO SAT1] 2 No 3 Depends [SKIP TO IF5b]

IF5a Why not?

[RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] SKIP TO SAT1

IF5b What does it depend on?


IF (C5 <> 3,4,5,7) SKIP TO O1

SAT1 [if C5 = 3, 4, 5] Overall, how satisfied are you with your experiences with the [program name] Program to date? Are you: [READ LIST]

1 Very dissatisfied 2 Somewhat dissatisfied 3 Neither dissatisfied nor satisfied 4 Somewhat satisfied 5 Very satisfied 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO SAT2]

SAT1a Why do you say that?


Satisfaction with Program (TA participants and Full National Grid participants)


17


SAT2 For the following questions, I'd like you to tell me how satisfied you are with each aspect of the services you received through the [program name] Program so far.On a scale of zero to ten, with zero being "Not at All Satisfied" and ten being "Very Satisfied," how satisfied were you with the?

[RECORD RESPONSE. IF ANSWER < 5, PROBE WITH: Why do you say that?]

a. [IF RECEIVED TA, PP0=2, 3, 4, 5] Promptness of the audit or inspection of your old equipment

b. [IF RECEIVED TA, PP0=2, 3, 4, 5] Quality of the audit c. [IF RECEIVED TA, PP0=3] Promptness of the engineering study d. [IF RECEIVED TA, PP0=3] Quality of the engineering study e. [C5=3, 4, 5, 7] Type/variety of equipment eligible for the program f. [C5=3, 4, 5, 7] The way National Grid or [trade ally] handled your questions g. [C5=3, 4, 5, 7] The amount of incentive available from National Grid h. [C5=3, 4, 5, 7] Usefulness of information provided about the program

[ONLY IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT] i. [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, C5=4, 5] Quality of work of the person who installed

your equipment j. [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, C5=4, 5] The equipment installed k. [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, C5=4, 5] Rebate application process l. [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, C5=4, 5] Length of time it took to get a rebate check m. [IF INSTALLED EQUIPMENT, C5=4, 5] [IF PP15 = 2 OR DK, SKIP] Inspection of

the installation by a utility representative

SAT3 Which features of the program, if any, would you change?[DO NOT READ;SELECT ALL THAT APPLY][PROBE:Is there anything else you would change?]

1 Wouldn't change anything/keep program as is 2 More oversight/quality control of installation 3 Improve quality of equipment 4 Conduct technical assistance quicker 5 Provide more direct utility involvement 6 Include measures at no cost 7 Include more measures or equipment through the program 8 Provide a more comprehensive audit 9 Provide technical assistance at no cost 10 More helpful/responsive program staff 11 Increase amount of rebate 12 Offer financing options 13 More advertising of program 14 Other [please describe]

SAT4 What other energy efficiency equipment measures do you feel should have been recommended and installed through the program?



18


SAT5 As a result of your involvement with the [program name] Program, would you say you are more satisfied, just as satisfied, or less satisfied with National Grid as your energy provider?

1 More satisfied 2 Just as satisfied 3 Less satisfied 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO SAT7]

SAT6 Why do you say that?


SAT7 Have you recommended the program to others?


[IF R ONLY RECEIVED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, SKIP TO NEXT SECTION.] [ASK FOLLOWING QUESTIONS P1-P17 FOR EACH MEASURE TYPE INSTALLED] IF (C5 <> 4,5) SKIP TO O1

P1 [IF C5 = 4,5,] Now I would like to ask about your decision-making process for each type of equipment you installed.

Our records indicate the [MEASURE TYPE] you installed through this program included: [SHOW SPECIFIC MEASURES]

Is that correct?

1 Yes 2 No [Skip to next measure or P19 if last measure] 8 Don’t know

P2 Our records also show that you received a rebate for [MEASURE TYPE]. Is this correct?


Decision-Making Processes (Full National Grid participant)


19


P3 At what point in your decision to purchase [MEASURE TYPE] were you when you found out about the rebate offered through the program?

[READ LIST AND INDICATE RESPONSE]

1 Already been thinking about purchasing some type of [MEASURE TYPE] 2 Began collecting information about [MEASURE TYPE] 3 Decided to buy [MEASURE TYPE] 4 Had not been thinking about it 5 Other [SPECIFY]

P4 Did this equipment replace existing equipment?


P5 (If P4=1) What was the condition of the old equipment? [READ LIST AND INDICATE RESPONSE]

1 Working properly 2 Working but in need of repair (e.g., inefficient) 3 Not working but repairable 4 Not working, not repairable 8 Don’t know

P8 What percent of the [measure] you received through the program is currently in use? [ENTER RESPONSE IN WHOLE NUMBER]

___ 0 to 100 % [IF 100% SKIP TO P13] 888 Don’t know 999 Refused

P9 Why isn’t your business using all the [measure]? [DO NOT READ; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

1 Was never installed 2 Was removed 3 Doesn’t fit properly 4 Don’t know how to operate


20


5 Dissatisfied with performance 6 Other (specify)

P9a [IF P9 = 2] Why was the new equipment removed?


P13 On a zero to ten scale, with zero being not at all likely and ten being very likely, how likely is that you would have bought the same [MEASURE] within a year of when you purchased it if you had not received the rebate [(if PP0 = 2 or 3) and technical assistance] from National Grid?

__ 0 to 10 88 Don’t know 99 Refused

P13a Other than the rebate, what is the main reason you chose to install [measure]? [DO NOT READ; SELECT ONE]

1 Recommended by contractor/vendor 2 Wanted to reduce operating costs / reduce electric bill 3 Updating / expanding facility 4 Current equipment did not work 5 Other (specify)

P14 Did you receive additional financial assistance, rebate or tax incentive from a source other than the [program name] Program to purchase the [MEASURE]?

1 Yes 2 No [Skip to next measure or P19 if last measure] 8 Don’t know [Skip to next measure or P19 if last measure]

P15 Who did you receive it from? [READ LIST; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

1 Dealer 2 Manufacturer 3 Local government 4 State tax credit 5 Federal tax credit 6 NYSERDA 7 Other utility [SPECIFY]


21


8 Other [SPECIFY] 9 Don’t know

P16 About how much was the additional financial assistance?

[RECORD TO THE NEAREST DOLLAR; IF MORE THAN ONE WAS MENTIONED, RECORD TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALL ASSISTANCE]

____ Dollars 8888 Don’t know 9999 Refused

P17 On a zero to ten scale, with zero being not at all likely and ten being very likely, how likely is that you would have bought the same [MEASURE] if you had not received this other financial incentive?

__ 0 to 10 88 Don’t know 99 Refused

P19 [IF C5 = 4] Were there recommendations that you did not move forward with?

1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO O1]

P20 Why did you choose not to move forward with those recommendations? [DO NOT READ; SELECT ALL THAT APPLY]

1 Rebate amount was too low 2 Equipment too expensive 3 Had to prioritize projects 4 Current equipment working fine 5 Other (specify)


22


O1 When it comes to energy and energy efficiency, businesses in New York are often approached by multiple companies.

O1A Are you aware of any energy efficiency programs for businesses offered by entities other than National Grid in New York State?


O2 What other entities are you aware of that offer energy efficiency programs? (DO NOT READ; SELECT ALL MENTIONED)

1 LIPA (Long Island Power Authority) 2 ConEd (Consolidated Edison) 3 NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) 4 NYSEG (New York State Electric & Gas) 5 NYPA (New York Power Authority) 6 Central Hudson 7 ARRA funded programs 8 ESCOs (energy service companies) 9 Other federal programs [SPECIFY] 10 Other [SPECIFY] 11 Don’t know

O3 Are you eligible to participate in programs offered by these other entities?


Other organization Program Awareness (all)


23


OP1 [participants: C5 = 4, 5, 7] Did you talk with any of these other organizations about their energy efficiency programs before making the decision whether to participate in National Grid’s [program name] program?

1 Yes (Specify which one(s)?) 2 No [SKIP TO OP4]

OP2 Have you participated in any programs for businesses from entities other than National Grid?


OP2a In which programs from other entities have you participated?


OP3 What was the main reason for choosing another program over a National Grid program(s)?


OP4 [participants: C5 = 4, 5] For this project, what was the main reason for choosing National Grid over other program(s)?


OP5 [participants: C5 = 4, 5,7] In your own words, how would you compare offerings from the other entities with the National Grid’s programs?


OP6 At any time, was there any confusion within your company in regards to …

a. What services different entities provided?

Decision-Making Processes – Other entities (all)


24


b. Whether these entities were affiliated with National Grid?

c. Which entity could provide services that best fit your needs?


OP6r [if Yes to any in OP6] How was this confusion resolved?


OP6i [if Yes to any in OP6] Did the confusion influence which program was chosen?


OP7 [all] Some energy efficiency programs offered by utilities offer a turn-key approach. By this we mean the program does everything for you. Program staff come in and identify all opportunities, install the equipment and remove the old equipment. All the customer does is agree to the installation and pay a portion of the cost.

Others like the [program name] program allows the customer to select the contractor who does the work and apply for a rebate.

Assuming the cost to you would be the same, which of these would you prefer; a more turn-key approach or an approach like the [program name] program?

1 Turn-key approach 2 Existing approach

3 No preference [IF C5=4 OR 5 SKP SP1, ELSE SKP NP1] 8 Don’t know [IF C5=4 OR 5 SKP SP1, ELSE SKP NP1]

OP8 Why do you prefer this approach?



25


IF (C5 <> 4, 5) SKIP TO NP1

SP1 [participants: C5 = 4, 5] Since participating in National Grid’s [program name] Program, have you purchased any other type of energy efficient or ENERGY STAR rated equipment?


SP2 What high efficiency equipment have you purchased?

[SELECT ALL THAT APPLY; READ LIST IF NEEDED]


SP3 [ASK FOR EACH MEASURE IN SP2]Did you receive a rebate from National Grid or any other organization for [this/any of these] equipment? (Select all that apply)

1 No rebate 2 Yes, National Grid 3 Yes, NYSERDA 4 Yes, another organization [SPECIFY]

5 Yes, another fuel provider [SPECIFY] 8 Don’t know

SP4 On a scale of zero to ten, with zero being no influence and ten being total influence, how much influence did your participation in the [program name] Program have on your decision to purchase this high-efficiency equipment?

0 to 10 88 Don’t know 99 Refused

Other Equipment Purchases (Full National Grid participants)


26


SP5 Businesses consider many different factors when deciding which equipment to purchase. On a scale of zero to ten, with zero being "not at all important," and ten being "very important," how important are each of the following in your firm's decision of which equipment to purchase?[SPECIFY FOR EACH ITEM]



27


IF (C5 <> 1,2,3,6,7) SKIP TO F1

NP1 [C5 = 1, 2, 3, 6, 7] Have you purchased any type of energy efficient or ENERGY STAR rated equipment in the last 2 years?

1 Yes 2 No [SKIP TO NP4] 8 Don’t know [SKIP TO NP4]

NP2 What high efficiency equipment have you purchased?

[SELECT ALL THAT APPLY; READ LIST IF NEEDED]


NP3 [ASK FOR EACH MEASURE IN NP2]Did you receive a rebate from National Grid or any other organization for [this/any of these] equipment? (Select all that apply)

1 No rebate 2 Yes, National Grid 3 Yes, NYSERDA 4 Yes, another organization [SPECIFY]

5 Yes, another fuel provider [SPECIFY] 8 Don’t know

Recent Equipment Purchases (all except Full National Grid participants)


28


NP4 Businesses consider many different factors when deciding which equipment to purchase. On a scale of zero to ten, with zero being "not at all important," and ten being "very important," how important are each of the following in your firm's decision of which equipment to purchase?[SPECIFY FOR EACH ITEM]

a. Compatibility with existing equipment b. Initial purchase cost c. Operating cost d. Length of payback period e. Recommendation of contractor or supplier f. Efficiency level of equipment g. Rebate from utility or other source h. Recommendations of others that had experience with equipment i. Compatibility with business design j. Energy savings of equipment k. Availability of financing

NP5 What could National Grid or the program do to increase the likelihood that you would participate in the [program name] program?

Probe if went with another organization: What could National Grid do differently to convince you to participate in their program? Any other items National Grid could learn from this other program?


NP6 For each energy efficiency improvement you consider, do you research different technical assistance firms or do you typically select one organization you are comfortable with?

1 Research different firms 2 Select firm comfortable with 3 It depends (specify)

NP7 How do you select an installation contractor for energy efficiency improvements?

Probe: do they need to be affiliated with the program?



29


We’re almost done, I just have a few questions about your business's general characteristics.

F1g [gas only] What is the majority of the space at this location used for?

[DO NOT READ LIST]

1 Assembly 2 Auto repair 3 Big box retail 4 Community college 5 Fast food 6 Dormitory 7 Elementary school 8 Full service restaurant 9 Grocery 10 Heavy industrial 11 Hotel 12 Hospital 13 Industrial refrigeration 14 Large office 15 Light industrial 16 Motel 17 Multi story retail 18 Multifamily high-rise 19 Multifamily low-rise 20 Religious 21 Secondary school 22 Small office 23 Small retail 24 University 25 Warehouse

26 Other[SPECIFY]

Firmographics (all)


30


F1e [electric only] What is the majority of the space at this location used for?

[DO NOT READ LIST]

1 Assembly 2 Auto 3 Big box 4 College dormitory 5 Community college 6 Elementary school 7 Fast food 8 Full service restaurant 9 Grocery 10 High school 11 Heavy industrial 12 Hospital 13 Hotel 14 Large office 15 Large retail 16 Light industrial 17 Motel 18 Multifamily high-rise 19 Multifamily low-rise 20 Refrigerated Warehouse 21 Religious 22 Single family residence 23 Small office 24 Small retail 25 University 26 Warehouse

27 Other[SPECIFY]

F2 Is this business a non-profit organization?



31


F3 Which of the following options best describes your business/organization's ownership category? Is it? [READ LIST]

1 One of a chain of establishments 2 Franchise 3 Single establishment business/organization 4 Branch office 5 Headquarters of business/organization 6 Federal government facility 7 State government facility 8 Local government facility 9 Educational facility 10 Other [SPECIFY]

F4 How many more years does your business plan to be at this location?

_____ Years 777 Indefinite 888 Don’t know 999 Refused

F5 Approximately how many full-time, part-time, and seasonal employees, including yourself, work at this location?

_____ Full time employee [30+ hours per week]

_____ Part-time _____ Seasonal employees 8888 Don’t know 9999 Refused

F6 Does your business own or lease the space you occupy/manage at this location?

1 Own all 2 Lease all 3 Own some and lease some 4 Manage property 5 Other 8 Don’t know 9 Refused


32


F7 Overall, which of the following statements best describes your business's energy efficiency efforts at this location? [READ LIST]

1 [nonparticipants only, C5=1,2,3,7] We have not done anything to save energy at this location

2 We have not done much to save energy 3 We have made some energy efficiency improvements 4 We have done everything or almost everything that we can

F8 Finally, in terms of revenues, over the last two years, has your business increased, decreased, or remained about the same?

1 Increased 2 Decreased 3 Stayed the same 8 Don’t know

F9 What is your title?

1 CEO/President 2 Business owner 3 General manager 4 Facilities engineer 5 Maintenance manager 6 Office manager 7 Administrator 8 Energy management staff 9 Purchasing agent/buyer 10 Landlord/property manager 11 Operations manager 12 Other [SPECIFY]

F10 Lastly, I’d like to get your name and contact information if we have additional questions. Your contact information will not be associated with your responses provided in this survey.

1 Collect contact information: Name: ________________________

Phone: ________________________ 2 Refused to provide contact information

1


APPENDIX F: RESPONSE RATES

This section includes the final response rate summaries for data collection activities for the Commercial Energy Efficiency program and Industrial program in downstate New York. Where applicable, response rates are broken out by program and territory.

F.1 PARTICIPANTS

National Grid provided records for 160 commercial and industrial customers who participated in the CEE and Industrial Programs in the downstate areas New York City and Long Island. Of those, Tetra Tech completed 68 interviews in June 2011. Below, we provide a brief summary of call dispositions.

Table F-1. Response Rate for Downstate CEEP and Industrial Program Participants

Long Island CEEP

Long Island Industrial

New York City CEEP

New York City

Industrial

Starting sample 95 20 33 12

Ineligible- Doesn't recall participation 3 0 2 2

Ineligible- Contact no longer at company 4 0 1 0

Ineligible- Named company not at address 4 0 1 0

Ineligible- Contractor/3rd party to project 3 0 0 0

Bad numbers1 9 2 3 1

Adjusted sample 72 18 26 9

Refusals2 17 4 0 0

Unavailable for duration 2 0 0 1

Incapable/Incoherent 1 0 0 0

Language barrier 0 0 1 0

Active sample 12 1 14 4

Completes 40 13 11 4

Cooperation Rate3 55.6% 72.2% 42.3% 44.4%

Response Rate4 42.1% 65.0% 33.3% 33.3%1 Phone number look-ups were done on all bad numbers

2 Attempts were made to convert all soft refusals 3 Number of completed surveys divided by Adjusted Sample Size 4 Number of completed surveys divided by Starting Sample Size

F.2 NONPARTICIPANTS

National Grid provided records for 636 commercial and industrial customers, screened for energy efficiency program participation over the past five years.17 Of those, Tetra Tech

17 Nonparticipants were defined as customers who did not participate between 2007 and 2010, since National Grid’s interim programs were in effect from Sept 2007 to April 2010.

F:.Response Rates. . .

2


completed 35 interviews in September 2011. Below, we provide a brief summary of call dispositions.

Table F-2. Response Rate for Downstate Commercial and Industrial Nonparticipants

Long Island CEEP

Long Island Industrial

New York City CEEP

New York City

Industrial

Starting sample 166 172 167 131

Ineligible- Residence 4 5 0 1

Ineligible- Not eligible for National Grid programs 2 0 2 2

Ineligible- Full participant (installed equipment + TA) 1 0 0 2

Ineligible- Full participant (installed equipment) 0 1 0 0

Bad numbers 17 23 14 4

Multiple location for same contact 19 29 19 15

Unattempted - Contact name and phone number, no company

5 5 6 0

Adjusted sample 118 109 126 107

Refusals 48 25 37 37

Hard refusal 10 1 5 4

Soft refusal 9 2 2 2

Partial refusal 2 2 0 0

Corporate decision 1 1 0 0

Landlord decision 1 2 2 3

Do not do surveys (company policy) 0 0 0 1

Will not release contact info of R 1 0 3 2

Thought it was a sales call 3 3 3 3

Take me off your list 2 2 5 1

Thought they already participated 1 0 1 1

No time to do surveys 7 6 7 9

Never reached a contact (all hang ups) 11 6 9 11

Unavailable for duration 1 1 0 0

Language barrier 5 2 2 2

Called out- 8 attempts with no contact 4 12 7 4

Active sample 50 55 73 60

Completes 10 14 7 4

Full Nonparticipant 10 13 6 3

Touched participant 0 0 0 0

Other PA participant 0 1 1 1

Cooperation Rate1 8.5% 12.8% 5.6% 3.7%

Response Rate2 6.0% 8.1% 4.2% 3.1%1 Number of completed surveys divided by Adjusted Sample Size 2 Number of completed surveys divided by Starting Sample Size

F:.Response Rates. . .

3


F.3 CONTRACTORS

Overall, 113 unique records were provided for the purpose of interviewing New York City and Long Island contractors. Of these, Tetra Tech completed nine interviews in July and August of 2011. Below, we provide a brief summary of call dispositions.

Table F-3. Response Rate for Downstate Contractors

Sample Size 113Bad number* 16

Fax/data line* 2

Adjusted Sample Size 95Hard Refusal 29

Incompletes (partial interviews) 0

Unavailable for duration 4

Active 53

Completed Interviews 9*All bad numbers were traced with directory

assistance service.

G:.Nonrespondent Approval Letter. . .

4


APPENDIX G: NONRESPONDENT APPROVAL LETTER

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE

THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA, ALBANY, NY 12223-1350 www.dps.state.ny.us

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION GARRY A. BROWN PETER McGOWAN Chairman General Counsel PATRICIA L. ACAMPORA MAUREEN F. HARRIS JACLYN A. BRILLING ROBERT E. CURRY JR. Secretary JAMES L. LAROCCA Commissioners

May 1, 2011 Via E-Mail Evaluation Advisory Group Dear Sir/Madam:

On June 12, 2009, I wrote to you to provide guidance for the proper collection and handling of customer energy consumption data for EEPS/SBC program evaluation purposes. The Customer Data Guidelines (guidelines) were developed to clarify the process for maintaining the confidentiality of customer data and specifically addressed customer energy consumption data that would be analyzed to estimate the energy savings resulting from EEPS/SBC programs.

In response to concerns expressed by EEPS/SBC program administrators and the Evaluation Advisory Group, Staff revised these guidelines to allow utilities administering EEPS programs to provide program non-participant contact information to their evaluation contractors under specific circumstances and restrictions. Data from non–participants can help us to more fully understand a program’s strengths and weaknesses including insights into why some customers chose not participate. This type of information can play an important role in achieving the Commission objective of reliable and rigorous evaluation, and providing results that can lead to better and more cost effective programs.

The revised guidelines are attached. If you have any comments or questions, please contact Bill Saxonis at [email protected] or 518-486-1610.


5


Attachment

REVISED - APRIL 2011

Customer Data Guidelines

Analyzing utility customer energy consumption data is often a cost effective approach for documenting energy savings from System Benefits Charge (SBC), Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS), and other Commission-approved energy efficiency programs. Customer energy consumption data is collected before and after energy actions are implemented and statistically analyzed (e.g., adjusted for variables such as weather) to produce estimates of energy savings. This approach can provide valuable data at a lower cost than site visits or end use metering. While customer data may facilitate rigorous and cost effective evaluation, priority must be given to protecting the consumer’s privacy and data.

Staff has developed guidelines for securing customer consent and maintaining confidentiality of customer data. These guidelines should be followed by program administrators and their evaluation contractors seeking access to customer energy consumption data.

Customer Consent Form

To ensure that the customer knowingly agrees to disclose his/her confidential data, the program administrator should furnish to program participants a form authorizing the release of certain specifically enumerated customer data to the program administrator and, if applicable, the evaluation contractor. The availability of customer data must be limited to the minimum data necessary to conduct the evaluation, consistent with evaluation guidelines approved by DPS evaluation Staff. This data could include consumption data, but may not include payment histories. A customer signature or the equivalent (i.e., an electronic signature) is required. The consent form should explain that the data will be used only for program evaluation purposes, confidentiality will be strictly protected, and results will only be reported in the aggregate. The customer consent language should be displayed prominently, directly above the customer’s acceptance signature, if possible. The consent form should be included as part of the program application material.

To further facilitate the evaluation process, the consent form should also include language requiring program participants to agree to cooperate with activities designed to evaluate program effectiveness, such as responding to questionnaires and allowing on-site inspection and measurement of installed program supported measures.

Utility-Evaluator Confidentiality Agreement

Program evaluators contracted by an EEPS or SBC program administrator must sign an agreement with the utility providing the data that states that they will keep customer information, including energy consumption data, confidential at all times. The agreement must specify how the data will be used and reported and explain the process for disposing of the data at the conclusion of the evaluation project. Program evaluator agreements should be submitted as part of the evaluation plans approved by Staff. Key components of the agreement must include:

1) The contractor will maintain the confidentiality of all customer data;


6


2) All customer information provided to the contractor will be used solely to evaluate energy efficiency programs consistent with the agreement;

3) Customer information will be safeguarded from unauthorized disclosure with all reasonable care;

4) At the conclusion of the evaluation project, or if the program administrator and evaluator end their business relationship, the evaluator will return to the utility all customer information (including any data or analyses generated from the data) and/or provide proof to the utility that the data was destroyed;

5) If the program evaluator and/or the program administrator is affiliated with or doing work for any retail energy business interest, then the program evaluator must provide specific details on the program evaluator’s internal security arrangements that will keep the customer data secure from employees involved in unregulated retail energy business related activities in the service territory from which the data was extracted; and

6) Each program evaluator that receives customer information must agree to indemnify the providing utility from any and all harm that may result from the inappropriate release of customer information by the program evaluator or its representatives.

Non-Participant Customer Information

Analysis of program non-participant energy consumption data can play a key role as a control against which to measure the participant group results, including helping to identify naturally occurring energy efficiency. In other cases, non–participants may be surveyed to more fully understand a program’s strengths and weaknesses. The evaluator would need to clearly articulate and justify the need for and uses of the data to the customer’s utility and Staff.

The Department recognizes that obtaining consent forms from non-participants could be a burden on program administrators. To facilitate quality evaluations and ensure that evaluations are implemented in a cost effective manner, the exchange of personally identifiable information, defined as information that is capable of directly identifying an individual, for non-participants between a utility and its evaluation contractor will be permissible under the circumstances and restrictions described here. When an approved evaluation plan calls for analysis of non-participant energy consumption, the information shall be redacted by the customer’s utility to remove all personally identifiable information and only provide consumption information identified by generalized category such as service class, customer type (e.g., single family) or location (e.g., Manhattan). In instances when, after the redacting process, a customer might still be identifiable (e.g., the customer is the single large industrial customer in a small service territory), the utility should seek customer consent for inclusion of the information in the evaluation process through a signed customer consent form or exclude the information from the evaluation process.

For evaluation surveys requiring personally identifiable customer information, the utility may provide such information to its contractors without a consent form provided the following requirements are met. The evaluation contractor must demonstrate to the providing utility that the information is needed to complete the specific evaluation survey for which it is requested. The evaluation contractor must also demonstrate that the information sought is the least amount necessary, both in terms of number of customers and level of detail for each customer, to complete the relevant evaluation survey. Finally, the data shall be made available pursuant to a written confidentiality agreement, including all the provisions described above.

Information to be provided by a utility without prior customer consent should never include payment history or detailed usage history. Usage history, if provided at all, shall be limited to general


7


categories of usage (e.g. commercial customers using over 100 kW) and shall only be provided when necessary to ensure evaluation surveys are sufficiently targeted. Details of the customer information that will be provided to program evaluators, including the exact type of information, the type of evaluation survey for which it will be used, sample sizes and sampling techniques shall be contained in the evaluation plans approved by Staff.

If a customer, whose personally identifiable information has been provided to an evaluation contractor without prior written consent, indicates that he/she is unwilling to participate in evaluation activities, or otherwise wishes not to be contacted in relation to program evaluation, the evaluation contractor must report such to the utility within a reasonable time. The utility will compile and maintain a “do not contact” list and refrain from including any customers on that list in future evaluation activities.

1


APPENDIX H: ACTIONS SINCE EVALUATION

Due to the timing of the participant and nonparticipant surveys, the period of time covered by the report is longer than what is typical for a process evaluation timeframe. Within that timeframe, National Grid had already implemented changes in program delivery. These changes are documented in the table below with the corresponding report recommendation.

Table H-1. Recommendations and National Grid Actions

1.1.1 Areas that are Working Well Update - November 2012 The majority of participants agreed that paying 50 percent of project costs was a fair percentage.

No update

Contractors are aware of the effect the rebates have on their ability to sell high efficiency equipment.

No update

Participants report a high level of satisfaction with the program experience and National Grid as a result of participation.

No update

The program is influencing customer decision making regarding energy efficiency equipment.

No update

1.1.2 Challenges to Program Success There is a large and diverse group of individuals involved in managing and delivering the programs. This can lead to communication challenges, especially when it comes to informing everyone of program changes or updates.

The individuals and teams involved in delivering programs share updates and information periodically at regional sales meetings. Program staff meet regularly with sales representatives and program implementation vendors to discuss projects and tracking issues.

Delivery staff do not have easily accessible information on the status of customer progress in the programs. When we initially spoke with program delivery staff, tracking was done on more of an individual basis, not consistently within one system. This often created frustration as staff could not easily ascertain the progress of individual projects.

The programs have been fully integrated into National Grid's tracking systems since the second half of 2011.

Some contractors felt the programs could improve the resources available to contractors who were interested in the programs. While some contractors have a trusted contact at National Grid, many others have not yet formed that relationship and feel they are missing out on program updates and information. Contractors are visiting National Grid’s website, but report having difficulty locating information or other resources that they may need such as program updates, eligibility requirements, forms, etc.

Sales and program managers interact with contractors at various events and through professional associations, and are also available by phone and email. A new National Grid energy efficiency website was rolled out in the third quarter of 2012 and is being fine-tuned to improve ease of navigation.

H:.Actions Since Evaluation. . .

2


It is not clear that NYSERDA overlaps with CEEP and Industrial Program have been a problem in the downstate region. Although program staff voiced some concern early in the evaluation regarding the possible overlap in service to customers between NYSERDA and National Grid, this program evaluation and the benchmarking activity have found little evidence to verify that concern.

NYSERDA's presence is growing in downstate region via marketing and associations with nonprofit organizations. National Grid remains open and seeks opportunities for collaboration with other energy efficiency program administrators.

Participants were most likely to hear about the program from a National Grid account manager/sales representative or independent contractor. While this is good news that the participants heard about the program from account managers/sales representatives and contractors, it also underscores the importance of ensuring that both those groups have the latest and most comprehensive information regarding the program to pass on to customers. This is especially the case since contractors felt that customers coming to them were not very knowledgeable about programs offered by National Grid.

The news of successful projects completed through National Grid's programs is increasingly reaching customers and contributing to awareness. National Grid program managers and the marketing team are evaluating the most promising and cost-effective outreach opportunities to promote the programs in 2013 and beyond.

One-third of nonparticipants had heard of the programs and they typically preferred websites as a source of information. Two-thirds of the nonparticipants we spoke with are unaware of the programs. In addition, several of those who had heard about the program did not hear through the same channels as participants, but from National Grid print media.

The news of successful projects completed through National Grid's programs is increasingly reaching customers and contributing to awareness. National Grid program managers and the marketing team are evaluating the most promising and cost-effective outreach opportunities to promote the programs in 2013 and beyond.

Almost half of the CEEP and Industrial participants, as well as nonparticipants, are interested in below-market rate on-bill financing from National Grid for energy efficiency projects. Only one-quarter of the participants and four of 30 nonparticipants said they would not use this financing option. The low-interest financing option through a third party was slightly less popular than the below-market option through National Grid.

National Grid is exploring financing options for energy efficiency participants.

Economic barriers are preventing customers from moving forward with recommended upgrades and short-payback projects that are attractive are not eligible for program rebates. Both the current state of the economy and their internal business climate are the main reasons for hesitancy to commit to new projects.

This is still a challenge and Hurricane Sandy, which devastated large portions of the service territories in late October 2012, has saddled many businesses with additional costs that reduce their ability to invest in energy efficiency. Due to the storm, it is also difficult to secure contractors for energy efficiency projects because they are occupied with storm restoration work.


3


Although there was little reported dissatisfaction from program participants, reasons for dissatisfaction were usually due to issues with rebate checks and paperwork requirements. While some of the less satisfied participants indicated they would like higher rebates, others mentioned the amount of time it took to receive the check and the rebate process in general as needing improvement. Some contractors also felt that for at least a few custom projects, the actual rebate varied from what they had expected, which led to a loss of revenue for the contractor as it occurred after the project was completed.

National Grid switched rebate processing vendors in late 2011 and has been working with the new vendor to streamline the application process and reduce the incidence of rebate delays. The programs also instituted an online rebate reservation process in January 2012, which provides participants with information about available program funding and application status.

1.2 Conclusion and Recommendations Increase the focus on program and coordination benefits in marketing of the National Grid programs. Program staff mentioned some difficulty producing marketing materials early in the program cycle. Because National Grid is essentially new to the New York market, it is important that they get the message out about the CEEP and Industrial Program offerings. Marketing should target both customers and trade allies. Providing National Grid staff and contractors with the tools they need to be able to talk to customers about the programs and how they would benefit (e.g., by doing X, you will be able to reduce your bottom line by Y) will increase customer awareness and participation. In order to maximize program participation, National Grid should highlight its own program benefits, as well as the benefits of coordinating with the electric utilities for full project support. Tools the program has used already include in person meetings, e-mails, and mass mailings. Having case studies will also help market the program by showing real life examples of work that has been done, the available incentives and what the savings were. And any time the program can get trade allies together with customers they both will benefit.

National Grid program managers and the marketing team are evaluating options for increasing awareness of the programs in 2013 and beyond. Sales and program managers interact with contractors at events and through professional associations, and are also available by phone and email. A new National Grid energy efficiency website was rolled out in the third quarter of 2012 and is being fine-tuned to improve ease of navigation.

Identify relevant trade allies and involve them. Once the master list of trade allies is completely developed, work can start on identifying those who are most appropriate for outreach efforts. Outreach efforts should be targeted and tracked for effectiveness. Furthermore, the more National Grid can do to align trade allies to customers, the better the chances of pushing projects through. Outreach to trade allies should include more program information and resources. Even though account managers are the first source of energy efficiency information for many customers, contractors are the second most mentioned source (first source for Long Island CEEP), which underscores the importance of ensuring that both those groups have the latest and most comprehensive information regarding the

National Grid works with the trades, associations and other groups to promote the programs by hosting annual trade events and holding monthly equipment training courses. Sales and program managers also interact with contractors at events and through professional associations, and are also available by phone and email. The Company is continually looking to increase outreach to the trades. One option being considered is online training classes and webinars.


4


program to pass on to customers. Even with the new organizational structure in place to address outreach to commercial and industrial customers, National Grid sales staff will not be able to get to every customer as they make a decision on new projects. Therefore, it is beneficial to have the contractors also able to inform customers of program opportunities. At the time of the interviews, at least half of the contractors who provided feedback on the program were frustrated by the lack of program information available to them. Provide contractors with more program information and resources. Even though account managers/sales representatives are the first source of energy efficiency information for many customers, contractors are the second most mentioned source (first source for Long Island CEEP). Even with the new structure in place to cover outreach to commercial and industrial customers, National Grid sales staff will not be able to get to every customer as a decision is made on new projects, so it is beneficial to have the contractors also able to inform customers of program opportunities. At the time of the interviews, at least half of the contractors who provided feedback on the program were frustrated by the lack of program information available to them.

National Grid works with the trades, associations and other groups to promote the programs by hosting annual trade events and holding monthly equipment training courses. Sales and program managers also interact with contractors at events and through professional associations, and are also available by phone and email. The Company is continually looking to increase outreach to the trades. One option being considered is online training classes and webinars.


A new National Grid energy efficiency website was rolled out in the third quarter of 2012 and is being fine-tuned to improve ease of navigation and offer additional resources.

Simplify the path to energy efficiency information for commercial customers. Participants and nonparticipants both mentioned using websites to locate information on energy efficiency tips and programs. However, finding that information on the National Grid website can be a challenge. Once a customer selects the correct territory, they need to find the correct terminology to locate energy savings information which may require three to four links. The text we found under the “Economic Development & Energy Savings” link said “National Grid’s Economic Development team is ready to help your business expand and prosper. Energy savings programs are available in Massachusetts and New Hampshire” even if you have navigated to the Long Island gas site. Some other utility websites very clearly provide an energy efficiency link on their home page, or commercial or residential pages, that takes customers directly to information

A new National Grid energy efficiency website was rolled out in the third quarter of 2012 and is being fine-tuned to improve ease of navigation and offer additional resources. A link from the home page for the region now allows customers and contractors to navigate directly to the energy efficiency site. Direct links to program information and forms are posted on the web site.


5


about their energy efficiency programs.

Provide a consistent National Grid point of contact for contractors, possibly within the new Account Development department. Those contractors with the most positive views of the program typically had a reliable point of contact at National Grid who they could reach out to with questions. This option would improve the likelihood that contractors can immediately assist their customers and impact their decision regarding the installation of energy efficient equipment.

Program managers, account managers and sales staff serve as points of contact for contractors.


National Grid has been working to set up and expand collaborative efforts with Con Edison in New York City, with LIPA on Long Island and with NYSERDA across New York State.


The individuals and teams involved in delivering programs share updates and information periodically at regional sales meetings. Program staff meet regularly with program vendors to discuss projects and tracking issues. Program managers, sales reps and account managers, as well as technical reps and other affiliated staff, are in frequent contact (sometimes daily) and share questions and information.


National Grid switched rebate processing vendors in late 2011 and has been working with the new vendor to streamline the application process and reduce the incidence of rebate delays. The programs also instituted an online rebate reservation process in January 2012, which provides participants with information about available program funding and application status.


6


Maximize use of InDemand system to streamline communication of project status. Many staff involved with the programs in downstate NY mentioned difficulty gaining access to the status of projects throughout the process. The backfilling of all 2011 downstate program data into the system from the individual sources will improve tracking capabilities. Once outreach has occurred, whether it is in the form of marketing to customers or trade allies, meetings with National Grid delivery staff, or contact initiated by the customer, there should be consistent tracking of those efforts. Reviewing projects by size, expected completion dates, or even looking at the likelihood of a customer moving forward with a project may help focus internal staff on priority cases which will help meet program goals.

The programs have been fully integrated into National Grid's tracking system since the second half of 2011. InDemand is periodically updated with improvements to enhance the user interface and provide better and more automated application processing. In addition, in the third quarter of 2012 National Grid implemented a new Customer Relationship Management (CRM) tool, designed to interface with the InDemand system for improved project tracking and information retention.

Investigate options for offering on-bill financing at below-market rates. In the past two years the economy and ability to fund capital improvements have been the biggest barriers for commercial and industrial customers. National Grid should investigate the opportunities and complications of offering a financing option. There was significant interest from participants in below-market rate on-bill financing for energy efficiency projects – half of participants and nonparticipants indicated they were interested, and only four of the 30 nonparticipants were not at all interested. The rest would need to have more information regarding the details to decide. On-bill financing was more attractive to participants and nonparticipants than the third party option.

National Grid is exploring financing options for energy efficiency participants.


RISE continues to be an active partner in delivering the programs. Program staff interact daily and meet regularly with RISE to discuss projects and tracking issues.

nationalgridnewyork processevaluation

Documents