Data inconsistencies are not frequent enough to cause overwhelming concern, but the program may want to consider additional verification of measure quantities installed. As noted, the evaluation found some inconsistencies between measures recorded in the tracking data and those found on site, but these inconsistencies were not frequent enough to overwhelmingly point to any major program or measure-specific issues. Excess of measures. For all measures except LEDs, field technicians verified a few more measures on site than were reported in the tracking data. The evaluation found this to be the case for two sites with CFLs, four sites with hot water measures (faucet aerators and efficient-flow showerheads), and two sites with refrigerators. One speculation is that these measures may have been installed using a different pool of money (e.g., the Department of Weatherization Assistance Energy’s Program [WAP]) at the same time as the HES-IE measures. Tenants and landlords/property managers would be unable to distinguish between HES-IE and WAP lamps. Zero or low installation rates. Conversely, the visits found some sites where fewer measures were installed than were reported. Some examples are discussed below. The most severe of these discrepancies included one site where the tracking data showed seven CFL installations per unit for one site, but field technicians found only circline fluorescent fixtures installed through the program. The technicians’ conversations with both tenants and landlords or property managers at this site indicated that they never received CFLs through the program. CFLs The evaluation identified approximately 7% more CFLs on site than were reported in the program data. In most cases, the tenants stated that they had purchased and installed the additional lamps either before or after participating in the program, and the analysis excludes such bulbs. Additionally, only six tenants across all the buildings visited reported that any of the program CFLs had failed since installation.
Data inconsistencies are not frequent enough to cause overwhelming concern, but the program may want to consider additional verification of measure quantities installed. As noted, the evaluation found some inconsistencies between measures recorded in the tracking data and those found on site, but these inconsistencies were not frequent enough to overwhelmingly point to any major program or measure-specific issues. Excess of measures. For all measures except LEDs, field technicians verified a few more measures on site than were reported in the tracking data. The evaluation found this to be the case for two sites with CFLs, four sites with hot water measures (faucet aerators and efficient-flow showerheads), and two sites with refrigerators. One speculation is that these measures may have been installed using a different pool of money (e.g., the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program [WAP]) at the same time as the HES-IE measures. Tenants and landlords/property managers would be unable to distinguish between HES-IE and WAP lamps. Zero or low installation rates. Conversely, the visits found some sites where fewer measures were installed than were reported. Some examples are discussed below. The most severe of these discrepancies included one site where the tracking data showed seven CFL installations per unit for one site, but field technicians found only circline fluorescent fixtures installed through the program. The technicians’ conversations with both tenants and landlords or property managers at this site indicated that they never received CFLs through the program. CFLs The evaluation identified approximately 7% more CFLs on site than were reported in the program data. In most cases, the tenants stated that they had purchased and installed the additional lamps either before or after participating in the program, and the analysis excludes such bulbs. Additionally, only six tenants across all the buildings visited reported that any of the program CFLs had failed since installation.
HES%20and%20HES-IE%20Process%20Evaluation%20(R4)%20and%20Real-Time%20Research%20(R31)%20-%20Review%20Draft.docx