Transcript Document
Market Transformation Programs: What they are. How to evaluate them. Kansas Corporation Commission Mitchell Rosenberg, Vice President Topeka, Kansas March 26, 2008 Experience you can trust. Overview Market Transformation: Definitions and Reality Importance of MT Concepts in Energy Efficiency Program Design and Evaluation Key Challenges in MT Evaluation Steps in Meeting MT Evaluation Challenges: examples from actual programs & studies Lessons Learned 2 Definition of Market Transformation Market Effect: “a change in the structure or functioning of a market or the behavior of participants in a market that results from one or more energy efficiency program efforts.” – Typically, these efforts are designed to increase the adoption of energy-efficient products, services, or practices, and are causally related to market interventions. Market Transformation: Market effects that persist once supporting programs are terminated 3 MT References the Product Life Cycle 80% Market Share 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Year Introduction Early Acceptance Take Off Maturity SUPPLY CHAIN Smaller competitors or new entrants producing No standardization Very high prices Performance problems Distribution mostly in nonstandard channels Limited product lines Little marketing support 1 – 2 larger competitors enter Product standards develop Prices high relative to standard Improved performance Limited distribution Limited model line build out Some marketing support Most large competitors offer product Product standards adopted voluntarily Prices are higher but in line with standard models Product lines built out Good distribution Manu. Marketing support All major competitors in market Mandatory standards Prices approach those of standard Producers compete on price and features Distribution via all channels Retailer marketing support More customers aware Continued skepticism of product claims Small expansion of market beyond early adopters Strong demand in advanced segments Some demand in all segments Strong demand in all segments CUSTOMERS Low level of awareness Skepticism of product claims Only early adopters buying 4 Policy & Programs to Accelerate MT 80% Market Share 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Year Introduction SUPPLY CHAIN ORIENTED Government lab R&D Sponsored corporate R&D Technology road mapping Mediate technology standard setting Development of performance metrics and testing protocols DEMAND ORIENTED Purchase of prototypes or early models Develop and publicize case studies of applications Early Acceptance Take Off Maturity Vendor technical and sales training Co-advertising Vendor merchandising support Development & promotion of voluntary product efficiency standards Product testing Vendor technical and sales training Co-advertising Vendor merchandising support Upstream product subsidies Initiate consideration of higher product standards Develop common service specifications Mandatory codes and standards Promulgate higher voluntary standards Bulk purchase Customer education Rebate programs General EE public relations Customer education Rebate programs General EE public relations Continued customer education Rebate programs for higher efficiency units only 5 EE Programs do help transform markets: The case of electronic ballasts 90 300 70 60 200 50 150 40 30 100 20 50 10 R&D: LBL & CA utilities Government Procurement DSM Programs @ $50m/yr 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 0 1982 0 1981 Annual Ballast Shipments, Millions of Units 250 DSM Programs @ $150m/year Programs Underway 6 Annual Value of Construction, 1992 Dollars, $ Bil. 80 Electronic Magnetic Non-residential Construction Value The case of resource-efficient clothes washers 40% 35% Market Share 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1996 Local Programs in Effect ENERGY STAR & Other Federal Events 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 12 50 70 100+ 90 st 1 ENERGY STAR specification (1997) DOE announces new min. standard National promotions initiated Federal min standard increased (2007) Fed min standard and ENERGY STAR increased Manufacturers producing ENERGY STAR models 8 14 17 21 24 Number of ENERGY STAR models 18 35 84 125 212* * Includes only those that meet the revised 2007 specification. 7 Why MT Concepts are Important in Program Design & Evaluation Program designs must be matched to current stage of development to be cost effective Harnessing supply side motivations enhances cost effectiveness High GHG reduction goals – Need continuous pipeline of energy-efficient products, services, design practices – Need to extend adoption of established products to all relevant market segments In some cases, market research provides most fruitful approach to NTG evaluation 8 Key Challenges in MT Evaluation Effects occur over a long time frame – Events of interest span decades – Program planning & evaluation cycles typically 3 years or less Multiple program sponsors and policy makers are involved – Often coordinate activities among jurisdictions – How tease out effects of one state’s programs? Data are difficult to obtain – Manufacturer shipment data often proprietary – Distributors, contractors, retailers, designers tend to be small, scattered, disorganized 9 Steps in Addressing the Challenges of MT Evaluation Market Assessment/Program Logic Model Program History Development: Market Presence Indicators Selection of analysis objectives and strategy (ies) Appraisal of results/Adjustments for next rounds Close parallels to steps in program design and revision 10 Program Logic Model: Home Performance 11 Market Assessment/Program Theory Key Objectives – Location on the product life cycle – Identification of key market actors & segments, motivations, barriers – Assess data availability for program management and evaluation – Get program planners, implementers, regulators on same page re: short & long term goals and expectations Timing: Should begin in program design phase Resources: Avoid over-investment – Secondary data & reports useful – Selected local primary research often very useful 12 Program History/Market Presence Important to build reference for market effects and attribution analysis Should include national as well as local events & trends over time Data to capture – Program activities: marketing, training, incentives – Participation: customer and vendor, numbers and characteristics of participants and measures, timing, region – Efficiency levels supported v. baseline practice 13 Example: EVT clothes washer programs 2004 2002 2000 1998 NATIONAL PROGRAMS AND MARKETS 12 Local Programs in Effect ENERGY STAR & Other Federal Events st 1 ENERGY STAR specification DOE announces new min. standard 100+ 70 50 Federal min standard increased National promotions initiated Manufacturers producing ENERGY STAR models 8 14 17 21 Number of ENERGY STAR models 18 35 84 125 6.2% 9.3% 16.0% 27.2% 24.9% 27.3% 35.7% 49.6% Number of Partic. Retailers 40 58 70 75 Number of Incentives Paid 1,950 2,476 2,699 4,129 7 938 1,401 2,131 ENERGY STAR Market Share LOCAL PROGRAMS AND MARKETS ENERGY STAR Market Share Number of ENERGY STAR units sold without rebates 14 Analysis Strategies Market Effects Indicators – Market share: sales, prevalence of practices, fleet efficiency indicators (e.g. mean EERs, MPG) – Price trends – Changes in codes and standards Attribution Analysis – Cross sectional – Time Series – Self-reporting – Historical Best to attempt multiple indicators and attribution analysis approaches 15 Net Effects of Vermont CW programs: Cross Sectional & Historical Approach Model Estimated Mkt. Share Year Actual Market Share No Program No Program + No Cum. Effect % of E Star Sales Attributed to Program Program Only Program + Cum Effect Variable 2001 22.6% 12.9% n/a 34% n/a 2003 52.6% 46.8% 43.4% 7% 26% 2004 48.9% 46.1% 43.4% 6% 12% Results of cross-sectional modeling – Dependent variable: State level Energy Star CW market share – Independent variables: Program indicators Customer Demographics & Energy Prices Change indicator 16 VT clothes washer programs: What’s happening to local program influence 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% No Program US Average Program VT 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Methods 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 – ‘No-program Area’ market shares rising faster than market areas Market conditions – Impending federal minimum standard changes – Profitable product for manufacturers Fair representation of local program effects? 17 CA commercial lighting programs: presence in the market Sponsor Electronic Ballasts Rebated US EB Shipments US Utility Ballasts Rebated As % of Program As % of all Area EB Sales US EB Shipments As % of US mm Units mm Units mm Units 1992 13.3 0.9 90% 7% 9.4 71% 1993 24.5 1.2 90% 5% 13.2 54% 1994 24.6 2.0 75% 8% 12.2 50% 1995 32.9 1.9 67% 6% 11.1 34% 1996 30.3 1.3 57% 4% 10.5 35% Total 125.6 7.3 68% 6% 56.4 45% 18 EB Shipments General Challenges from C&I Programs Little available market share data Complex ‘measures’ Greater customer market segmentation Multiple levels of supply chain with direct influence on project-level equipment selection and design Multiple decision makers and criteria in one customer Generally greater reliance on ‘weight of evidence’ and self-reported approaches than in residential. 19 Other Potential Approaches to Attribution or Baseline Development Diffusion modeling Delphi or other expert judging Conjoint analysis of preferences for efficient substitutes for current products 20 Lessons Learned Generate as detailed a story as possible – Know the history of the program and its relatives – Know the history of the market and technology – Know what other programs are doing – Develop the program logic with local stakeholders Know the available data resources – Sampling, contents, collection methods – Know what others have done Design data collection to the attribution strategy or strategies 21 Lessons Learned: Maximizing data opportunities Quality of Indicators – Accuracy, face validity, bias (lack of same) Replicability (ability to support historical or time series analysis) – Sample frame: captures full population, updated regularly, documented compilation – Sampling: keep it kosher and document it Comparability (supports cross-sectional analysis) – Same definitions as data collected elsewhere – Capitalize on channels to reach national markets 22 The Bigger Picture Play well with others – Markets addressed by local programs are national and international – Many program operators are heavily involved already – get to know them – Initiatives under way to procure sales & shipment data Independent program influence? – Many local programs already coordinate operations, or are developed in explicit reference to each other (e.g.) codes & standards – Why try to tease apart effects? 23