NTG and Net-of-Freeridership Estimates This section outlines the various estimates of NTG and net-of-freeridership that the Team calculated from the relevant approach methodologies. We begin by describing the quantitatively oriented values gleaned from the demand elasticity and POS modeling approaches, before moving into the approaches utilized from the supplier interviews. We also discuss the relevant strengths and limitations of these approaches and their subsequent threats to validity. NTG Table 4 displays the NTG and Net-of-freeridership estimates across all methods utilized throughout the program cycle. These methods and their associated estimates are described individually in more detail below. Table : NTG and Net-of-Freeridership Estimates Across Methods Measure CT Currently Demand Supplier POS Modeling Assumed Elasticity Interviews LED Specialty 71% 82% 74% 87% LED Standard 49% CFL Specialty 47% 55% 51% 29% CFL Standard 51% 68% Net of Subject to biases Partial market freeridership, of responding estimate, partial or missing manufacturers data required and retailers channel not team make included assumptions for some products, stores The Team estimated the overall net of freeridership for CFLs and LEDs from the demand elasticity models utilizing the formula below. Table 5 shows these estimates broken down by utility. The model estimated program-level freeridership to be 49%, and as such the net-of-freeridership or 1-FR to be 51% overall. This value is equivalent to the NTG currently claimed by the Companies. This implies that, had the demand elasticity approach been able to account for spillover, the NTG ratio from this method would have been higher than that currently assumed by the Companies.
NTG and Net-of-Freeridership Estimates This section outlines the various estimates of NTG and net-of-freeridership that the Team calculated from the relevant approach methodologies. We begin by describing the quantitatively oriented values gleaned from the demand elasticity and POS modeling approaches, before moving into the approaches utilized from the supplier interviews. We also discuss the relevant strengths and limitations of these approaches and their subsequent threats to validity. NTG Table 4 displays the NTG and Net-of-freeridership estimates across all methods utilized throughout the program cycle. These methods and their associated estimates are described individually in more detail below. Table : NTG and Net-of-Freeridership Estimates Across Methods Measure CT Currently Assumed Demand Elasticity Supplier Interviews POS Modeling LED Specialty 82% 71% 74% 87% LED Standard 49% CFL Specialty 51% 47% 55% 29% CFL Standard 51% 68% Net of freeridership, partial or missing data required team make assumptions for some products, stores Subject to biases of responding manufacturers and retailers Partial market estimate, channel not included The Team estimated the overall net of freeridership for CFLs and LEDs from the demand elasticity models utilizing the formula below. Table 5 shows these estimates broken down by utility. The model estimated program-level freeridership to be 49%, and as such the net-of-freeridership or 1-FR to be 51% overall. This value is equivalent to the NTG currently claimed by the Companies. This implies that, had the demand elasticity approach been able to account for spillover, the NTG ratio from this method would have been higher than that currently assumed by the Companies.