BEFORE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 SWEPCO BEFORE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN REPORTS ) REQUIRED TO BE FILED BY SOUTHWESTERN ) ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) DOCKET NO: RP ANNUAL REPORT OF CONSERVATION AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS TO THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Comes now Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) and for its 2011 Annual Report of the status and activity of its Conservation and Energy Efficiency Programs submits the attached document. Respectfully submitted, MATTHEWS, CAMPBELL, RHOADS McCLURE, THOMPSON & FRYAUF, P. A. 119 South Second Street Rogers, Arkansas Attorneys for Southwestern Electric Power Company By: David R. Matthews CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, David R. Matthews, attorney for SWEPCO herein, state that I have on this 1 st day of April, 2011 provided a copy of the foregoing document to all parties in this docket via electronic mail. David R. Matthews

2 Southwestern Electric Power Company Arkansas Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio Annual Report April 1, 2011

3 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary Portfolio Impact Portfolio Programs Commercial & Industrial Standard Offer Program (CISOP) Load Management Standard Offer Program (LMSOP) Compact Fluorescent Lighting Program (CFLP) Residential and Small Commercial ENERGY STAR Appliance Program (RESAP) Arkansas Weatherization Program (AWP) Energy Education Arkansas (EEA) Arkansas Residential Solutions SM Market Transformation Program Commercial Solutions SM Market Transformation Program Evaluation, Measurement & Verification Overview Program Evaluation Cost Benefit Supplemental Requirements Training Lost Revenue Reserved for Future Use Challenges & Opportunities Market Maturity Staffing Stakeholder Activities Estimation of EE Resource Potential Information Provided to Consumers to Promote EE Appendix Page 2 of 77

4 1.0 Executive Summary On May 25, 2007, in Docket R, the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC or the Commission) approved the Rules for Conservation and Energy Efficiency (C&EE) Programs (the Rules) within the Commission s jurisdiction. These rules require that each operating utility within the jurisdiction of the Commission file an Annual Report by April 1. The report should address the performance of each conservation and energy efficiency program operated by the utility. 1 During the Quick Start period (Oct 1, 2007 Dec 31, 2008), Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO or the Company) operated three energy efficiency programs and one demand response program as follows: Emergency Load Management Standard Offer Program (ELMSOP) Commercial & Industrial Standard Offer Program (CISOP) Residential & Commercial Compact Fluorescent Lighting Program (RCFLP) Residential and Small Commercial ENERGY STAR Appliance Program (RESAP). In addition, SWEPCO co-sponsored two statewide programs: Energy Efficiency Arkansas (EEA), managed by the Arkansas Energy Office (AEO) Arkansas Weatherization Program (AWP), managed by the Central Arkansas Development Council (CADC) During the Quick Start period, SWEPCO achieved 5,640.1 MWh in energy savings and 2,926 kw in demand savings. Approximately 4,306 customers participated in the aforementioned programs during the Quick Start program with the vast majority only participating in the RCFLP. In January 2009, SWEPCO sought approval to modify the design of its Emergency Load Management Standard Offer Program for the summer 2009 peak season. The original program parameters set the minimum peak demand for participation at 750 kilowatts (kw). In order to allow more customers to be eligible for participation in the program, SWEPCO reduced the minimum demand for eligibility to 250 kw. In addition, SWEPCO proposed changing the program name by removing the word Emergency from the program name. The proposed program would become the Load Management Standard Offer Program (LMSOP). While the Implementation Plan in the original filing did not preclude SWEPCO from calling for interruptions in non-emergency conditions, the existing program gave that impression to customers. SWEPCO requested no curtailments during the 2008 summer period because it had no capacity related 1 Section 9, Page 11 of the Rules for Conservation and Energy Efficiency approved on May 25, Page 3 of 77

5 emergencies. On March 6, 2009 SWEPCO received Commission approval for its proposed program name and eligibility requirement changes. During the Program Year (PY) 2009, SWEPCO achieved 6,075.5 MWh of energy savings and 5,611 kw of demand savings. SWEPCO increased the demand savings results achieved from its LMSOP by 202%. The Company increased both the energy and demand savings it achieved from the CISOP by 10.6% and 38.4%, respectively. In addition, the energy and demand savings achieved from the RESAP increased by 518% and 623%, respectively. The AWP performance remained relatively steady. On April 1, 2009, SWEPCO filed its comprehensive energy efficiency plan which included the addition of two new Market Transformation programs, Residential Solutions SM and Commercial Solutions SM. The Company had been disappointed with the performance of the Arkansas Weatherization Program (AWP) and proposed the Residential Solutions SM Program in order to enhance the comprehensiveness of its residential offerings. The Commercial Solutions SM Program was designed to offer more technical assistance to customers with the identification of energy efficiency (EE) measures and to provide additional comprehensiveness to the Company s commercial portfolio. SWEPCO received approval to initiate these two new programs on February 3, During PY 2010, SWEPCO achieved 10,737,150 kwh in energy savings and 8,603 kw in demand savings which surpassed its approved energy and demand savings goals by over 40% and 23%, respectively. Compared to PY 2009, the Company increased its energy and demand savings by 77% and 53%, respectively. This energy savings with no net-to-gross (NTG) adjustment equates to approximately 0.26% of its 2010 weather adjusted sales. SWEPCO again substantially increased the savings achieved from its LMSOP, CISOP and RESAP as detailed below. In addition, the AWP attained modest gains in participation as well as demand and energy savings. While SWEPCO continues to be very pleased with its performance in the large commercial and industrial sectors, the Company continues to be disappointed in the overall performance of its residential portfolio. The Residential Solutions SM Market Transformation Program fell well short of the projected targets. Also, while the CISOP continued to gain momentum, the Commercial Solutions SM Program also fell well short of the projected targets. The Commercial Industrial Standard Offer Program (CISOP) paid monetary incentives of $472,574 to sixteen customers. The approved incentive budget was $526,600. The total expenditure for PY 2010 was $555,230 versus a total budget of $566,100. The energy and demand savings realized for the program year were 8,445,213 kwh and 1, kw, respectively, with approved savings goals of 7,800,000 kwh and 1, kw. In June 2010, SWEPCO sought approval to double the incentive budget and lower the eligibility requirements for the program. SWEPCO received approval from the Commission in September Page 4 of 77

6 The Load Management Standard Offer Program (LMSOP) paid $177,409 in monetary incentives to eight customers that were capable of reducing electrical peak demand with a one-hour advance notice from June through September. The incentive budget was $161,300. The total expenditures in 2010, including incentives, were $229,049, versus budgeted expenditures of $180,300. The energy and demand savings realized for the program year were 155,400 kwh and 6,991 kw, respectively, with approved savings goals of 245,000 kwh and 5, kw. The Compact Fluorescent Lighting Program (CFLP) had a participation target of 5,000 customers and finished the year with 8,372 actual participants. Total program costs for PY 2010 were $116,548 versus a program budget of $74,000. The energy savings realized for the program year were 953,826 kwh and kw demand savings, with approved savings goals of 722,000 kwh and 90 kw. The Residential and Small Commercial ENERGY STAR Appliance Program (RESAP) participation target for PY 2010 was 210 customers with an incentive budget of $77,500. SWEPCO paid incentives to 227 customers totaling $115,000. Total program cost for PY 2010 was $208,260 versus a program budget of $139,700. The energy and demand savings realized for the program year were 318,814 kwh and 121 kw, respectively, with approved savings goals of 145,800 kwh and 85 kw. The Arkansas Weatherization Program (AWP) approved budget for PY 2010 was $148,900. SWEPCO made payments to the CADC totaling $38,466 SWEPCO s administrative expenditures, including third party administrative expenditures, and excluding those of the CADC, totaled $8,825. SWEPCO s total recoverable expenses associated with the AWP for PY 2010 were $47,291. The energy and demand savings realized for the program year were 306,208 kwh and kw, respectively, with approved savings goals of 215,000 kwh and 110 kw. The Energy Education Arkansas (EEA) program, during PY 2010, had total expenditures of $39,168, which includes SWEPCO s internal administration of $9,669. The approved budget for PY 2010 was $82,900. The Residential Solutions SM 2010 participation target was 470 customers with an incentive budget of $385,200. SWEPCO paid incentives to 103 customers totaling $20,000. Total program cost for PY 2010 was $258,204 versus a program budget of $419,400. The energy and demand savings realized for the program year were 177,124 kwh and kw, respectively, with approved savings goals of 859,000 kwh and 470 kw. The Commercial Solutions SM program participation target for PY 2010 was 10 customers with an incentive budget of $74,800. SWEPCO paid incentives to 2 customers totaling $13,167. Total program cost for PY 2010 was $138,100 versus a program budget of $234,600. The energy and demand savings realized for the program year were 380,689 kwh and kw, respectively, with approved savings goals of 2,503,000 kwh and 440 kw. Page 5 of 77

7 Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) RP EE Portfolio Summary by Program 2010 % Of Program Program Budget Actual Funds Name Number Program Type Market ($) ($) Used CISOP 1 Standard Offer Large C&I (All) # 566, , % LM SOP 2 Standard Offer Large C&I (All) # 180, , % CFLP 3 Lighting Res (All) # 74, , % RESAP 4 Appliances Other # 139, , % AWP 5 Weatherization Res (All) # 148,900 47, % EEA 6 Public Education Res (All) # 82,900 39, % AR Res Solutions 7 Renovation- Incentives Res (All) # 419, , % Com Solutions MTP 8 Market Transformation Large C&I (All) # 234, , % SBDI 9 Appliances Small C&I (All) # HPES 10 HVAC Res (All) # RSOP 11 Energy Audit or Evaluation Res (All) # OLAT 12 Energy Audit or Evaluation Res (All) # Regulatory # 0 61,644 - Total 1,845,900 1,653, % EE Portfolio Summary by Cost Type EE Program Cost Summary 2010 Total Cost Budget Actual Type % ($) ($) % Planning / Design 1% 14,163 29,870 2% Marketing & Delivery 24% 440, ,665 29% Incentives / Rebates 68% 1,255, ,150 50% Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification 1% 17,749 31,871 2% Regulatory 0% 0 61,644 4% Administration 6% 118, ,295 13% Total 100% 1,845,900 1,653, % Program Year Total Revenue , , ,232 EE Program Spending Total Revenue Company Statistics Revenue and Expense Energy Budgeted Actuals Budgeted Actuals ($000's) ($000's) MWh MWh % of EE Spending to Revenue EE Program Spending % of EE Spending to Revenue Total Annual Energy Sales EE Annualized Energy* Savings Total Annual Energy Sales EE Annualized Energy* Savings $ $ % $ 270,339 $ % 4,281,748 4, % 4,138,131 5, % $ $ 1, % $ 220,222 $ % 4,141,805 4, % 3,903,925 6, % $ $ 1, % $ 267,167 $ 1, % 4,118,038 7, % 4,170,269 11, % *Annualized Energy - this is the annualized energy savings derived from the lifetime savings. NOTE: This schedule should report program year data, when available. For budgeted data, report when filed. This schedule should not report forecasted data. Savings as % of Energy Sales Savings as % of Energy Sales Page 6 of 77

8 2.0 Portfolio Impact Program Costs BUDGET % Of Budget Actual % Of % Of Budget Actual % Of % Of Budget Actual % Of Budget Program Prior Year ($) ($) Goal Prior Year ($) ($) Goal Prior Year ($) ($) Goal ($) CISOP 499% 287, , % 100% 287, , % 197% 566, ,230 98% 1,287,785 LM SOP 499% 180,000 79,745 44% 100% 180, ,112 90% 100% 180, , % 270,450 CFLP 501% 89,000 79,000 89% 83% 74,000 60,590 82% 100% 74, , % 211,536 RESAP 428% 86,000 63,000 73% 162% 139, ,993 78% 100% 139, , % 254,722 AWP 501% 189,000 76,000 40% 79% 148,900 48,700 33% 100% 148,900 47,291 32% 148,900 EEA 500% 82,000 84, % 88% 72,000 74, % 115% 82,900 39,168 47% 82,900 AR Res Solutions - n/a n/a , % 626% 419, ,204 62% 209,700 Com Solutions MTP - n/a n/a , % 469% 234, ,101 59% 117,300 SBDI ,753 HPES ,189 RSOP ,419 OLAT ,400 Regulatory , ,644-40,000 Total 492% 913, ,745 86% 112% 1,019, ,505 80% 181% 1,845,900 1,653,494 90% 3,773,054 Program Savings (Energy & Demand) ENERGY kwh Lifetime Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Lifetime Energy Savings Goal % Of kwh % Of % Of kwh % Of % Of kwh % Of Program Prior Year Budget Actual Goal Prior Year Budget Actual Goal Prior Year Budget Actual Goal kwh CISOP - 2,453,000 4,364, % 100% 2,453,000 4,827, % 318% 7,800,000 8,445, % 8,867,000 LM SOP - 245,000 2,600 1% 100% 245,000 80,100 33% 100% 245, ,400 63% 368,000 CFLP - 965,000 1,045, % 80% 772, , % 94% 722, , % 1,577,000 RESAP - 75,000 36,600 49% 194% 145, , % 100% 145, , % 380,000 AWP - 317, ,000 60% 80% 254, ,600 62% 85% 215, , % 382,000 EEA - n/a n/a - - n/a n/a - - n/a n/a - n/a AR Res Solutions - n/a n/a ,840 n/a % 859, ,124 21% 430,000 Com Solutions MTP - n/a n/a ,280 n/a - 733% 2,503, ,689 15% 1,250,000 SBDI HPES RSOP OLAT Total - 4,055,500 5,641, % 105% 4,265,920 6,075, % 293% 12,489,800 10,737,274 86% 13,255,234 DEMAND kw*yrs Lifetime Demand Savings Lifetime Demand Savings Lifetime Demand Savings Goal % Of kw*yrs % Of % Of kw*yrs % Of % Of kw*yrs % Of Program Prior Year Budget Actual Goal Prior Year Budget Actual Goal Prior Year Budget Actual Goal kw*yrs CISOP % 100% % 241% 1, , % LM SOP - 5, , % 100% 5, , % 100% 5, , % CFLP % 80% % 100% % RESAP % 193% % 100% % n/a AWP % 61% % 216% % EEA - n/a n/a - - n/a n/a - - n/a n/a AR Res Solutions - n/a n/a % 1567% % Com Solutions MTP - n/a n/a % 733% % 0.00 SBDI HPES RSOP OLAT Total - 5, , % 101% 5, , % 126% 7, , % 11, Page 7 of 77

9 3.0 Portfolio Programs 3.1 Commercial & Industrial Standard Offer Program (CISOP) Program Description: The Commercial and Industrial Standard Offer Program (CISOP), is an Energy Efficiency (EE) program targeted to Arkansas commercial and industrial customers. Incentives are paid to customers or project sponsors for the installation of a wide range of EE measures that reduce peak demand and save energy in qualifying non-residential facilities. Project measures eligible for incentive payments include replacement of existing installations of lower efficiency electric end-uses. In addition to the retrofit market, this program applies to new construction or expansions. The primary EE measures targeted are but not limited to, lighting, motors, HVAC equipment, chillers, and compressed air. SWEPCO markets this program internally and leverages the relationships of its account representatives on a regular basis. A database hosted by Frontier Associates is utilized to manage the data collection, approval process, and incentive payments Program Highlights: By June 2010, under the approved budget, the CISOP was fully subscribed for PY 2010 with estimated incentive payments of approximately $309,363 with an estimated demand and energy savings of kw and 5,321,427 kwh, respectively. On June 11, 2010, SWEPCO filed testimony to propose an increase to the customer incentive budget from the approved $263,300 to $526,600. SWEPCO had knowledge of seven additional customers that were requesting to participate in the CISOP and was faced with either turning the customers away or have the customers delay or cancel their proposed projects. The administration budget remained the same. By increasing the incentive payment budget, SWEPCO would be able to accommodate the known requests plus allow funds for additional requests for the remainder of PY It should be noted that the Company did not seek to adjust its Rider EECR to accommodate this approved incentive increase. SWEPCO also proposed two additional program changes in the 2010 mid-year filing. The first proposed change would allow SWEPCO to remove the barrier that limited participation to non-residential customers with peak demands in excess of 50 kw. By removing the 50 kw minimum, the number of accounts eligible to participate in the CISOP would be increased by over a factor of ten. The second proposed change would eliminate the minimum project size of at least 10 kw of demand savings. On September 29, 2010, SWEPCO received Arkansas Public Service Commission approval for the proposed increase to the customer incentive budget and the two program changes. Page 8 of 77

10 Approximately 93% of the demand energy savings attained from this program were from lighting retrofit projects. The vast majority of these lighting projects involved high intensity discharge (HID) lighting retrofits to either T8 s, Super T8 s or T5 s Program Budget, Savings & Participants: CISOP 2008 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2008 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $287,000 $404, % ,453, ,364, % 178% Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2009 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $287,400 $298, % ,453, ,827, % 197% % 2010 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2010 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $566,100 $555,230 98% 1, ,800,000 1, ,445, % 108% % 3 Year Program Average Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $380,167 $419, % ,235, ,879, % 139% % *Lifetime Savings Program Events & Training: On April 7, 2010, SWEPCO hosted a compressed air seminar designed to increase commercial and industrial customer awareness of practices that will enable these customers to improve the efficiencies of their compressed air systems. This seminar was taught by Airometrix Manufacturing Incorporated with approximately 53 commercial and industrial customers attending. This seminar allowed customers and SWEPCO employees to earn Continuing Education Credits (CEC) that contribute to the maintenance of professional licenses and certifications. SWEPCO was diligent in communicating with its commercial and industrial customers regarding other training and seminars provided by external entities such as: o Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions o Baldor SWEPCO continues to maintain information concerning the CISOP on its third party website, hosted by Frontier Associates. Page 9 of 77

11 3.1.5 Savings: The original approved PY 2010 C&I SOP total budget was $302,800 with an estimated annual energy savings of 2,700,000 kwh and 500 kw in demand reduction. After the 2010 mid-year filing request and Commission approval, the total budget increased to $566,100 with a new estimated annual energy savings of 7,800,000 kwh and demand reduction of 1,100 kw. The actual paid customer incentive amount for PY 2010 was $472, The achieved energy savings was 8,445,213 kwh and a demand reduction of 1, kw. Savings were calculated using the originally approved deemed savings report and specific values and Measurement & Verification (M&V). For PY 2010, 1, kw and 8,076,305 kwh was attributed to deemed savings. A compressed air M&V project showed results of 44 kw in demand reduction and 368,707 kwh in energy savings. The aforementioned savings is based on 40% of the estimated project savings. This M&V project will not be completed on this project until the 1st quarter of For additional information on this project see Section 4.2 (Evaluations, Measurement, & Verification) on page 30 of this report Challenges & Opportunities: SWEPCO contends that its low rates, small customer base, and current status of the economy will provide a substantial challenge for the Company to achieve the goals proposed for this program in its CEEP. SWEPCO s experience with National Account customers show low rates, compared to national averages, contributed to several energy efficiency projects struggling to meet the customer s own Return on Investment (ROI) and payback timeframe parameters. As more cost effective measures such as lighting reach market maturity, other measures such as chillers yielding deep energy savings over longer useful life, require much larger capital investments. Due to larger capital investments combined with low SWEPCO rates, these projects are typically not approved. Estimating the incremental and total cost for the installation of various measures in order to accurately estimate the TRC continues to be a challenge. SWEPCO relied upon the California DEER, the Ohio TRM, as well as other local sources to estimate the incremental cost in order to perform the TRC. The deemed savings only provide EULs for measures at burnout. An Arkansas specific TRM is needed in order to gain consistency with the EULs for retrofit projects Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination: As detailed in its recently filed Comprehensive Energy Efficiency Plan, SWEPCO proposes to continue the CISOP during the second half of PY 2011 with a program budget of $1,004,736. The estimated energy and demand savings for the second half Page 10 of 77

12 of PY 2011 are 4,867,000 kwh and 654 kw, respectively. The Company is seeking approval to change the incentive structure from a uniform demand and energy incentive offering to a targeted demand and energy savings incentive offering dependent on the individual measure being implemented by the participating customer. The Company asserts that this type of incentive structure should better align the total incentive offering with the resulting savings that can be realized from the various targeted measures proposed by the eligible participants. SWEPCO also contends that a Targeted Commercial & Industrial Standard Offer Program (TSOP) will provide greater opportunity for multiple, and hence more comprehensive, measures to be implemented by the eligible participants. The Company proposes to transition its currently approved CISOP to a TSOP effective January 1, Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget: For PY 2011, there are no program changes planned for SWEPCO s CISOP. Pending approval of our recently filed energy efficiency plan, SWEPCO plans to continue the CISOP during the second half of PY 2011 with a program budget of $1,004,736. Estimated energy savings are 4,867,000 kwh and demand reduction of 654 kw. SWEPCO s proposed budgets for both its CISOP and proposed TSOP during PY 2011, PY 2012, and PY 2013 are $1,287,786, $2,126,355, and $4,738,819 respectively. 3.2 Load Management Standard Offer Program (LMSOP) Program Description: This program is a non-tariff based demand response (DR) program that initially targeted large commercial and industrial customers with a minimum peak electric demand of 250 kw or greater. The minimum contract amount of demand reduction required is 250 kw per customer. When SWEPCO calls for a curtailment event, the participating customers are requested to implement their load reduction plan. The maximum number of hours a customer may be called upon in any Program Year (PY) is 49 hours, including a onehour test. SWEPCO installs interval data recorders (IDR) at Load Management Standard Offer Program (LMSOP) customer sites where an IDR is not already present. Prior to the program period, SWEPCO and the contracted LMSOP customers perform a one hour scheduled curtailment test to determine a customer s ability to comply with the 250 kw minimum threshold requirement. Nine customers, representing 27 accounts, participated in the one hour scheduled curtailment test. All nine customers met the 250 kw threshold during the program test. However, during the LMSOP program period, one customer representing 14 of the 27 accounts tested was dropped from the program because of their inability to meet the minimum threshold program requirement of 250 kw. Prior to the summer of 2010, SWEPCO established criteria to call for program curtailments when SWEPCO s peak load was anticipated to be at least 92% of the Page 11 of 77

13 projected peak. During the program month of August, the first two curtailment calls were made early in the month. It was determined that due to the above normal forecasted temperatures, the third call would not be executed until SWEPCO s peak load was anticipated to be 95% or higher of the projected peak. During PY 2010, SWEPCO executed six unscheduled, four-hour curtailment events. Due to fluctuating weather patterns in the summer of 2010, three calls were made in June and the remaining three calls were made in August. During the program months of July and September, SWEPCO s peak load approached, but never met the 92% or higher than projected peak criteria that would prompt a curtailment event Program Highlights: SWEPCO paid $177,409 in monetary incentives to eight customers (13 accounts) that were capable of reducing electrical peak demand with a one-hour advance notice from June through September. The incentive budget was $161,300. The Company paid each customer $5/kW-month for each kw the customer made available to the Program. In addition, the Company paid $0.25 for every kwh reduced during an event period. The total expenditures in 2010, including incentives, were $229,049, versus budgeted expenditures of $180,300. The Company established two new all-time system peak demands during the month of August. Participating LMSOP customers were called upon to curtail on both of these peak days. Participation in the LMSOP has been consistent from year to year. Out of the eight SWEPCO customers who successfully participated in PY 2010, three have been in the program each year since Three have participated for the last two years with two first time LMSOP customers participating in PY The participating customers have a good understanding of what SWEPCO is trying to accomplish by implementing this program. One LMSOP customer stated, Since we have had the maximum allowable number of curtailment calls in one month, I noticed the forecasted temperatures for the next few days will be above the norm, I will operate as if a curtailment was requested even though you are not asking. Page 12 of 77

14 3.2.3 Program Budget, Savings & Participants: LM SOP 2008 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2008 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $180,000 $79,745 44% 5, ,000 2, ,600 53% 1% Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2009 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $180,300 $162,112 90% 5, ,000 4, ,100 93% 33% % 2010 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2010 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $180,300 $229, % 5, ,000 6, , % 63% % 3 Year Program Average Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $180,200 $156,969 87% 5, ,000 4, ,367 95% 32% % *Lifetime Savings Program Events & Training: No formal scheduled customer training occurred during PY Approximately 250 commercial and industrial customers are eligible for this program. A significant percentage of these eligible customers are assigned accounts. Therefore, face-to-face meetings with each customer were conducted prior to the program period. These meetings serve the purpose of answering any questions the customer may have and to discuss the Customer Agreement Savings: The 2010 program period savings goal for the LMSOP was 245,000 kwh. In 2010 the program saved 155,400 kwh. The 2010 program period demand reduction goal was 5,000 kw. In 2010, the program period produced a demand reduction of 6,991 kw. Savings for this program were calculated from actual event data collected from previously installed interval data recorders (IDR). This interval data recorder (IDR) information is used to demonstrate the timing, magnitude, and duration of the electric load interrupted which coincides with any SWEPCO interruption notice during the program period. The actual electric load interrupted (kw) and duration of the interruption (kwh) is used to determine the amount of financial incentive to be paid for that customer s participation in the program Challenges & Opportunities: A majority of the contracted LMSOP customers have been in this program for more than one year. Most LMSOP customers are familiar with the program and know curtailments Page 13 of 77

15 are likely to occur with above normal temperatures. The primary challenge with several of the freezer customers, on limited occasions, was their inability to curtail when called upon due to temperature sensitive product being processed. Another challenge is with customers who curtail with on-site generators. On limited occasions, maintenance issues came into play and prevented full event day participation. SWEPCO considers both its five-day demand forecast and its knowledge of the available generating units when making curtailment decisions. In some cases, the system load is anticipated to be greater than 92% of the projected load for several consecutive days. In these instances, the Company utilizes its best judgment in determining which days to call for curtailments within the guidelines of the program Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination: Upon regulatory approval, SWEPCO plans to continue the LMSOP in PY 2011 and expand the program to 15 participants. The Company has proposed a demand reduction goal of 7,500 kw and energy savings goal of 368,000 kwh has been established for PY Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget: There are no plans to change how the program is implemented or how the customer savings are calculated. Upon regulatory approval, the budget is scheduled to increase to $270,450. SWEPCO s proposed budgets for PY 2011, PY 2012, and PY 2013 are $270,450, $379,600, and $379,600 respectively. 3.3 Compact Fluorescent Lighting Program (CFLP) Program Description: The Compact Fluorescent Lighting Program (CFLP) is designed to educate and influence SWEPCO s Arkansas residential and commercial customers to purchase and install ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs in their homes and businesses. In 2010, qualifying customers received program coupons for GE Energy Smart ENERGY STAR 6-pack spiral CFL bulbs. Customers redeemed these coupons at participating retailers. In November 2010, SWEPCO provided a limited time in-store markdown on additional types of compact fluorescent lighting. Customers who purchased qualifying products received the marked-down price at the time of purchase. Customers were able to identify qualifying products through in-store marketing materials advertising the program Program Highlights: The 2010 annual energy savings goal for the CFLP was 722,000 kwh. The program exceeded its annual goal, saving 953,826 kwh annually. Page 14 of 77

16 In 2010, the CFLP used two program marketing approaches; an ENERGY STAR CFL coupon insert in April 2010, and an in-store markdown during the 4 th quarter. Participation in the CFLP was strong. During PY 2010, there were 8,372 participants in the program with a goal of 5,000. This total number represents 5,417 transactions in the mark-down program and 2,955 coupon redemptions. Please note the 2010 expenditures for the CFLP includes payments made in 2010 for program savings that were claimed in When performing the cost-effectiveness evaluation for the CFLP, a net-to-gross ratio of 0.60 was applied as recommended by the 2008 California Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER). Thus for the CFL program and for the total portfolio, the levelized costs, Participant Cost Test (PCT), Program Administrator Cost Test (PACT), Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM), and Total Resource Cost (TRC) results, including Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), all consider net CFL savings for the Cost Benefit Analysis contained in this report. However, the first year demand savings and first year energy savings reported in the workbook for 2010 savings achieved and 2011 savings goal are gross savings. That is, the 0.60 net-to-gross ratio has not been applied to these savings Program Budget, Savings & Participants: CFLP 2008 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2008 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $89,000 $79,000 89% , ,045,800 99% 108% 4,216 5, % 2009 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2009 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $74,000 $60,590 82% , ,400 99% 106% 3,333 4, % 2010 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2010 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $74,000 $116, % , , % 132% 5,000 8, % 3 Year Program Average Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $79,000 $85, % , , % 115% 4,183 6, % *Lifetime Savings Program Events & Training: In addition to the April 2010 CFL coupon bill insert, an in-store point of purchase marketing approach was utilized in several Wal-Mart stores across the SWEPCO service territory. Included in the appendix of this report are copies of signage attached to the point of purchase (POP) displays utilized in the CFL program. Page 15 of 77

17 SWEPCO continues to maintain information concerning the CFLP on its third party Web site, hosted by Frontier Associates Savings: The 2010 annual energy savings goal for the CFLP was 722,000 kwh. The program exceeded its annual goal, saving 953,826 kwh annually. The demand reduction goal for 2010 was 90 kw. The program exceeded its goal, saving kw Savings for the CFL Program were calculated using the originally approved Arkansas Deemed Savings Report Challenges & Opportunities: The initial promotional approach which utilized a coupon rebate bill insert limits the ability of the program to influence the market at all stages of customer transactions. SWEPCO used an instant mark-down approach for the latter half of 2010, which allows for greater market influence. The determination of the appropriate free-ridership or net-to-gross ratio (NTG) continues to be a challenge when performing program the evaluation. The implementation of CFL programs in Arkansas is relatively immature compared to other states and therefore very little specific data is available with respect to free-ridership. The Energy Independence and Securitization Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) which phases out the use of certain incandescent lamps also provides challenges in establishing the baseline over the Estimated Useful Life (EUL) of the CFL Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination: In SWEPCO s Comprehensive Energy Efficiency Plan filed on March 15, 2011, the Company is proposing to continue and expand this program through the end of PY Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget: During the second half of 2011, the Company proposes to change the program name from CFLP to Residential and Commercial Compact Fluorescent Lighting Program (RCCFLP). SWEPCO s proposed budgets for PY 2011, PY 2012, and PY 2013 are $211,537, $289,122, and $359,807 respectively. Utilizing a.060 NTG, the Company proposes to attain approximately 7 to 9% of its projected portfolio energy savings from this program. Page 16 of 77

18 3.4 Residential and Small Commercial ENERGY STAR Appliance Program (RESAP) Program Description: The Residential and Small Commercial ENERGY STAR Appliance Program (RESAP) targets residential and small commercial customers with less than 100 kw of electric demand. This program provides incentives to customers who are replacing their existing heat pumps or air conditioners with ENERGY STAR units Program Highlights: In PY 2010, the RESAP had an approved target of 210 participants. Rebates were processed for 181 air conditioning units and 51 heat pumps benefiting 227 participants. The high percentage of heat pump installations (replacing resistant heat) greatly attributed to the energy savings achieved as compared to target. Anecdotally, SWEPCO believes the $1,500 federal tax credit contributed not only to the Company exceeding the goal by a considerable amount but also increased the average SEER rating of the units purchased by the participants as compared to the estimated average SEER rating. Due to the federal tax credit, the Company and CLEAResult Consulting anecdotally believe contractors possibly increased their price to the participants due to their awareness of the available tax credit. The program goal was established based on an estimated SEER of 14 to 14.9 and an average size of 2.75 tons per unit. However, due to the availability of the federal tax credit, the actual average installed size was 3.31 tons with an average SEER rating of This disparity greatly impacted the incremental cost and hurt the program for the TRC. For this program s TRC evaluation, SWEPCO assumed that 90% of the participants took advantage of the federal tax credit during PY Thirty-three different participating contractors provided rebates during the program year. Quality assurance inspections were completed on 13.4% (31) of the installations. Page 17 of 77

19 3.4.3 Program Budget, Savings & Participants: RESAP 2008 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2008 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $86,000 $63,000 73% , ,600 30% 49% % 2009 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2009 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $139,690 $108,993 78% , ,700 95% 130% % 2010 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2010 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $139,700 $208, % , , % 219% % 3 Year Program Average Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $121,797 $126, % , , % 149% % *Lifetime Savings Program Events & Training: During PY 2010, 29 separate meetings/training sessions were held reaching 47 contractors/vendors. The sessions provided instruction, program documentation and specific program details. Additional detailed information on these sessions is available in the table in the Supplemental Requirement / Training Section of this document. SWEPCO continues to maintain information concerning the RESAP on its third party Web site, hosted by Frontier Associates Savings: The 2010 annual savings goal for RESAP was 145,800 kwh. In 2010 the program saved 318,814 kwh. The 2010 annual demand reduction goal for the RESAP was 85 kw. In 2010, the program saved 121 kw Challenges & Opportunities: The program has identified a lack of adequate market understanding of technical processes required to implement energy efficiency measures. The program will continue to introduce solutions and provide trainings to address this deficiency Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination: SWEPCO plans to continue this program in its current form through June The Company is proposing in its Comprehensive Energy Efficiency Plan (CEEP) to transition Page 18 of 77

20 rebates for high efficient heating and cooling systems to both its proposed Residential Standard Offer Program (RSOP) and Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget: SWEPCO proposes to modify and expand its currently approved Residential and Small Commercial ENERGY STAR Appliance Program (RESAP) to a Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program (also RESAP) beginning July 2011 and continuing through the end of PY The modified RESAP will provide both point-of-sale instant rebates or after the purchase mail-in rebates. Eligible appliances will initially include ENERGY STAR window air conditioning units and refrigerators. ENERGY STAR dishwashers and clothes washers will be considered if a joint program can be developed with the gas utilities. This proposed modification would also limit the eligible participants to residential customers. SWEPCO s proposed budgets for PY 2011, PY 2012, and PY 2013 are $254,722, $590,468, and $771,756 respectively. 3.5 Arkansas Weatherization Program (AWP) Program Description: The Arkansas Weatherization Program (AWP) is an EE program that targets severely energy inefficient homes, leveraging the resources of the federally funded Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance program. SWEPCO continues to support the AWP, which is jointly funded by SWEPCO, Entergy Arkansas, Empire District Electric Company, Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, and three of the state's natural gas companies. This weatherization program provides funding for the state's Community Action Program (CAP) agencies to: Facilitate energy audits, Provide energy use consultation, Reduce infiltration by using blower door tests to identify leaks, Install weatherization measures, and Install other energy conservation measures as required Program Highlights: The AWP s target was to weatherize 100 homes in the SWEPCO service territory during PY 2010, and 58 homes were reported. The PY 2010 AWP budget was $148,900. SWEPCO made payments to the Central Arkansas Development Council (CADC) totaling $38,466. SWEPCO administrative expenditures, including third party administrative expenditures, and excluding those of the CADC, totaled $8,825. Page 19 of 77

21 The total spending amount for PY 2010 listed in the workbook is $47,291. This amount differs however from actual 2010 expenditures due to the following. o o o o SWEPCO had a $15, carryover of unexpended funds in the AWP from PY 2009 into PY Due to activity late in PY 2010, the AWP/CADC billed SWEPCO an additional $12, in January 2011 which, contributed to the PY 2010 savings. Therefore, $75, in utility expenditures was used for the program evaluation. The contribution from the federal Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) used for the TRC evaluation was $246,803 which was slightly less than 70 percent of the total WAP contribution Program Budget, Savings & Participants: AWP 2008 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2008 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $189,000 $76,000 40% , ,000 72% 60% n/a n/a n/a Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2009 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $148,900 $48,700 33% , , % 62% % 2010 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2010 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $148,900 $47,291 32% , ,208 77% 142% % 3 Year Program Average Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $162,267 $57,330 35% , ,603 85% 83% % *Lifetime Savings Program Events & Training: SWEPCO continues to maintain information concerning the AWP on its third party Web site, hosted by Frontier Associates. In addition, SWEPCO personnel assisted the Arkansas Community Action Agency Association (ACAAA) with the distribution of the newly developed AWP brochure to various big-box retailers. SWEPCO continues to maintain information concerning the AWP on its third party Web site, hosted by Frontier Associates. Page 20 of 77

22 3.5.5 Savings: 2010 Demand savings goal of 110 kw with achieved savings of kw 2010 Energy savings goal of 215,000 kwh with achieved savings of 306,208 kwh Challenges & Opportunities: The fact that the program is run by a Community Action Program (CAP) agency makes non low income customers hesitant to participate, even if they are aware of the program and its benefits. Quicker response times and shorter waiting lists in order to get audit and work completed in a timely manner would accelerate the maturity of this program. Additional leads need to be generated as well as an improvement of program awareness. SWEPCO asserts that more can be done to improve the awareness of this program with its customer base as well as with the Company s other residential program implementers. For example, if a customer is not financially able to participate in another residential program due to income restraints, they should be referred to the AWP. In addition, the agencies need to be able to better market and perform outreach to customers other than low income who are above the 200% federal poverty level. There were a total of 70 walk-away occurrences with approximately 33 of those being AWP eligible. A walk-away occurs when a house has structural problems the program cannot address, or measures that can be implemented but don t adequately address the energy efficiency needs of the structure. The overall program design is good. The program is cost-effective and therefore, SWEPCO contends the program should be expanded to the degree the agencies infrastructure will allow. The program delivers comprehensive EE measures to the homes that need it most and delivers and captures both gas (therms) and electric (kwh) savings Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination: Pending approval of SWEPCO s CEEP, the Company plans to continue its support of the Arkansas Weatherization Program going forward Planned Changes to Programs & Budgets: In SWEPCO s proposed CEEP, the Company aspirationally projects that 100, 200, and 300 homes will be weatherized in PY 2011, PY 2012, and PY 2013, respectively. SWEPCO s proposed budgets for PY 2011, PY 2012, and PY 2013 are $148,900, $287,500, and $437,900, respectively. Page 21 of 77

23 3.6 Energy Education Arkansas (EEA) Program Description: Energy Efficiency Arkansas (EEA) is an energy education program sponsored jointly by the gas and electric utilities of Arkansas. The Arkansas Energy Office (AEO) administers the program. The purpose of the EEA is to deliver cost-effective fuel neutral information and training that encourages the people of Arkansas to consume less energy through energy efficiency and conservation measures. The four primary components of EEA are as follows: Education and Information Outreach (Residential) Media Promotion Training and Certification Education and Information Outreach (provided to Schools grades K-12; Large Commercial and Industrial) Program Highlights: For more detailed information regarding the activities and accomplishments of EEA during PY 2010, see their Annual Report filed in Docket No RP. During PY 2010, SWEPCO had a budget of $82,900 for EEA with total expenditures of $39,168 including SWEPCO s internal administration costs of $9, Program Budget, Savings & Participants: EEA 2008 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2008 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $82,000 $84, % n/a n/a n/a n/a - - n/a n/a n/a Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2009 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $72,000 $74, % n/a n/a n/a n/a - - n/a n/a n/a Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2010 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $82,900 $39,168 47% n/a n/a n/a n/a - - n/a n/a n/a - 3 Year Program Average Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $78,967 $65,922 83% *Lifetime Savings Page 22 of 77

24 3.6.4 Program Events & Training: SWEPCO distributed the five fact sheets listed below at various customer and contractor events throughout PY 2010: Locating & Sealing Air Leaks Lighting & Appliance Cooling Heating Water Heating Home Energy Projects Manual SWEPCO continues to maintain information concerning the EEA on its third party Web site, hosted by Frontier Associates Savings: There are no savings realized in this program Challenges & Opportunities: With each utility having a different energy efficiency program portfolio, it is difficult to develop a statewide education approach for educating consumers on the specifics of the various programs. None-the-less, EEA has done an outstanding job developing training for customers, contractors, and utility personnel which support not only the utilities' various EE programs but EE in general. The geography of the state also presents challenges for the EEA with respect to training. If all trainings are held in the population centers (for example, Little Rock or Ft. Smith), it makes it difficult for some utility personnel, contractors, and customers to attend. Arkansas is generally a rural state so the Arkansas Energy Office (AEO) must continually balance the need with the location. The AEO has done an outstanding job managing this challenge. As the utility EE programs become more mature, SWEPCO asserts that a common list of cost effective EE measures will rise to the top which should allow EEA to become more targeted with both the identification and remediation or installation of such measures. With respect to training, where appropriate, webinars should be considered as a means for training. This has the potential to overcome issues related to geography and would also reduce travel expenses for potential attendees. EEA has also placed considerable emphasis on "low-cost, no-cost" activities that the everyday homeowner or business owner can take advantage of without outside assistance. This should be a continued area of emphasis for EEA. Page 23 of 77

25 SWEPCO believes that utility EE program awareness among consumers is still relatively low. With the various orders issued by the Commission on December 10, 2011, SWEPCO believes that customer awareness will increase dramatically. This should provide for additional training needs with respect to both EE measure identification and remediation. In addition, emphasis on "low-cost, no-cost" actions should continue to be an important mission of Energy Education Arkansas Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination: SWEPCO intends to continue supporting this program Planned Changes to Programs & Budgets: The planned program budget changes to this program are detailed in the Second Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was approved by the Commission on March 8, 2011 with Order No. 24 in Docket No TF. SWEPCO s proposed budgets for PY 2011 and PY 2012 are $82,900, $46,500 respectively. 3.7 Arkansas Residential Solutions SM Market Transformation Program Program Description: The Arkansas Residential Solutions SM Market Transformation Program is an energy efficiency program designed to encourage and enable residential customers to make energy efficiency improvements to their homes. The program emphasizes developing a contractor base that can better identify and deliver cost effective energy efficiency products and services to the residential consumer. This program provides incentives to homeowners for eligible energy efficient improvements. A network of qualified energy efficiency service providers become partnering contractors and can both offer and accept incentives for program eligible upgrade measures. Customers that have these improvements performed receive a discount on their invoice and the partnering contractor is reimbursed for the incentive once work is completed and verified. The program will provide reimbursement incentives for home audits. The audit options are a Level 1 Home Energy Survey, a Level 2 Diagnostic Home Energy Assessment or a Level 3 Comprehensive Home Energy Audit. The audits provide recommendations for energy efficiency opportunities along with discount coupons for cost effective eligible improvement measures. Reimbursement to help offset the cost of the level two and level three audits are provided if customers use the discount coupons from the audit to implement the recommended improvements. The audits focus on cost effective measures including insulation, air infiltration reductions, and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) duct sealing system maintenance, repair or replacement. Page 24 of 77

26 3.7.2 Program Highlights: The Arkansas Residential Solutions SM Program is in its first year, and does not have historical participation data to report. In PY 2010, the program recruited 103 participants and saved 177,124 kwh. The program targeted 470 participants and 859,000 kwh in energy savings; therefore, SWEPCO was disappointed in the performance of this program Program Budget, Savings & Participants: AR Res Solutions 2008 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2008 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal n/a n/a - n/a n/a n/a n/a - - n/a n/a n/a Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2009 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $67,000 $0 0% , n/a 0% - n/a n/a n/a Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2010 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $419,400 $258,204 62% , ,124 19% 21% % 3 Year Program Average Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $243,200 $129,102 53% , ,124 18% 39% % *Lifetime Savings Program Events & Training: In PY 2010, the program held 77 contractor trainings. During these trainings, contractors were instructed on a variety of subjects including technical instruction on proper methods for performing program measures as well as best practices for program marketing and participation. For a complete list of trainings, please see Section 5 of this report. SWEPCO continues to maintain information concerning the Residential Solutions SM program on its third party Web site, hosted by Frontier Associates. Page 25 of 77

27 3.7.5 Savings: The PY 2010 annual savings goal for the Arkansas Residential Solutions SM program was 859,000 kwh. In PY 2010 the program saved 177,124 kwh. The 2010 annual demand reduction goal for the Arkansas Residential Solutions SM program was 470 kw. In 2010, the program saved kw. Savings for this program include some savings that occurred in PY 2010 but for which costs were incurred by the utility in PY For these projects, the utility s 3 rd party implementation firm provided incentives to the market in 2010 and the utility was invoiced in PY 2011; these expenditures will appear in the utility s PY 2011 annual report and are included in the utility s cost-effectiveness testing. Savings for this program were calculated using the original deemed savings approved in Challenges & Opportunities: The Arkansas Residential Solutions SM program is in its first year, and the early stages of identifying market deficiencies and program obstacles; however, it is apparent that the market has a significant lack of contractors that possess the technical knowledge and awareness required to implement the energy efficiency measures promoted by the program. SWEPCO contends that its low rates, small customer base, and current status of the economy will provide substantial challenges for the Company in the residential market Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination: The Company proposes to terminate this program effective June 30, 2011 as further described below Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget: SWEPCO proposes to transition the EE measures available through this program to both its proposed Residential Standard Offer Program (RSOP) and Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program effective July 1, Page 26 of 77

28 3.8 Commercial Solutions SM Market Transformation Program Program Description: The Commercial Solutions SM Market Transformation Program is an energy efficiency program designed to encourage and enable commercial and industrial (C&l) customers (with electric demand of at least 50 kw) to make the most efficient use of energy by upgrading energy consuming equipment and improving energy management practices. This includes activities that encourage private sector energy service providers to deliver energy efficient products and services in a cost-effective manner. The program provides the direct support necessary to assist partnering customers in identifying and evaluating energy efficiency opportunities, securing budgets through their internal financial planning processes, and overseeing those opportunities to their completion. The program helps companies that do not have the in-house capacity or expertise to: 1) Identify, evaluate, and undertake efficiency improvements; 2) Properly evaluate energy efficiency proposals from vendors; and/or 3) Understand how to leverage their energy savings to finance projects. Program participants receive both cash and non-cash incentives. The cash incentives currently offered through this program are lower than those offered through the ClSOP. However, this program also provides non-cash incentives including technical assistance (audits, technology assessments, etc.) and education on financing energy efficiency projects Program Highlights: The Commercial Solutions SM program is in its first year and does not yet have historical program performance data. In 2010, the program recruited 2 participants, who achieved annual energy savings of 380,689 kwh. Page 27 of 77

29 3.8.3 Program Budget, Savings & Participants: Com Solutions MTP 2008 Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2008 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal n/a n/a - n/a n/a n/a n/a - - n/a n/a n/a Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2009 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $50,000 $0 0% , n/a 0% - n/a n/a n/a Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal 2010 Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $234,600 $138,101 59% ,503, ,689 15% 15% % 3 Year Program Average Budgeted Savings Actual Savings % Of Goal Annual Actual % Of Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Demand* Energy* Participants % Of Budget Expenses Budget kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh kw*yrs kwh Targeted Actual Wait List Goal $142,300 $69,050 49% ,422, ,689 13% 27% % *Lifetime Savings Program Events & Training: In PY 2010, the Commercial Solutions SM program held 17 contractor trainings. During these trainings, contractors were instructed on a variety of subjects including best practices in program participation. For a complete list of trainings, please see Section 5 of this report. SWEPCO continues to maintain information concerning the Commercial Solutions SM Market Transformation Program on its third party Web site, hosted by Frontier Associates Savings: The PY 2010 annual energy savings goal for the Commercial Solutions SM program was 2,503,000 kwh, however only 380,689 kwh in energy savings were achieved. The PY 2010 annual demand reduction goal was 440 kw, and the program achieved kw in demand savings. Consequently, the Company was disappointed in the performance of this program in PY Savings for this program were calculated using the original deemed savings approved in Page 28 of 77

30 3.8.6 Challenges & Opportunities: The Commercial Solutions SM program is in its first year, and in the early stages of identifying market deficiencies and program obstacles; however the program has confirmed what the program is designed to overcome a lack of C&I customers in this size category who have the necessary internal technical knowledge required to accurately implement and measure savings from the program Outlook for Continuation, Expansion, Reduction or Termination: The Company proposes to terminate this program effective June 30, 2011 as further described below Planned or Proposed Changes to Program & Budget: SWEPCO proposes to transition the EE measures available through this program to its currently approved CISOP through the remainder of PY SWEPCO is proposing to transition its CISOP to a Targeted Standard Offer Program (TSOP) effective January 1, 2012 as proposed in its CEEP filed on March 15, Page 29 of 77

31 4.0 Evaluation Measurement & Verification (EM&V) 4.1 Overview During PY 2010, the utility and its 3 rd party program implementation contractor performed ongoing informal program evaluation to identify opportunities for program and process improvement. In addition, on an annual basis, cost effectiveness and program impacts are evaluated by the utility through the following cost effectiveness tests: Participant Cost Test (PCT), the Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM), the Program Administrator Cost Test (PACT) and the Total Resource Cost (TRC). These tests evaluate program cost-effectiveness through consideration of a variety of metrics including program costs and program savings. 4.2 Program Evaluation: The utility and the 3 rd party implementation contractor perform ongoing verification of individual project savings and overall program cost-effectiveness. While verification processes differ between the programs, in general verification is controlled through an established quality assurance and control protocol that involves up front project screening and post-project completion verification. For Residential Solutions SM, the implementation contractor inspects the first 5 projects of any new partnering contractors, and then 15% of the additional projects if the initial 5 project inspections were sufficient for continued participation of the partnering contractor. A similar protocol is followed in the RESAP. The Commercial Solutions SM requires a somewhat more detailed verification process. Once a facility is accepted into the program, the implementation contractor performs a documented pre-inspection to identify potential energy efficiency projects. The program works with the customer to complete a project application. If the project is completed and falls within the Arkansas deemed savings framework, the customer moves forward with project implementation. If the project does not fall within the Arkansas deemed savings, the program works with the customer to establish a qualifying measurement and verification framework that complies with established industry standards. Once projects are completed, the program performs a post-inspection to verify proper installation of equipment identified through the pre-inspection. Projects that do not pass post-inspection are not eligible for incentives. In the CFL Program, the implementation contractor verifies rebate redemptions with sales data in order to confirm the energy savings associated with the bulb purchases. Adjustments to the claimed savings are made as needed. For the cost-effectiveness evaluation for the CFLP, SWEPCO applied a net-to-gross ratio of 0.60 as recommended by the 2008 California Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER). The Company did not consider free-ridership in the evaluation of the savings attained from the remainder of its portfolio. Page 30 of 77

32 With the LMSOP, the demand and energy savings results are calculated based on specific measurement and verification data obtained from the interval data recorder (IDR). Each participating load management customer has an IDR in place. Pre and post inspections are performed on all CISOP projects. Demand and energy savings for all 2010 CISOP projects were calculated using the original approved deemed savings with the exception of one compressed air project that required Measurement & Verification (M&V). This M&V project will not be completed until the 1st quarter of According to the Company s CISOP Manual a customer is permitted a partial payment on the estimated project savings that equates to 40% of the estimated incentives. The remainder of the incentive payment is settled once the project is complete and the M&V results are approved. The preliminary M&V contained recorded load data of the existing compressed air system. Engineering estimates of the new equipment based on manufacturer s data was used to calculate an overall demand and energy savings. 4.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis Cost-Effectiveness Test Levelized Cost Participant Cost Test (PCT) NPV ($000's) Ratio NPV ($000's) NPV ($000's) NPV ($000's) Program $ / kwh Ratio Ratio Ratio CISOP , , , LM SOP N/A CFLP RESAP AWP N/A EEA N/A 0 N/A AR Res Solutions Com Solutions MTP EE Portfolio Total , , , Cost-Effectiveness Test Levelized Cost Participant Cost Test (PCT) NPV ($000's) Ratio Program Year Ratepayer Impact Program Total Resource Measure Administrator Cost Cost (RIM) (PAC) (TRC) Ratepayer Impact Measure (RIM) NPV ($000's) Ratio Next Program Year Program Administrator Cost (PAC) NPV ($000's) Ratio Total Resource Cost (TRC) NPV ($000's) Ratio Program $ / kwh CISOP , , , LM SOP N/A CFLP RESAP AWP N/A EEA N/A AR Res Solutions Com Solutions MTP SBDI HPES N/A RSOP OLAT N/A EE Portfolio Total , , , , Other Test (OT) NPV ($000's) Ratio Other Test (OT) NPV ($000's) Ratio Page 31 of 77

33 5.0 Supplemental Requirements 5.1 Training EXTERNAL TRAINING (contractors, trade allies, consumer groups, etc.) Even t No. Date Class Class Description Training Location Sponsor No. of Attendees (A) Length of Session (B) Training Session Man-hours (A x B) Any Certificates Awarded? (Y or N) # of Certificiates Awarded 1 January 12, January 13, 2010 Commercial Energy Solutions Commercial Energy Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Rogers, AR CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Little Rock, AR CLEAResult N 0 3 January 17, January 17, 2010 Commercial Energy Solutions Commercial Energy Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Little Rock, AR CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Little Rock, AR CLEAResult N 0 5 January 17, February 2, 2011 Commercial Energy Solutions Commercial Energy Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Hot Springs, AR CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Hot Springs, AR CLEAResult N 0 7 February 25, March 24, 2010 Commercial Energy Solutions Commercial Energy Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Texarkana, AR CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Texarkana, AR CLEAResult N 0 9 April 16, April 16, 2010 Commercial Energy Solutions Commercial Energy Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Texarkana, AR CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Fayetteville, AR CLEAResult N 0 11 July 30, 2010 Commercial Energy Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Springdale, AR CLEAResult N 0 12 October 12, October 19, October 19, 2010 Commercial Energy Solutions Commercial Energy Solutions Commercial Energy Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Texarkana, AR CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Little Rock, AR CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Texarkana, AR CLEAResult N 0 15 October 21, October 30, 2010 Commercial Energy Solutions Commercial Energy Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Magnolia CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Fayetteville, AR CLEAResult N 0 17 November 10, November 29, 2010 Commercial Energy Solutions Commercial Energy Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Fayetteville, AR CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Springdale, AR CLEAResult N 0 19 November 30, December 15, 2010 Commercial Energy Solutions Commercial Energy Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Texarkana, AR CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Commercial Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Little Rock, AR CLEAResult N 0 Page 32 of 77

34 21 January 17, 2010 Residential Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program phone to implementation, and qualification standards. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 22 February 24, 2010 Residential Solutions 23 March 1, 2010 Residential Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program phone to implementation, and qualification standards. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program phone to implementation, and qualification standards. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 24 March 1, 2010 Residential Solutions 25 March 4, 2010 Residential Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. phone to Mena CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program phone to implementation, and qualification standards. DeQueen CLEAResult N 0 26 March 5, 2010 Residential Solutions 27 March 19, 2010 Residential Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program phone to implementation, and qualification standards. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. phone to Lowell CLEAResult N 0 28 March 19, 2010 Residential Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program phone to implementation, and qualification standards. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 29 March 25, 2010 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 30 March 30, 2010 Residential Solutions 31 April 12, 2010 Residential Solutions Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program phone to implementation, and qualification standards. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program phone to implementation, and qualification standards. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 32 April 15, 2010 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program implementation, and qualification standards. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 Provided instruction and pertinent program documentation to train contractors/vendors on the Residential Solutions Program phone to 33 April 27, 2010 Residential Solutions implementation, and qualification standards. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 phone 34 May 7, 2010 Residential Solutions Energy Consultant Program Training Bentonville CLEAResult N 0 35 May 12, May 13, 2010 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program Contractor technical training on appropriate use of the Blower Door and Duct Blaster tools for assessing home efficiency. Ft. Smith CLEAResult N 0 Contractor technical training on appropriate use of the Blower Door and Duct Blaster tools for assessing home efficiency. Ft. Smith CLEAResult N 0 37 May 20, 2010 Residential Solutions Energy Consultant Program Training phone to Rogers CLEAResult N 0 38 May 20, 2010 Residential Solutions Energy Consultant Program Training phone to Bentonville CLEAResult N 0 39 May 27, 2010 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program Contractor technical training on appropriate use of the Blower Door and Duct Blaster tools for assessing home efficiency. DeQueen CLEAResult N 0 40 June 3, 2010 Residential Solutions Energy Consultant Program Training phone to Ft. Smith CLEAResult N 0 41 June 22, 2010 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program Contractor technical training on appropriate use of the Blower Door and Duct Blaster tools for assessing home efficiency. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing 42 June 23, 2010 STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 43 July 2, 2010 Residential Solutions Energy Consultant Program Training phone to Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 44 August 6, August 9, 2010 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program Contractor technical training on appropriate use of the Blower Door and Duct Blaster tools for assessing home efficiency. DeQueen CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 Page 33 of 77

35 46 August 11, August 12, August 17, 2010 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program Contractor technical training on appropriate use of the Blower Door and Duct Blaster tools for assessing home efficiency. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing STAR Appliance techniques to increase customer involvement Program in measure installation. Fayetteville CLEAResult N 0 49 August 24, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 50 August 24, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Wickes CLEAResult N 0 51 August 30, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. DeQueen CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing 52 September 2, 2010 STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Fayetteville CLEAResult N 0 53 September 7, September 10, September 13, September 16, 2010 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program Contractor technical training on appropriate use of the Blower Door and Duct Blaster tools for assessing home efficiency. Fayetteville CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Fayetteville CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance Program Contractor technical training on appropriate use of the Blower Door and Duct Blaster tools for assessing home efficiency. Fayetteville CLEAResult N 0 Provided program and documentation training on qualification standards and accurate implementation of the Residential Solutions program. Fayetteville CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing 57 September 16, 2010 STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Fayetteville CLEAResult N 0 58 September 28, 2010 Residential Solutions Provided program and documentation training on qualification standards and accurate implementation of the Residential Solutions program. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 59 September 29, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. phone to Mena CLEAResult N 0 60 September 29, 2010 Residential Solutions 61 September 29, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement phone to in measure installation. Wickes CLEAResult N 0 Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement phone to in measure installation. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 62 September 29, 2010 Residential Solutions 63 September 30, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement phone to in measure installation. Rogers CLEAResult N 0 Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement phone to Ft. in measure installation. Smith CLEAResult N 0 64 September 30, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement phone to in measure installation. DeQueen CLEAResult N 0 65 September 30, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Farmington CLEAResult N 0 66 October 1, 2010 Residential Solutions 67 October 4, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement phone to in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement phone to in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 68 October 5, 2010 Residential Solutions 69 October 6, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement phone to in measure installation. Rogers CLEAResult N 0 Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement phone to in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement phone to 70 October 6, 2010 Residential Solutions in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 71 November 5, 2010 Residential Solutions Energy Consultant Program Training phone to Ft. Smith CLEAResult N 0 Page 34 of 77

36 72 November 5, 2010 Residential Solutions Provided program and documentation training on qualification standards and accurate implementation of the Residential phone to Solutions program. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 73 November 12, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing 74 November 16, 2010 STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing 75 November 16, 2010 STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Farmington CLEAResult N 0 76 November 16, 2010 Residential Solutions 77 November 16, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Rogers CLEAResult N 0 Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 78 November 16, 2010 Residential Solutions Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance 79 November 17, 2010 Program Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Fayetteville CLEAResult N 0 Provided extensive contractor sales and training tools for deeper program penetration Phone-webinar CLEAResult 1 1 N 0 80 November 17, 2010 Residential Solutions 81 November 17, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Rogers CLEAResult N 0 82 November 17, 2010 Residential Solutions Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance 83 November 18, 2010 Program Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Wickes CLEAResult N 0 Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. DeQueen CLEAResult N 0 84 November 18, 2010 Residential Solutions Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY STAR Appliance 85 November 30, 2010 Program Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing 86 November 30, 2010 STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing 87 November 30, 2010 STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Fayetteville CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing 88 November 30, 2010 STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Rogers CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing 89 December 1, 2010 STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Springdale CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing 90 December 1, 2010 STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Fayetteville CLEAResult N 0 91 December 1, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Ft. Smith CLEAResult N 0 92 December 1, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Ft. Smith CLEAResult N 0 93 December 1, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Ft. Smith CLEAResult N 0 Residential Solutions & Residential ENERGY Training contractors on sales and marketing 94 December 2, 2010 STAR Appliance Program techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Mena CLEAResult N 0 95 December 2, 2010 Residential Solutions Training contractors on sales and marketing techniques to increase customer involvement in measure installation. Texarkana CLEAResult N 0 96 December 9, 2010 Residential Solutions Combustion Safety Training Springdale CLEAResult N 0 97 December 10, 2010 Residential Solutions Combustion Safety Training Ft. Smith CLEAResult N 0 Totals: Sessions: Page 35 of 77

37 INTERNAL TRAINING (Utility or Administrator Staff) Even t No. Date Class Class Description LEED Certification and Green Building: An 1 March 24, 2010 Introduction Training Location No. of Attendees (A) Length of Session (B) Training Session Man-hours (A x B) Any Certificates Awarded? (Y or N) # of Certificiates Awarded Sponsor Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and the impacts of building on the environement On-Line Red-Vector Y 1 2 March 24, 2010 Lighting Fixtures and Energy Efficiency Energy eficient lighting fixtures On-Line Red-Vector Y 1 Understanding Electric Understand basic rate billing terms such as 3 March 24, 2010 Rates demand, energy, ratchets and HUD On-Line Red-Vector Y 1 4 March 25, 2010 Air Compressors Various types of air compressors used in the industry and construction On-Line Red-Vector Y 1 5 March 25, 2010 Compressed Air System Basics Understand compressed sir systems for commercial and industrial applications, covering operational, maintenance and costcontrol aspects. On-Line Red-Vector Y 1 6 March 25, March 25, April 7, August 15, August 17, 2010 Ethical Decision Making and Engineers #5 Standards of ethical conduct in varieties of situations and case studies. On-Line Red-Vector Y 1 Leadership Challenge Learning the importance of saying "thank Part 6: Encourage the you", be more creative and personal in using Heart rewards in your organization. On-Line Red-Vector Y 1 Compressed Air Systems Introduction to Solid Energy efficient improvement for compressed air systems Classroom Airometrix Y 1 State Lighting Introdution ot LED lighting basics Classroom DOE N 0 Arkansas Energy Office and 2010 Manufacturing Arkansas Manufacturing Challenge Seminar Improve Energy Efficiency withing your plant Classroom Solutions Y 2 11 August 26, September 22, 2010 Trends and Advances in Lamps and Ballasts Latest trends in lighting On-Line Questline Academy N 0 Electric Motor Systems Provide an Understanding of Electric mmotor Workshop systems management Classroom Texas Industries of the Future Y 1 13 October 22, December 7, November 18, December 6, 2010 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Resources in Arkansas Agriculture Sustainable Energy Resources Classroom APSC N 0 Pumping System Optimization Opportunities to Improve Life Cycle Performance Classroom AMS, Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions Y 1 Exploring Solar Electric and Hot Water Systems Study of Solar Powers and its applciations Little Rock, AR Half Moon, LLC Y 1 Pumping System Optimization Study of Pumping Systems and Energy Savings Opportunities and Methods Little Rock, AR Hydraulic Institute Y 4 17 August 23-27, 2010 CEM - Prepratory CEM Training Atlanta, GA AEE Y 1 18 December 1, 2010 Energy Plus Exploring Energy Modeling Little Rock, AR ASHRAE Y 4 19 September 17, 2010 Commissioning 101 Commissioning for Sustained Building Performance Little Rock, AR SERBCA Y 2 20 August 30, 2010 BPI Certification Blower Door Review Little Rock CLEAResult N 0 21 August 31, 2101 BPI Certification Combustion Safety Review Little Rock CLEAResult N 0 22 September 1, 2010 BPI Certification Bldg. Analyst Field Test Little Rock CLEAResult Y 3 23 September 2, 2010 BPI Certification Bldg. Analyst Field Test Little Rock CLEAResult Y 1 24 September 2, 2010 BPI Certification Bldg. Analyst Written Test Little Rock CLEAResult N 0 25 September 2, 2010 BPI Certification Bldg. Envelope Written Test Little Rock CLEAResult N 0 26 September 2, 2010 BPI Certification Bldg. Heating Written Test Little Rock CLEAResult N 0 Totals: Sessions: Lost Revenue The estimation of Lost Revenue is not required for the Program Year 2010 Report. 5.3 Reserved for Future Use Page 36 of 77

38 5.4 Challenges & Opportunities Program Program Program Process Name Challenges Enhancements Evaluations CISOP Low rates, small customer base, and current status of the economy provides a challenge for the Company to achieve future goals. SWEPCO s experience with National Account customers show low rates, compared to national averages, contributed to several energy efficiency projects struggling to meet the customer s own Return on Investment (ROI) and payback timeframe parameters. As measures such as lighting reach market maturity, other measures such as chillers yielding energy savings over longer useful life, require much larger capital investments. Due to larger capital investments combined with low SWEPCO rates, these projects are typically not approved. SWEPCO is not proposing in changes to the program structure in However, the Company is seeking approval to change the incentive structure from a uniform demand and energy incentive offering to a targeted demand and energy savings incentive offering dependent on the individual measure being implemented by the participating customer. The Company asserts that this type of incentive structure should better align the total incentive offering with the resulting savings that can be realized from the various targeted measures proposed by the eligible participants. SWEPCO also contends that a Targeted Commercial & Industrial Standard Offer Program (TSOP) will provide greater opportunity for multiple, and hence more comprehensive, measures to be implemented by the eligible participants. In summary, SWEPCO proposes to transition its currently approved CISOP to TSOP effective January 1, Estimating the incremental and total cost for the installation of various measures in order to accurately estimate the TRC continues to be a challenge. SWEPCO relied upon the California DEER, the Ohio TRM, as well as other local sources to estimate the incremental cost in order to perform the TRC. The deemed savings only provide EULs for measures at burnout. An Arkansas specific TRM is needed in order to gain consistency with the EULs for retrofit projects. LMSOP The primary challenge with several of the freezer customers, on limited occasions, was their inability to curtail when called upon due to temperature sensitive product being processed. Another challenge is with customers who curtail with on-site generators. On limited occasions, maintenance issues came into play and prevented full event day participation There are no plans to change the structure of the program at time. SWEPCO is proposing a two-hour option in its Texas jurisdiction which may be considered in Arkansas at some point. SWEPCO uses a one-year useful life for this program because all participating customers are only committing to one year. The demand savings are easily verified with interval data recorders. CFLP Initially, the utility used a simple mail-in rebate promotional strategy for the CFL Program; one challenge with this approach is that is limits the program's ability to influence the market at all stages of a participant's transaction. In the fall of 2010, the utility used an in-store instant markdown promotional strategy, which maximizes the program's ability to influence the market. The in-store instant markdown promotional strategy is proposed for continuation into The determination of the appropriate free-ridership or net-to-gross ratio (NTG) continues to be a challenge when performing program the evaluation. The implementation of CFL programs in Arkansas is relatively immature compared to other states and therefore very little specific data is available with respect to free-ridership. The Energy Independence and Securitization Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) which phases out the use of certain incandescent lamps also provides challenges in establishing the baseline over the Estimated Useful Life (EUL) of the CFL. This provides challenges in performing accurate evaluations. RESAP The program has identified a lack of contractor market who understand program participation processes and best practices. None-the-less, the number of HVAC contractors participating in the program continues to grow and the program far exceeded the Company's expecations in PY The program will continue to perform outreach and trainings to address the market deficiencies identified through the program. SWEPCO plans to continue this program in its current form through June 2011 and proposes in its Comprehensive Energy Efficiency Plan (CEEP) to transition rebates for high efficient heating and cooling systems to both its proposed Residential Standard Offer Program (RSOP) and Home Performance with ENERGY STAR program. Federal tax credits should be taken into consideration when performing the evaluations for this program as well as other programs where the tax credit is available. Due to the availability of the federal tax credit, the actual average installed size was 3.31 tons with an average SEER rating of These values were higher than expected and greatly impacted the incremental cost and hurt the program TRC. For this program s TRC evaluation, SWEPCO assumed that 90% of the participants took advantage of the federal tax credit during PY AWP SWADC had 29 walkaways with 23 being AWP. UHDC had 5-6 walkaways with all likely being AWP eligible. The fact that the program is run by a CAP agency makes non low income customers hesitant to participate, even if they are aware of the program. OHC had 35 walkaways with 4 possibly being AWP. Also, a quicker response time and shorter waiting list to get audit and work completed in a timely manner would help. There is a need to generate more leads and improve overall program awareness. Agencies need to be able to better marker and do outreach to customers above 200% of Federal poverty level. The program design is good and appears to be cost effective. There is no reason this program should not be expanded as much as possible. It delivers comprehensive measures to homes that need it most. It also is one of very few programs that captures both gas (therms) and electric energy (kwh) savings. Obtaining accurate and final demand and energy savings (by measure) for this program in a timely manner continues to be a challenge for the participating agencies and ACAAA. This has sometimes delayed the Company's ability to evaluate the program. In addition, based on the feedback from ACAAA, SWEPCO was better able to allocate the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) funds in order to calculate a more accurate TRC. This made a substantial improvement to the TRC BCR for this program. EEA With each utility having a different energy efficiency programs, it is difficult to develop a statewide education approach for educating consumers on the specifics of the various programs. The geography of the state presents challenges for the EEA with respect to training. If all trainings are held in the population centers (for example, Little Rock or Ft. Smith), it makes it difficult for some utility personnel, contractors, and customers to attend. Arkansas is generally a rural state so the Arkansas Energy Office (AEO) must continually balance the need with the location. As the utility EE programs become more mature, SWEPCO asserts that a common list of cost effective EE measures will rise to the top which should allow EEA EEA to become more targeted with both the identification and remediation or installation of such measures. With respect to training, where appropriate, webinars should be considered as a means for training. This has the potential to overcome issues related to geography and would also reduce travel expenses for potential attendees. EEA has also placed considerable emphasis on "low-cost, no-cost" activities that the everday homeowner or business owner can take advantage of without outside assistance. This should be a continued area of emphasis for EEA. No savings are generated from this program so there are no evaluation issues. AR Residential Solutions SM The Residential Solutions Program is in its first year and the early stages of identifying market deficiencies and program obstacles. See the proposed enhancements. SWEPCO proposes to transition the EE measures available through this program to both its proposed more comprehensive Residential Standard Offer Program (RSOP) and Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program effective July 1, The program will continue to introduce solutions to deficiencies identified through the program More customer information needs to be gathered regarding their planned use of the federal tax credits. As with the CISOP, estimating the incremental and total cost for the installation of various measures in order to accurately estimate the TRC continues to be a challenge. Commercial Solutions SM MTP The Commercial Solutions Program is in its first year and beginning stages of identifying market deficiencies and program obstacles. This program is not eligible to customers with peak demands less than 50 kw. See the proposed enhancements. SWEPCO proposes to officially discontinue its Commercial Solutions Market Transformation Program (MTP) on June 30, 2011 although some projects in progress will be completed during the last half of PY The measures offered through this program are available through its currently approved CISOP. The Company proposes to then transition these measures to its proposed Targeted Commercial & Industrial Standard Offer Program (TSOP) effective January 1, In addition, SWEPCO has also proposed within its comprehensive plan to intiate a Small Business Direct Install Program in order to better service the customers with peak demands less than 50 kw. More customer information needs to be gathered regarding their planned use of the federal tax credits. As with the CISOP, estimating the incremental and total cost for the installation of various measures in order to accurately estimate the TRC continues to be a challenge. Page 37 of 77

39 5.5 Market Maturity Program Market Assessment Name Present Future Maturity Program Comprehensive Program 10-Year Outlook CISOP Due to program budgets, the actual program participation of Commercial and Industrial customers is limited to a first come first serve basis until the program is fully subscribed in a program year. The number of participants is dependant upon individual project savings, due to program parameter limitations. The Company is seeking approval to change the incentive structure from a uniform demand and energy incentive offering to a targeted demand and energy savings incentive offering dependent on the individual measure being implemented by the participating customer. The Company asserts that this type of incentive structure should better align the total incentive offering with the resulting savings that can be realized from the various targeted measures proposed by the eligible participants. SWEPCO also contends that a Targeted Commercial & Industrial Standard Offer Program (TSOP) will provide greater opportunity for multiple, and hence more comprehensive, measures to be implemented by the eligible participants. In summary, SWEPCO proposes to transition its currently approved CISOP to a TSOP effective January 1, The Company will continue to assess its customer needs, market penetration and Energy Efficiency (EE) progress to determine needed program filings. At this point, SWEPCO prays that it will be able to hit the targets it has established in its proposed comprehensive plan for the Targeted Commercial & Industrial Standard Offer Program (TSOP). The Company will continue to evaluate cost-effective emerging technologies as well as place increased emphasis on retrofit vs. ROB projects. LMSOP Due to program budgets, the actual program participation is limited to a first come first serve basis until the program is fully subscribed in a program year. The number of participants is dependant program parameters and size of customer program contracts As proposed in the Company's Comprehensive Energy Efficiency Plan, an increased program budget should enable more customers to participate. SWEPCO is also considering a twohour curtailment period in in addition to the existing four-hour period The comprehensiveness of the program will continue to depend on the program budget. The Company will continue to assess the level of need and available system capacity to determine the viability of the program. CFLP The CFL program is in the early stages of educating and recruiting customers into the program; the utility estimates it has achieved roughly 19% market penetration. As the program matures, the utility expects to achieve 47-50% market penetration. The utility will continue to assess the level of market penetration; however a preliminary estimate suggests this measure will achieve 75-80% market penetration in 10 years. RESAP In this early stage, the Residential and Small Commercial Appliance Program has achieved minimal market penetration. SWEPCO proposes to modify and expand its currently approved Residential and Small Commercial ENERGY STAR APPLIANCE PROGRAM (RESAP) to a RESIDENTIAL ENERGY STAR APPLIANCE PROGRAM (also RESAP) beginning July 2011 and continuing through the end of PY This program currently limits incentives to eligible participants who install qualifying high efficiency split-system heating and cooling systems. SWEPCO proposes to transition the incentives for high efficiency split-system heating and cooling systems to its newly proposed Residential Standard Offer Program (RSOP) and Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (HPES) Program as further discussed in my testimony below. The modified RESAP will provide both point-of-sale instant rebates or after the purchase mail-in rebates. Eligible appliances will initially include ENERGY STAR window air conditioning units and refrigerators. The utility will continue to assess the level of market penetration; however a preliminary estimate suggests the measures made available through this program should achieve a 40% market penetration in 10 years. AWP The fact that the program is run by a CAP agency makes non low income customers hesitant to participate, even if they are aware of the program and its benefits. Quicker response and shorter waiting lists to get audit and work completed in a timely manner. There were a total of 70 walk-away occurrences with approximately 33 of those being AWP. A walkaway occurs when a house has structural problems the program cannot address, or measures that can be implemented but don t adequately address the energy efficiency needs fth t t SWEPCO believes that utility EE program awareness among consumers is still relatively low. Additional leads needs to be generated as well as an improvement of program awareness. Agencies need to be able to better market and perform outreach to customers other than low income and are above the 200% Federal poverty level. The program design is good. It appears cost effective and there is no reason it should not be expanded as much as possible. It delivers comprehensive measures to homes that need it most and delivers and captures both gas (therms) and electric (kwh) savings. EEA With the various orders issued by the Commission on December 10, 2011, SWEPCO believes that customer awareness will increase dramatically. This should provide for additional training needs with respect to both EE measure identification and remediation. In addition, emphasis on "low-cost, no-cost" actions should continue to be an important mission of Energy Education Arkansas Pursuant to Order No. 24 in Docket No TF, SWEPCO will be providing comments and reply comments by April 29 and May 9, respectively, regarding its recommendations for the future of EEA. AR Residential Solutions SM Commercial Solutions SM MTP The program is in its first year and has achieved minimal market penetration. See future plans. The program is in its first year and has achieved minimal market penetration. See future plans. SWEPCO proposes to transition the EE measures available through this program to both its proposed more comprehensive Residential Standard Offer Program (RSOP) and Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Program effective July 1, As the market for providing the types of measures offered through this type of program mature, the utility expects to achieve 15% market penetration SWEPCO proposes to officially discontinue its Commercial Solutions Market Transformation Program (MTP) on June 30, 2011 although some projects in progress will be completed during the last half of PY The measures offered through this program are available through its currently approved CISOP. The Company proposes to then transition these measures to its proposed Targeted Commercial & Industrial Standard Offer Program (TSOP) effective January 1, In addition, SWEPCO has also proposed within its comprehensive plan to intiate a Small Business Direct Install Program in order to better service the customers with peak demands less than 50 kw. As the program matures, the utility expects to achieve 15-25% market penetration. The utility will continue to assess the level of market penetration; however a preliminary estimate suggests the measures offered through this type of program and the proposed programs will achieve 40% market penetration in 10 years. The utility will continue to assess the level of market penetration; however a preliminary estimate suggests the measures offered through this program and the proposed programs could achieve a 80% market penetration in 10 years. Page 38 of 77

40 5.6 Staffing During PY 2010, SWEPCO had one EE Consumer Programs Manager with responsibility for all three of SWEPCO s state jurisdictions, including Arkansas, Texas and Louisiana; one EE Consumer Program Coordinator with full-time responsibility for the Arkansas jurisdiction; and one Administrative Associate with part-time responsibility with the EE & Consumer Programs group in Arkansas. At approximately mid year 2010, an additional EE & Consumer Program Coordinator was hired into the Company s EE & Consumer Programs Department with primary responsibility in the Texas jurisdiction. However, due to increased EE activity in Arkansas, this Coordinator was partially reassigned in the fall to assist with the Arkansas EE portfolio and reporting requirements. 5.7 Stakeholder Activities During 2010 PY, SWEPCO conducted numerous meetings across the jurisdiction to discuss and educate its customers, contractors, and employees on the various EE programs available. Approximately 745 customers representing all sectors of the population and service territory were exposed to these educational opportunities. Commercial & Industrial Standard Offer Program (CISOP): During PY 2010, approximately 25 meetings were held to provide educational material and information pertaining to the CISOP and its benefits. The goal of these meetings was to educate the attendees on the specific program details and associated eligible EE measures. LM SOP: There were 7 meetings held to provide details to eligible commercial and industrial customers interested in the Load Management Standard Offer Program (LM SOP). The goal of these meetings was to describe the program in detail in order to increase understanding of the reason the LM SOP is in place and the importance of its existence and the need for customer participation. Residential Programs: During the 2010 PY, 10 meetings reaching 225 attendees were held to discuss the programs available to residential customers in Arkansas. The goal was to educate customs not only on the available programs, but also on energy efficiency measure in general. Commercial Programs: Six separate programs reaching approximately 222 attendees were held to describe the available commercial programs. A Compressed Air Seminar was held to discuss available energy efficient improvements for compressed air systems. There were 53 in attendance to hear a presentation and participate in a discussion of the real applications and benefits of efficient compressed air technology. SWEPCO employees participated in the NWA Green Expo, provided information and literature to all in attendance. Page 39 of 77

41 5.8 Estimation of EE Resource Potential Reductions in energy consumption and the associated demand impacts are modeled as reductions to the base load forecast in SWEPCO s Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). In lieu of more precise information, the adjustment to the forecast incorporates assumptions about the timing (month) of the installations and the combination of energy efficiency resources utilized (lighting, weatherization, e.g.). The impact on summer peak demand is dependent on the type of measures installed. SWEPCO currently considers its energy efficiency (EE) assets when considering the need for the procurement of new generating assets. In addition, the Company also considers its EE assets when making dispatch decisions regarding its existing generating assets so that the marginal, more expensive units are required less often. SWEPCO s 2009 IRP incorporated a 440 GWh energy reduction and a 174 MW demand reduction for all three SWEPCO jurisdictions combined by The Company has achieved an 84 GWh energy reduction and an 85 MW demand reduction through the end of The Company is currently operating demand response programs in both its Arkansas and Texas jurisdictions. Approximately 7 MW of demand response was available in Arkansas (8.5 MW in Texas) during the summer 2010 peak season. In fact, SWEPCO set two all time peaks during the summer 2010 peak season and this load was called upon on both occasions. The Company seeks to increase participation in this demand response program to 10 MW in Arkansas by the summer 2013 peak season as shown in its recently filed Comprehensive Energy Efficiency Plan. SWEPCO achieved an additional 1.6 MW peak demand reduction from its Arkansas EE program portfolio during the summer 2010 peak season. The Company seeks to increase the peak demand reduction from its EE program portfolio to approximately 6.5 MW by the end of 2013 as detailed in its recently filed Comprehensive Energy Efficiency Plan. SWEPCO continues to operate a robust EE program portfolio in its Texas jurisdiction which is also incorporated into its Integrated Resource Plan. 5.9 Information Provided to Consumers to Promote EE During 2010, SWEPCO consistently communicated information regarding its EE portfolio to residential and non-residential consumers in an effort to assist them in making better and more informed decisions about energy consumption and costs. SWEPCO submits the following fact sheets, flyers, brochures, bill inserts and web pages as examples of the promotional materials utilized to promote EE to its customers: Arkansas Weatherization Program flyers 2010 SWEPCO Energy Efficiency Programs Arkansas fact sheet SWEPCO Arkansas Commercial Programs flyer Energy Efficiency Tax Incentives/Credits fact sheet EEA Air Leaks fact sheet EEA Lighting & Appliances fact sheet EEA Cooling fact sheet Page 40 of 77

42 EEA Heating fact sheet EEA Water Heating fact sheet SWEPCO Arkansas Residential Programs flyer Residential Solutions SM Contractor Handout ENERGY STAR HVAC Rebate Program Brochure Commercial Standard Offer Program Brochure (Numerous examples are included in the Appendix of this report.) SWEPCO also promoted several training events to its customers throughout the year: Boiler Operation Safety Training flyer (with AEO) (April 13, 2010) Certified Energy Manager Training flyer (through AEE) (May 10-14, 2010) Electricity & Greenhouse Gas Reduction Workshop card mailer (through EEA) (March 31, 2010) EEA HVAC Contractors Training Workshop (through ACCA) (April 6-8, 2010 Little Rock) SWEPCO and its program implementation partner conducted the following contractor training events to present information regarding its residential EE programs to HVAC and Insulation contractors as well: Residential HVAC & Insulation Contractors Information Meeting flyers (February 25, 2010 Texarkana and April 15, 2010 Springdale) In addition, SWEPCO promoted EE through the use of the following bill inserts during Examples of the bill inserts are included in the Appendix. Residential Energy Solutions Program and ENERGY STAR Heating and Cooling Rebate Program Insert (February 2010) ENERGY STAR CFL Coupon Insert (April-May 2010) Residential Energy Solutions Program and ENERGY STAR Heating and Cooling Rebate Program Insert (July 2010) ENERGY STAR CFL Coupon Insert (September 2010) SWEPCO also provided extensive EE information to consumers through its websites. Both swepco.com and aepefficiency.com include many energy saving tips as well as information about SWEPCO s EE programs. An example web page of each website is shown in the Appendix. Additionally, SWEPCO provides a Home Energy Calculator, an Appliance Calculator, and a Lighting Calculator through swepco.com. These allow customers to calculate their energy consumption and provide estimates of energy use costs based on customer inputs. Page 41 of 77

43 Southwestern Electric Utility Company 6.0 Appendix Promotional / Educational Material, Rebate Coupons, etc Page 42 of 77

44 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 43 of 77

45 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 44 of 77

46 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 45 of 77

47 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 46 of 77

48 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 47 of 77

49 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 48 of 77

50 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 49 of 77

51 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 50 of 77

52 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 51 of 77

53 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 52 of 77

54 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 53 of 77

55 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 54 of 77

56 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 55 of 77

57 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 56 of 77

58 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 57 of 77

59 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 58 of 77

60 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 59 of 77

61 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 60 of 77

62 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 61 of 77

63 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 62 of 77

64 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 63 of 77

65 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 64 of 77

66 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 65 of 77

67 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 66 of 77

68 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 67 of 77

69 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 68 of 77

70 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 69 of 77

71 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Training Seminars Page 70 of 77

72 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 71 of 77

73 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 72 of 77

74 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 73 of 77

75 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 74 of 77

76 Southwestern Electric Utility Company In-Store Display for CFL Promotion Page 75 of 77

77 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Website Pages Page 76 of 77

78 Southwestern Electric Utility Company Page 77 of 77