While lighting programs will likely continue to be cost effective for at least the next several years, if not through the end of the decade, there has been increased discussion in the Northeast as to whether some modified version of the utility test might be a better indicator of cost effectiveness. Parties, including some PAs, have proposed that this modified test would include all resource benefits – all energy and water savings - in the BCR numerator. One argument made for this alternative test is that while the TRC includes all costs, it rarely includes all benefits. Either NEBs are not allowed to be included in the test, or the NEBs are not adequately and fully quantified11. Evaluation, Measurement & Verification (EM&V) Efforts and Data Needs Savings attributable to lighting programs are subject to evaluation and subsequent adjustment as the key savings parameters discussed above are modified. Lighting program impact evaluations typically focus on net to gross ratios and hours of use. Measuring these parameters is both time consuming and expensive. Increasingly, measurement of net to gross ratios requires collecting data from non-program areas to help determine what effect PAs’ programs have on customer lighting choice. These data requirements typically include inhome socket saturations and retail lamps sales. As a result the cost for these NTGR studies have become increasingly expensive. PAs in multiple states in the region have been working together to address the high, and in many cases increasing, costs for lighting program evaluation. This has been the case for both recent NTGR and hours of use metering studies. The Regional EM&V Forum has also served as a means to indentify and implement multi-state evaluation activities, with residential lighting recently being an area targeted by this group. Going forward, regional evaluation activities should consider joint studies such as socket saturation and customer satisfaction surveys to inform progress towards the 90% socket saturation goal. Obtaining retailer sales data is an important data need to support both evaluation efforts and alternative program designs such as the market lift model described above. Historically, retailers have been reluctant to share comprehensive sales data with PAs to assist them with their evaluation and program implementation efforts. They do provide sales data to document invoicing for upstream promotions, but these data are limited to only those efficient products receiving PA incentives. Retailers often cite confidentiality concerns, as well as the challenge of working with multiple PAs in multiple states. Recently, there have been efforts by third parties such as D&R International to serve as an intermediary between retailers and PAs to collect and provide comprehensive sales data. D&R International’s Better Data Better Design effort is working with both PAs and retailers to collect sales data to support early market lift efforts. In the Northeast PAs in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, as well as NYSERDA, are considering implementing market 11 Is it Time to Ditch the TRC? Proceedings of ACEEE 2010 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Volume 5. Chris Neme and Marty Kushler.
NORTHEAST RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING STRATEGY 39