Whenever feasible we determine gross savings using complementary analytical methods and alternative types of data (e.g.,

Usable once revised. A reviewer wants the wording tightened first.

Status

• Review verdict: revise
• Reusable as written: no
• Issues found: client_specific, unverified_number
• Reviewer note: The block contains a specific client name (Energy Trust of Oregon) and a stale date range (2004-2005). The general methodology is reusable, but the specific example must be removed or generalized.

Text

Whenever feasible we determine gross savings using complementary analytical methods and alternative types of data (e.g., engineering estimates, billing data, and metered data). We use several methods so that we can "triangulate" on results of interest; this also provides backup in cases where some data collection and analysis efforts are less successful or more costly than expected or planned. For triangulation analysis we often use billing data, either to calibrate the engineering simulation analyses or directly in econometric modeling. For example, in our evaluation of Energy Trust of Oregon’s 2004-2005 Building Efficiency Program, we analyzed savings both through energy analysis simulations and through econometric analysis of billing data.

Applicability

• Section: technical_approach (corpus label other)
• Scope: evergreen_candidate
• Observed documents: 8
• Years: 2011 to 2014
• Issuers: Idaho Power Company;ONTARIO POWER AUTHORITY;Truckee Donner Public Utility District
• Program types: demand_response;portfolio;residential
• Jurisdictions: California;Idaho;Oregon

Sources

• [F020994, paragraph:787]
• [F021171, paragraph:723]
• [F021298, paragraph:694]
• [F021442, paragraph:348]
• [F022331, paragraph:624]
• [F023038, paragraph:665]
• [F023559, paragraph:834]
• [F024438, paragraph:80]