Utilizing past CT trends and Potential bias toward those observed in MA (a individuals who are already demographically similar state) more in favor of efficient is likely to be indicative of lighting future trends in CT Small sample sizes make it Saturation estimates going difficult to identify statistical back to 2009 for CT and differences across regions or comparison area which over time enables trend assessment Possible non-response bias End of program support in due to lower response rates comparison area provides a Change in methodology in Examination of CT socket good indication of market 2013 to include additional saturation trends transition characteristics multifamily Focus on residential only a better picture of Not dependent on respondent CT overall but makes data recall or bias (actual less comparable to earlier observed data) studies (weighting attempts to 2013 CT and NE samples correct for this) include a large proportion of MF and SF properties, greatly improving data quality Consistent weighting scheme applied to all years of data A large portion of the market Suppliers have an inherent is accounted for by self-interest in the respondents continuation of the program, Many respondents have been and hence may be biased following the market for Suppliers are not the ones in both program areas and who actually make the Supplier Interviews non-program areas decisions to purchase CFLs Method non-residential for home installation CFL sales into account, which other studies have estimated make up about 5%-10% of total CFL sales Have prior saturation Depends on respondent recall estimates to assess trends about when they purchased Range of program support in bulbs GA and KS providing good sample sizes in GA and comparison areas KS The estimate is for residential GA/KS and CT are different only, not C&I demographically Contribution to regional Possible non-response bias comparison area data collection greater in GA/KS because of lower response rate KS had fewer specialty fixtures than CT KS has many more Walmarts per household than CT, and Walmart has aggressively promoted CFLs since 2007
Examination of CT socket saturation trends Utilizing past CT trends and those observed in MA (a demographically similar state) is likely to be indicative of future trends in CT Saturation estimates going back to 2009 for CT and comparison area which enables trend assessment End of program support in comparison area provides a good indication of market transition characteristics Focus on residential only Not dependent on respondent recall or bias (actual observed data) 2013 CT and NE samples include a large proportion of MF and SF properties, greatly improving data quality Consistent weighting scheme applied to all years of data Potential bias toward individuals who are already more in favor of efficient lighting Small sample sizes make it difficult to identify statistical differences across regions or over time Possible non-response bias due to lower response rates Change in methodology in 2013 to include additional multifamily a better picture of CT overall but makes data less comparable to earlier studies (weighting attempts to correct for this) Supplier Interviews A large portion of the market is accounted for by respondents Many respondents have been following the market for in both program areas and non-program areas Method non-residential CFL sales into account, which other studies have estimated make up about 5%-10% of total CFL sales Suppliers have an inherent self-interest in the continuation of the program, and hence may be biased Suppliers are not the ones who actually make the decisions to purchase CFLs for home installation Contribution to regional comparison area data collection Have prior saturation estimates to assess trends Range of program support in GA and KS providing good comparison areas The estimate is for residential only, not C&I Depends on respondent recall about when they purchased bulbs sample sizes in GA and KS GA/KS and CT are different demographically Possible non-response bias greater in GA/KS because of lower response rate KS had fewer specialty fixtures than CT KS has many more Walmarts per household than CT, and Walmart has aggressively promoted CFLs since 2007
Residential%20Consultant%20comments%20on%20R86%20review%20draft,%205-27-15.docx