Measuring progress in appliance market transformation programs: weaknesses of traditional sales / shipment methods and innovative proxy metrics – The “NEEPP” tracking approach

Panel: Panel 6: Products and appliances

Author:
Lisa A. Skumatz, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA), USA

Abstract

Measuring progress in energy efficiency programs usually includes estimating the proportion of sales for energy efficient models out of total sales for the equipment. However, getting information on sales is extremely difficult. State programs in the US usually use data from one (or more) of the following main sources:

Dealer / manufacturer sales data or industry / association sales data;
Shipments data;
In-store clipboard surveys of models for sale;
Required reporting by “participating” vendors;
Household surveys;
On-site inspections / audits; or
Warranty cards; or other sources.

This paper summarizes recent work examining the pros and cons of these methods of measuring “market progress” in market share, and reports quantitative results (with comparisons and differences) using these methods for key household appliances. We found profound disagreements in market share computations using these different data sources.

The paper then proposes a new, cost-effective proxy measurement approach to indicate market transformation progress, and the paper provides results and comparisons to traditional metrics. This approach uses price rather than quantity (sales) to track market progress – and uses statistical methods to identify the portion of the apparent price difference for a variety of appliances that are attributable to efficiency labels or energy efficiency features for market transformation programs. This metric is robust, low cost to compute, and provides several advantages over traditional metrics:

Tracks market progress and supports comparisons;
Indicates appropriate rebate levels; and
Identifies mature markets ready for exit strategies.

The work illustrates a promising approach for three important applications in program planning and evaluation. Results for several appliances and regions of the country are provided to illustrate both traditional and proposed tracking methods.