(END OF ATTACHMENT 4)
Attachment 5
Non-Energy Benefits Quantified By The Reporting
Requirements Manual Working Group
Table 1 Benefits categories considered for LIPPT
|
|
Utility benefits | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fewer health-related expenses from health and safety improvements (9G)
Included, but zero value because no health and safety measures are included in the default LIEE programs.
Participant savings from fewer moves (9H)
Included
Fewer lost sick days from work (9I)
Included
Reduced transactions costs (9J)
Excluded because underlying data weak
Improved comfort, noise, and similar benefits to participants (9K)
Included
Reduced other hardship benefits - control over bill and energy use (9K)
Included
Determining Benefit Values
The determinations of benefit values were made using several different techniques as appropriate for each benefit. In the development of the test, the Subcommittee discussed how to value energy benefits: at retail costs to the participant or at avoided costs to the utilities. The Subcommittee decided that the energy benefits or energy savings should be counted at the avoided costs to the utility rather than the value of the savings to the participant because this is the value that is most reflective of the societal value for conserved energy. The non-energy benefits would be valued in one of three ways.
In the first method the utilities were each asked to provide data on costs associated with billing, arrearage, debt, connects, disconnects and costs associated with customer interactions. For the utility benefits associated with LIEE programs the calculated value of the benefit used in the test are derived from these utility-specific cost data. The benefits included in this report are average, state-wide benefits derived from all four utility's data. Upon use of the LIPPT model, utility-specific data will be used. The level of non-energy utility-associated impact for a LIEE program is estimated using program evaluations and estimations focusing on specific benefits and the expected occurrence of the benefit in a LIEE program. These impact estimations were then projected for California LIEE programs by using the best estimated results from the evaluation studies reviewed in the first two month of the project. These estimated incidences of the benefit are multiplied by the cost of the benefits as calculated using the utility-specific cost data.
The second method was used to calculate non-energy benefits when actual cost or savings values were not available from the utilities. For these benefits the consultants used estimates of benefit values as reported in the literature for low-income or residential programs. In many cases the search found a wide range of benefit estimations in the literature and the consultants were tasked to identify a study or estimation method that could conservatively be equated to California's low income program benefits. The calculation methods and the source of the benefit estimations are included in the program report and in the working model of the test.
The third method for valuing benefits primarily applied to participant benefits that could not be quantified through the literature or through utility cost data. These benefits include comfort, hardship and similar benefits associated with participation. For estimating these benefit values the consultants conducted a survey of California low-income program participants and asked them to give a monitory value that they would be willing to pay for the increased comfort or the reduced hardship associated with program participation. These benefits and benefit values are detailed later in this project report and in the Excel model and range from a low of a negative $12.62 per participant for the added hassles associated with participation to a high of $31.67 per year per household for their increased comfort as a result of the installed measures.
The values associated with specific NEBs using these methods are reflected in the following tables and provide an estimation of the expected benefits associated with an imaginary LIEE program implemented in California. Actual values will be different for each program.
Table 2 Example of utility non-energy benefits
| |||
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Table 3 Example of societal non-energy benefits
| |||
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Table 4 Example of participant non-energy benefits
| |||
|
| ||
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Table 5 Summary example of net present value for non-energy benefits
|
||
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(END OF ATTACHMENT 5)