Appliance Sales Tracking

Transcription

1 report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report report energy center Research Report Appliance Sales Tracking 1997 Residential Survey January 1998 ENERGY CENTER OF WISCONSIN

2 R E P O R T Appliance Sales Tracking 1997 Residential Survey January 1998 Prepared by Opinion Dynamics Corporation 2916 Market Place Madison, WI (608) Prepared for 595 Science Drive Madison, WI Phone: (608) Fax: (608) ecw@ecw.org Web:

3 Copyright 1998 Energy Center of Wisconsin All rights reserved This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the Energy Center of Wisconsin (ECW). Neither ECW, participants in ECW, the organization(s) listed herein, nor any person on behalf of any of the organizations mentioned herein: (a) (b) makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report or that such use may not infringe privately owned rights; or assumes any liability with respect to the use of, or damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report. Project Manager John Peloza Energy Center of Wisconsin

4 Contents Abstract...i Report Summary...iii Introduction...1 Method Purchase Behavior...3 Brand Name and Model Number...4 Lighting Technologies...4 Demographic Information...4 Multiple Appliance Purchasers...5 Results Response Rates...7 Number of Appliance Purchases...7 Household Demographic and Appliance-Specific Data...8 Data Quality...8 Brand Name and Model Number...8 Purchase Rates Appliances...9 Awareness, Purchase and Saturation Rates Lighting...9 Representativeness of the Data Discussion Response Rates...17 Data Quality Brand Name and Model Number Purchase Rates Representativeness of the Data Household Demographics Single-Family versus Multifamily Households Programmable and Setback thermostats Appliance Purchasing Behaviors Refrigerators Water Heaters Forced Air Furnaces Central Air Conditioners Lighting Purchasing Behaviors Outdoor Lighting Torchère Lamps Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs... 28

5 Appendix: Survey Data...A-1 Demographics (Tables D1-D6)...A-3 Refrigerators (Tables R1-R8)...A-7 Water Heaters (Tables W1-W11)...A-19 Forced-Air Furnaces (Tables F1-F6)...A-27 Central Air Conditioners (Tables C1-C6)...A-33 Lighting (Tables L1-L5)...A-39

6 Tables Table 1 Annual appliance purchases in the past year...7 Table 2 Breakdown of appliance-specific surveys...8 Table 3 Breakdown of appliance-specific survey completions...9 Table 4 Annual appliance purchase rates...9 Table 5 Compact Fluorescent Purchase/Saturation Rates Table 6 Torchère Lamp Purchase/Saturation Rates Table 7 Outdoor Security Lighting Purchase/Saturation Rates Table 8 Comparison of the screening survey to statewide data1 on proportion of households in major investor-owned utility service areas Table 9 Comparison of the screening survey to 1990 census data Table 10 Information Available to Refrigerator Purchasers Table 11 Information Available to Water Heater Purchasers Table 12 Information Available to Forced Air Furnace Purchasers Table 13 Information Available to Central Air Conditioning Purchasers Table 14 Outdoor Lighting Table 15 Torchère Penetration and Purchase Rates Table 16 Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs Table 17 Barriers to the Purchase of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs APPENDIX Survey Data: Demographics...A-3 Table D1 Electric and Gas Utility Information as Reported by Survey Respondents Table D2 Demographic Characteristics of 1997 Screener Survey Respondents Table D3 Demographic Characteristics of 1997 Screener Survey Respondents by Type of Residence Table D4 Demographic Characteristics of 1997 Screener Survey Respondents by Type of Residence for Homeowners Table D5 Saturation of Programmable Set-Back Thermostats Table D6 Saturation of Programmable Set-Back Thermostats by Home Ownership Survey Data: Refrigerators...A-7 Table R1 Unique Refrigerator Questions (Role of Efficiency in Purchasing Process) Table R2 New Refrigerator Features and Usage as Indicated in Association of Home Appliance Manufacturer s (AHAM) Certified Directory of Refrigerators and Freezers Table R3 Refrigeration Efficiency Improvements by Purchasing Factors Table R4 Features of New Refrigerator and Identification of Purchaser Table R5 Receipt of Rebates Table R6 Reasons for New Refrigerator Purchase Table R7 Characteristics of Old Main Refrigerator Table R8 Selected Cross Tabulations Efficiency Distributions

7 Survey Data: Water Heaters...A-19 Table W1 Unique Water Heater Questions (Role of Efficiency in Purchasing Process) Table W2 New Water Heater Features and Usage as Indicated in Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association s Consumers Directory of Certified Efficiency Ratings for Residential Heating and Water Heating Equipment Table W3 New Gas Water Heater Characteristics by Purchaser Table W4 New Electric Water Heater Characteristics by Purchaser Table W5 Gas Water Heater Efficiency Comparisons by Purchasing Factors Table W6 Fuel Type of New and Old Water Heater Table W7 Water Heater Purchaser Table W8 Receipt of Rebates Table W9 Reasons for New Water Heater Purchase Table W10 Characteristics of Old Water Heater Table W11 Selected Cross Tabulations Survey Data: Forced Air Furnaces...A-27 Table F1 Unique Forced Air Furnace Questions (Role of Efficiency in Purchasing Process) Table F2 Forced Air Furnace Comparisons by Purchasing Factors Table F3 Fuel Type of New and Old Forced Air Furnace Table F4 Forced Air Furnace Purchaser Table F5 Receipt of Rebates Table F6 Reasons for New Forced Air Furnace Purchase Survey Data: Central Air Conditioners...A-33 Table C1 Unique Central Air Conditioner Questions (Role of Efficiency in Purchasing Process) Table C2 Central Air Conditioner Purchaser and Efficiency Information Table C3 Likelihood of Central Air Conditioner Operation at Various Temperatures Table C4 Receipt of Rebates Table C5 Reasons for New Central Air Conditioner Purchase Table C6 Characteristics of Old Central Air Conditioner and Old Room Air Conditioner Survey Data: Lighting Products...A-39 Table L1 Population Statistics Outdoor Lighting Table L2a Torchère Penetration Rates and Purchase Rates Table L2b Breakdown of Torchère Lamps by Bulb Type Table L3 Barriers to Purchase of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs Table L4 Population Statistics Compact Fluorescent Lighting Table L5 Compact Fluorescent Lighting Information

8 Abstract What kind of lighting and appliances are Wisconsin residents purchasing? How are appliance purchases comparing over time? To answer these questions, the Energy Center of Wisconsin created an ongoing system to track appliance sales. This 1997 study is the latest in a series of periodic sales tracking studies that quantify residential appliance purchasing patterns in Wisconsin. The study surveyed more than 3000 people, asking them about recent purchases of five major appliances. For the first time, the study also included questions about purchases of lighting products such as compact fluorescent light bulbs and torchère lamps. Some of the major findings include: The average annual electricity use of all refrigerators continues to decline. The difference in annual operating cost between a refrigerator at the 25 th percentile (a refrigerator more energy efficient than 25 percent of units purchased) and a refrigerator at the 75 th percentile is $5.52 for topmounts and $7.28 for side-by-sides. Energy factors for electric and gas water heaters have remained relatively stable over the past four years. Just over 16 percent of all the households have at least one torchère within their home. Seventy-five percent of respondents are aware of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). CFL purchasers and aware nonpurchasers shop at similar stores, have had about equal exposure to CFL displays and in-store merchandising, and both believe that CFLs are relatively easy to find within the stores they regularly shop. i

9

10 Report Summary What kind of lighting products and new appliances are Wisconsin residents purchasing and how efficient are they? How are appliance purchases comparing over time? To help answer these questions, the Energy Center of Wisconsin created an ongoing system to track appliance sales. This 1997 study is the latest in a series of periodic sales tracking studies that quantify residential appliance purchasing patterns in Wisconsin. The study surveyed more than 3000 people, asking them about recent purchases of refrigerators, water heaters, room air conditioners, central air conditioners, and forced-air furnaces. For the first time, the study also included questions about purchases of lighting products such as compact fluorescent light bulbs and torchère lamps. Researchers then compared the results of the 1997 study to those of similar studies conducted in 1995 and 1993 and identified changes in appliance purchasing patterns in Wisconsin. Some of the major findings include: Refrigerators The majority of refrigerator purchasers are not aware of differences in efficiencies during the purchasing process. Despite an increase in size, the average annual electricity use of all refrigerators regardless of type (topmount, side-by-side, bottom-mount) continues to decline. The difference in annual operating cost (at $0.09/kWh) between a refrigerator at the 25 th percentile (a refrigerator that is more energy efficient than 25 percent of the units purchased) and a refrigerator at the 75 th percentile is only $5.52 for top mounts and $7.28 for side-by-sides. The efficiency distribution of purchases made by people who said they purchased a high efficiency refrigerator does not differ from the efficiency distribution of purchases made by people who said they were unaware of differences in refrigerator efficiency levels. Water Heaters The majority of water heater purchasers are not aware of differences in water heater efficiencies during the purchasing process. Energy factors (i.e., efficiency) for both electric and gas water heaters have remained relatively stable over the past four years. We found that the efficiency distribution of gas water heaters was bimodal: one group of purchases had energy factors around 0.57 and the other group had energy factors around We compared the annual operating cost of the average gas water heater in the first group (actual average energy factor of 0.567) to the average gas water in the second group (actual average energy factor of 0.617) and found that the difference in annual operating cost was $ The efficiency distribution of purchases made by people who said they purchased a high efficiency gas water heater did not differ from the efficiency distribution of purchases made by people who said they were unaware of differences in gas water heater efficiency levels. iii

11 Appliance Sales Tracking 1997 Forced Air Furnaces Fifty-five percent of purchasers said they did not know the efficiency rating of their new forced air furnace. Compared to 1995, there was a significant decline in the percentage of respondents who said they replaced the old forced air furnace because they wanted a more energy efficient unit. Over 40 percent of forced air furnace purchasers said their salesperson did not discuss efficiency and 54 percent said they were not aware of price differences between standard and high efficiency units. Central Air Conditioning Most respondents who purchased new central air conditioning units in the past year indicated they did not already have one. The probability that new purchasers will have the central air conditioning on during a peak period is higher today than it was four years ago. Forty-seven percent of respondents said their salesperson did not discuss efficiency and 73 percent said they were not aware of price differences between standard and high efficiency units. Lighting Ninety percent of respondents are aware of motion sensors for outdoor lighting, 28 percent currently have outdoor lights which are controlled by motion sensors, and seven percent have purchased motion sensors in the past 12 months. Just over 16 percent of all the households we surveyed have at least one torchère within their home and just over six percent of households purchased a torchère in the past year. Approximately 75 percent of all respondents said they are aware of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), 10.2 percent have purchased CFLs in the past year, and 22.1 percent currently have one or more CFLs installed either within or outside of their home. Almost 72 percent of the population has never purchased or installed a CFL within their household. CFL purchasers and aware nonpurchasers shop at similar stores, have had about equal exposure to CFL displays and in-store merchandising, and both believe that CFLs are relatively easy to find within the stores they regularly shop. The largest barrier to the purchase of CFLs among the almost 72 percent of the population who have never purchased or installed them is cost (22.7 percent of the residential population). iv

12 Introduction This report summarizes the results of the third wave of an ongoing appliance sales tracking initiative. It is a continuation of the work that began with the appliance distribution studies conducted in 1991(Wisconsin Center for Demand-Side Research, 1991a and 1991b) and appliance sales tracking studies conducted in 1993 and 1995 (Wisconsin Center for Demand-Side Research, 1994; Energy Center of Wisconsin, 1997a). As in the 1993 and 1995 surveys, we asked about appliance purchases from the previous 12 months. For the 1997 survey, the purchase period covered from June 1996 through July We report the results of the 1997 surveys and compare the results to the data collected in 1993 and For the first time, we also collected purchase and saturation information for three lighting products: outdoor security lighting, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and torchère lamps. The sales tracking project involved randomly calling a representative statewide sample of households to collect data on household purchasing patterns. In this study as well as previous studies, we collected appliance sales information directly from statewide random samples of customers for five appliances: refrigerators, water heaters, room air conditioners, central air conditioners, and forced-air furnaces. We then used the brand name and model number to look up appliance efficiency for refrigerators and water heaters in industry directories. Objectives Regular surveys of representative samples of appliance purchasers provide an ongoing system for sales tracking. The primary goals of the study were 1) to determine appliance purchase rates and decision making factors and compare them to the results of previous studies, 2) to understand the barriers to the purchase and installation of higher efficiency appliances, and 3) for lighting products, to determine annual purchase rates and the current saturation rate of a few lighting technologies. The overall objectives of the study included: Providing appliance purchase patterns in Wisconsin for five selected appliances for Identifying consumer purchasing patterns for energy-efficient appliances. Identifying and measuring barriers to the energy-efficient appliance purchasing process. Quantifying the purchase rate and saturation rate of new lighting technologies. Tracking purchase patterns over time by comparing the results of the current study with results of the 1993 and 1995 appliance purchasing studies. Methods Previous studies exposed limitations of sales data that is collected from retailers and manufacturers. The studies suggested the option of collecting energy efficiency information on new purchases directly from consumers. Energy efficiency levels and other key characteristics of current appliance sales could be estimated from a representative and substantial sample of purchasers. For appliance purchases, this study used survey methods identical to those followed in the 1993 and 1995 study. The basic approach was to conduct a random-digit-dial (RDD) screening survey with a representative sample of approximately 3300 residential households in the state of Wisconsin to identify households that had 1

13 Appliance Sales Tracking 1997 purchased one or more of five appliances in the past year. We then used additional appliance specific modules to ask the purchasers to provide information about the purchase process and, in the case of refrigerators and water heaters, to provide brand names and model numbers for their new appliances. The screener survey included questions to identify the respondent s gas and electric utilities, identify new appliance purchasers, and collect demographic information. Appliance purchasers were directed to the appropriate appliance specific module where they were asked more detailed questions about the appliance purchase. If a person purchased more than two new appliances with the past year, we limited the specific questions to two randomly selected appliances. We designed the screener survey and appliance specific surveys to: Identify new appliance purchasers. Request appliance brand names and model numbers (Refrigerators and Water Heaters). Provide insight into the appliance purchase process. Provide insight into potential barriers to the purchase of higher efficiency appliances. Collect demographic information. For the first time, this study included three survey modules related to lighting products. Only those respondents who said they had not purchased a major appliance refrigerator, water heater, central air conditioner, forced air furnace in the past year were asked the lighting questions. The first module collected purchase rate and saturation rate information for outdoor security lighting, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and torchère lamps. Respondents who indicated in the first module that they were aware of compact fluorescent light bulbs were directed to one of two follow-up modules. Respondents who purchased compact fluorescent light bulbs within the past 12 months were asked a set of questions related to the compact fluorescent light bulb purchasing process. Respondents who said they are aware of compact fluorescent light bulbs but have not purchased them in the past 12 months were also asked a set of questions related to past compact fluorescent light bulb purchases. We designed the lighting specific surveys to: Identify purchase and saturation rates for outdoor security lighting, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and torchère lamps. Provide insight into the compact fluorescent light bulb purchasing process. Provide insight into potential barriers to the purchase of compact fluorescent light bulbs. We also collected demographic information to assess the representativeness of the sample. 2

14 Method We purchased a total of 7200 RDD numbers in 12 random samples of 600 numbers each. Of these 7200 numbers, we considered 4610 to be valid sample points. In an RDD sample, some numbers are nonworking, some are businesses, and some are fax machines or other uses that are not considered valid residential household listings. For appliances, we used many of the survey questions that were used in the 1993 and 1995 studies. However, we added a series of new questions in each of the appliance specific modules for the purpose of better understanding the appliance purchase process and potential barriers to the purchase of high efficiency equipment. The tools we used which are similar to 1993 and 1995 included the screener survey, as well as survey modules for each of four appliances: refrigerators, water heaters, central air conditioners, and forced air furnaces. We designed the screener survey and appliance modules to identify appliance purchasers and then ask appliancespecific questions for not more than two types of appliances. We limited the appliance-specific questions to two appliance modules because we felt it was unreasonable to ask purchasers of three or more appliances detailed questions about all of their purchases. The screener survey contained questions regarding purchases and a limited amount of demographic information, while the individual appliance survey modules addressed purchasing behavior and potential barriers to the purchase of high efficiency equipment. We collected brand name and model number information only for refrigerators and water heaters. We did not collect this same information for room and central air conditioners because the 1993 and 1995 results showed a lack of success in collecting this information. We also did not collect brand names and model numbers for forced-air furnaces because of liability concerns associated with asking participants to remove the front cover of their furnace. As in the 1993 and 1995 surveys, in the 1997 survey we asked about appliance purchases from the previous 12 months. For the 1997 survey, the purchase period covered from June 1996 through July For the first time, we collected purchase information for three lighting products: outdoor security lighting, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and torchère lamps. In addition to purchase information, the survey included two detailed compact fluorescent lighting modules: one for respondents who purchased compact fluorescent light bulbs in the past year and another for respondents who were aware of compact fluorescent light bulbs but had not purchased one in the past year. Purchase Behavior The initial 1993 study concluded that information on respondents actual purchase decisions and the influence of various information sources on that decision should be collected as part of a sales tracking system. Forecasters, planners, and evaluators felt that this information, in addition to information on purchase rates, was crucial to future energy and demand projections and to program design considerations. Results from the 1993 and 1995 studies demonstrated that telephone surveys can be used to successfully collect this type of information. Given this success, we designed the 1997 survey to collect similar information to 1995 and 1993 while expanding the effort to include lighting technologies. This included: 3

15 Appliance Sales Tracking 1997 Identification of who (resident, landlord, other) made the appliance purchase Reason(s) for the purchase and the role of energy efficiency in the purchase process Identification and measurement of the barriers to the purchase of high efficiency appliances Whether a manufacturer, retailer, or contractor rebate was received Fuel type of new and old appliance (if applicable) Disposal of old appliance (if applicable) Brand name and model number (refrigerators and water heaters) Brand Name and Model Number One of the primary goals of the study was to determine the average efficiency level and range of efficiency levels for each of the appliances. In the survey, we collected brand names and model numbers and used this information to look up the energy efficiency of the appliances in various industry directories, including the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturer s (AHAM) Directory of Certified Refrigerators and Freezers, and the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association s (GAMA) Directory of Certified Efficiency Ratings for Residential Heating and Water Heating Equipment. Information used in the AHAM directory includes refrigerator type, defrost system, fresh food volume, freezer volume, total cubic feet and projected (estimated) annual kwh use. Information used in the GAMA directory includes water heater first hour rating (gallons), energy factor, rated storage volume (gallons), and recovery efficiency percentage. We suggested that respondents look for brand names and model numbers on their receipts or on the appliance s serial-number plate while the interviewers waited. Lighting Technologies Another primary goal of the study was (for the first time) to collect purchase rate, penetration rate, and purchase decision making information for three lighting technologies: outdoor security lighting, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and torchère lamps. In order to maintain consistency with the previous studies, only those respondents who did not purchase one of the four major appliances were asked the lighting questions. This was done in order to maintain a consistent methodology allowing for comparisons between studies. In the survey, we collected information regarding recent lighting purchases and then asked respondents more detailed information about the purchase and installation process. This included: Identification of who (resident, landlord, other) made the lighting purchase Reason(s) for the purchase and the role of energy efficiency in the purchase process Identification and measurement of the barriers which exist in energy-efficient lighting purchasing process Satisfaction with both past and present compact fluorescent lighting installations The likelihood that all respondents (regardless of past purchasing behavior) intended to purchase compact fluorescents in the future 4

16 Method Demographic Information The demographic information we collected included: Electric and gas utility names Ownership status (e.g., owner occupied, renter, etc.) Type of residence (e.g., single-family home, unit in a multifamily structure, etc.) Year residence built Years lived at residence Age of household members Size of residence Number of bedrooms Annual household income Number of residents Saturation and use of programmable set-back or clock thermostats Multiple Appliance Purchasers Because respondents could have purchased all four major appliances in the past year, we limited detailed questioning to a maximum of two randomly-selected appliances. However, we collected general purchase rate information for all four appliances as well as room air conditioners. Collecting detailed information for a maximum of two appliances was also consistent with the data collection in the 1995 and 1993 studies. In order to be consistent with past studies, the lighting questions were only asked of respondents who had not purchased one of the four major appliances (refrigerators, water heaters, forced air furnaces, central air conditioners) in the past year. 5

17

18 Results Response Rates From the valid sample of 4610 phone numbers, we completed a total of 3285 telephone screeners for an overall response rate of 71 percent. The refusal rate was 13 percent and the telephone numbers called 10 times with no contact were 12 percent. Situations where the respondent has either a language or hearing problem represented four percent of the valid sample. The valid sample was determined by subtracting 835 out-of-sample numbers (e.g., business numbers, fax numbers, etc.) and 1755 disconnected numbers or number changes from the starting sample of Number of Appliance Purchases Of the 3285 completed telephone screeners, 511 respondents had purchased one of the five appliances within the last year. One hundred thirty eight respondents indicated that they had purchased two or more of the five appliances with the last year. We identified 864 total new appliance purchases through the screening survey. The results show that the number of new purchases varies significantly across the five target appliances. A total of 115 respondents reported purchasing a central air conditioner in the past 12 months, while 270 respondents reported purchasing refrigerators, and 226 reported purchasing water heaters. The screening survey also identified 117 respondents who had purchased forced air furnaces and 136 who had purchased room air conditioners. Unlike the other four major appliances, we did not ask respondents detailed questions about room air conditioner purchases. Because we only asked purchasers of three or more of the major four appliances (refrigerators, water heaters, forced air furnaces, central air conditioners) detailed questions about two of these appliances, we completed 658 appliance-specific surveys. We did not complete 70 appliance-specific surveys. Table 1: Annual appliance purchases in the past year* Number of responses Percent Number of responses Percent Number of responses Percent Refrigerator Water heater Room air conditioner Central air conditioner Forced-air furnace * past year is April 1, 1992, to May 31, 1993, for the 1993 study. Past year is March 1, 1994, to April 30, 1995, for the 1995 study. Past year is June 1, 1996, to July 31, 1997, for the 1997 study. 7

19 Appliance Sales Tracking 1997 Table 2: Breakdown of appliance-specific surveys Purchasers identified Survey completions Appliances not asked about* Refrigerator Water heater Room air conditioner 136 Central air conditioner Forced-air furnace Total purchases identified * appliance-specific questions were not asked because respondent had purchased three or more appliances, and only two appliance-specific surveys were completed. Household Demographic and Appliance-Specific Data Result tables for household demographics and each of the four appliances are in the Appendix. Data Quality We investigated three key data quality issues: the accuracy of brand name and model number information and the ability to use this information to find the applicable appliance efficiency data, the consistency of purchase rate information with the 1995 and 1993 studies, and the representativeness of the data. Brand Name and Model Number The collection of brand name and model number information was an important component of the study for refrigerators and water heaters. We collected this information in two steps. First, customers had to give the interviewers a specific brand name and model number. Second, the survey coders had to be able to find the brand name and model number in the appropriate appliance directory. The success rate in getting respondents to tell the interviewer a brand name and model number was 74 percent for refrigerators and 63 percent for water heaters. Table 3 illustrates the success rate in actually finding the energy efficiency information from the brand name and model number reported by respondents. We found refrigerator efficiency information for 64 percent of the respondents who were asked about their refrigerator purchase and water heater efficiency for 56 percent of the respondents. 8

20 Results Table 3: Breakdown of appliance-specific survey completions Number of completed surveys Number reporting brand name & model number 1 Brand name & model number as a percent of all completions Number of brand names & model numbers with efficiency information 2 Brand name & model number efficiency information as a percent of all completions Brand name & model number efficiency information as a percent of number reporting brand 1 2 Refrigerators % % 8 Water heaters % % Total % count includes all respondents who gave a specific brand name and model number. count is the number of respondents who gave a specific brand name and model number that was ultimately found in the applicable efficiency directory. Purchase Rates Appliances The purchase rates were 8.2 percent for new refrigerators, 6.9 percent for water heaters, and 4.1 percent for room air conditioners (see Table 4). Forced-air furnaces had a purchase rate of 3.6 percent, and central air conditioners had a 3.5 percent purchase rate. Table 4: Annual appliance purchase rates (percent)* Refrigerator 3 7.8% 6.9% 8. Water heater 7.8% 6.9% 6.9% Room air conditioner 2, Central air conditioner 2,3 2.4% Forced-air furnace 1,2 4.8% Total sample size * purchase rate=number of appliance purchases identified in the screening survey divided by the total number of screening surveys completed significant differences between the 1993 and 1995 surveys at the 0.05 level. significant differences between the 1993 and 1997 surveys at the 0.05 level. significant differences between the 1995 and 1997 surveys at the 0.05 level. Awareness, Purchase and Saturation Rates Lighting The awareness rate, purchase rate, and saturation rate for compact fluorescent light bulbs are outlined in Table 5. The table illustrates that 75.2 percent of residential households are aware of CFLs, 10.2 percent have pur- 9

21 Appliance Sales Tracking 1997 chased CFLs in the past year, 22.1 percent currently have one or more CFLs installed either within or outside of their home, and 28.2 percent have at least one CFL installed presently or had at least one CFL installed in the past. Table 5: Compact Fluorescent Purchase/Saturation Rates Percent of Households Aware of CFLs 75.2 Purchased CFL is past year 10.2 Currently have CFL installed within or outside of home 22.1 Currently have CFL installed within or outside of home or have had CFLs installed in past 28.2 The purchase rate and saturation rate of torchère lamps is outlined in Table 6. As illustrated in the table, 16.2 percent of residential households have at least one torchère within their household the average number of torchère lamps per household is Additionally, 6.5 percent of residential households have purchased at least one torchère in the past year the average number of torchère lamps purchased by these households in the past year is Table 6: Torchère Lamp Purchase/Saturation Rates Percent of Households Average Number Per Household Have at least one torchère within household Have purchased at least one torchère is past year As illustrated in Table 7, almost 90 percent of respondents are aware of motion sensors for outdoor lighting, just over 28 percent have outdoor lights which are controlled by motion sensors, and 6.6 percent purchased a motion sensor in the past year. We also found that nearly 40 percent of residential households leave outdoor lights on at night for appearance, safety, or security and that over 60 percent of this group (24.1 percent of the population) leave these lights on all night long. 10

22 Results Table 7: Outdoor Security Lighting Purchase/Saturation Rates Percent of Households Aware of motion sensors for outdoor lighting 89.5 Have outdoor lights controlled by motion sensors 28.2 Purchased a motion sensor in the past year 6.6 Leave lights on at night for appearance, safety or security 39.9 Leave lights on all night 24.1 Leave lights on part of night 15.8 Representativeness of the Data The third key issue regarding data quality was the representativeness of the data. If all sampled customers had completed a survey, the sampling methodology would have resulted in representative data with a given sampling error. Despite a response rate of 71 percent, potential systematic error was introduced because we did not complete screening surveys for all sampled households, and because varying proportions of customers provided brand name and model number information. The results of this study could be biased if nonrespondents prove to be different from respondents. To examine the representativeness of the 1997 survey data, we compared the results of the screening survey to 1990 census data and data from the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW). The screening survey included 10 sociodemographic variables that could be compared to 1990 census data and two variables that could be compared to PSCW data. Overall, the 1997 survey appears to be reasonably representative of residential households in the state of Wisconsin, although a few key groups are over- or under-represented (Tables 8 and 9). The results showed the following: Electric Utility: Customers from Wisconsin Power & Light Company were slightly over-represented and Wisconsin Electric Power Company customers were slightly under-represented. The difference between the screening survey data and data from the PSCW were never different by more than 2.5 percentage points (Table 8). Gas Utility: Customers from Wisconsin Power & Light Company were over-represented while Wisconsin Natural Gas Company customers were under-represented. Wisconsin Natural Gas Company has been combined with the Wisconsin Electric name. Gas customers of Wisconsin Energy may refer to their gas company as Wisconsin Natural Gas Company, Wisconsin Southern Gas Company, or Wisconsin Electric Power Company. It is difficult to determine how these mergers have impacted customer recall (Table 8). Other demographic comparisons included the following characteristics (Table 9): Owner/Renter: The 1997 survey slightly overrepresented the number of people who own their home. In the 1997 survey, 77 percent of respondents owned their homes, whereas the 1990 Census data indicated that 67 percent owned their homes. Among the variables examined, this difference of ten percent was the largest difference between the screening survey and the Census data. 11

23 Appliance Sales Tracking 1997 Number of Bedrooms: The average number of bedrooms in the screening survey was 2.88 compared to 2.68 in the Census data. A breakdown showed there were slightly more four-, six-, and seven or more-bedroom homes in the screening survey and slightly fewer one-, two- and three-bedroom homes. Years Lived at the Residence: 1997 survey results exhibited slightly longer average years of residence than the Census data. We found 13 years of residence in the screening survey compared to 10.8 percent in the Census data. Median Year Structure Was Built: Screening survey results were not significantly different from the Census data. The screening survey median was 1967 and the Census median was Number of Full-time Residents: The average number of full-time residents per household in the screening survey was This compares to 2.61 in the Census data. Income: The average income was considerably higher in the 1997 survey than the 1990 census data. We did not adjust 1990 income data for inflation. Data in the 1990 Census was based on total family income for Overall, the differences between income categories were small and most can be attributed to real changes since The results of this comparison suggest that, on the whole, the screening survey demographic information compared favorable to the 1990 census data and past studies. Most of the differences were minor and probably reflected actual sociodemographic changes, such as the increasing average income. The result most likely to represent a survey bias was the over representation of single-family homes, since telephone surveys often overrepresent this group. However, even this difference was not substantial. 12

24 Results Table 8: Comparison of the screening survey to statewide data 1 on proportion of households in major investor-owned utility service areas (percent of households) Received electric service from: Statewide 2 Madison Gas & Electric Northern States Power Superior Power and Light Company Wisconsin Electric Power Company Wisconsin Power & Light Company Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Sample Size ,752,736 Received natural gas service from: 4 Madison Gas & Electric Northern States Power Wisconsin Gas Company Wisconsin Natural/Wisconsin Electric Wisconsin Power & Light Company Wisconsin Public Service Corporation Sample Size ,254, Percentages shown compare the largest six gas and electric utilities (e.g., Madison Gas and Electric customers represent 5.5 percent of all screening surveys completed with customers of the six major electric utilities and 5.9 percent of all residential customers who receive electric service from one of the six major electric utilities). Statewide data for major electric utilities was provided by RUC (Residential Electric bills, Winter ) and data for major gas utilities was provided by Marty Jelinski of the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin In the 1997 survey, thirteen percent of respondents mentioned other electric utilities (e.g., municipal, cooperatives, etc.) and four percent said they did not know who their electric utility is. In the 1997 survey, six percent of respondents mentioned other gas utilities (e.g., municipal, cooperatives, etc.) and six percent said they did not know who their gas utility is. Significant difference between screening survey and statewide data at the 0.05 level using standard proportions testing. 13

25 Appliance Sales Tracking 1997 Table 9: Comparison of the screening survey to 1990 census data Ownership status (n=3099) Own/buying 74%* Rent/lease 2* Number of bedrooms (n=3127) * %* %* %* 5 or more 3.9% Average number of bedrooms (n=3066)* Average time lived at residence (years) * (n=3062) census (n=3081) 7* 2* (n=3058) 0.* 7.* 26.* 47.* %* 2.85 (n=3058)* 13.0* (n=3066) (n=3285) 7* 23%* (n=3285) 0.* 6.4%* 25.3%* 47.* * 2.88 (n=3251)* 13.0* (n=3138) (n=1,822,118) 6 33% (n=1,822,111) % % % 2.68 (n=1,822,111) 10.8 (n=1,822,111) Median year structure was built (years) (n=2600) 1965 (n=2461) 1967 (n=2682) 1960 (n=1,955,714) Number of full-time residents 4 (n=3056) or more 18.3%* 34.* 17.4% 16.4% 8.* 3.* 1. Average number of full-time residents * (n=3048) Gross annual household income 6 (n=2513) less than $10,000 9.* $10,000-$14, $15,000-$19, * $20,000-$29, $30,000-$39, * $40,000-$49, % $50,000-$74, % $75,000-$99, over $100, Average gross annual household income ($) 7 35,296 (n=3024) 18.* 34.* * 8.* 3.4%* 2.* (n=3279) 18.4%* 35.3% 15.* 17.4%* 7.3% 4.* 2.* (n=1,824,252) % 2.4% * (3024) 2.77* (3255) 2.61 (n=1,824,252) (n=2448) 7.* 8.4% 9.9% %* 15.8%* 5.9%* 3.* 38,993 (n=2193) 6.* 6.* 8.4% 15.9%* * 19.9%* 7.4%* 3.9%* 42,373 (n=1,824,252) % 9.4% % 12.4% ,180 1 both the census data and the screening survey averages were calculated by giving responses of five or more bedrooms a value of 5. 14

26 Results census data were reported in categories. Census categories were converted to a single number prior to calculating the average number of years (e.g., 1989 to March 1990 was set equal to , 1985 to 1988 was set equal to , 1980 to 1984 was set equal to 1982, 1970 to 1979 was set equal to , 1960 to 1969 was set equal to , before 1960 was set equal to 1959). For the oldest category, both the census data and screening survey averages were calculated by assigning responses that indicated a person had lived at a particular residence for 31 years or more a value of 31. This was done because census data were collected in 1990 and the final category was moved into residence before 1960 (a period of 31 years or more). census data included both occupied and vacant units. Additionally, census data were collected in 1990 and screening survey data were collected in census data were reported as Persons in Household. both the census data and screening survey averages were calculated by assigning households with seven or more persons a value of 7 when calculating the average. the 1993 survey collected 1992 household income, the 1995 survey collected 1994 household income and the 1997 survey collected 1996 household income. Census data reported is 1989 Household Income. screening survey data were only reported in categories. Income categories were assigned the midpoint of each range (e.g., $10,000 was set equal to $10,000; $10,000 - $14,999 was set equal to $12,500; $15,000 - $19,999 was set equal to $17,500; $20,000 - $29,999 was set equal to $25,000; $30,000 - $39,999 was set equal to $35,000; $40,000 - $49,999 was set equal to $45,000; $50,000 - $74,999 was set equal to $62,500; $75,000 - $99,999 was set equal to $87,500; $100,000 or more was set equal to $100,000). * significant difference between survey and the 1990 Census data at the 0.05 level. 15

27

28 Discussion We collected four types of information for the 1997 study: household demographics, appliance purchasing behaviors, appliance brand name and model number, and (for the first time) purchasing behaviors for several residential lighting technologies. Where possible, we compared the results to both the 1995 and 1993 studies. Response Rates The 1993, 1995 and 1997 studies had response rates of about 71 percent. Data Quality Brand Name and Model Number We found refrigerator efficiency information for 64 percent of the respondents who were asked about their refrigerator purchase and water heater efficiency information for 56 percent of the respondents. These results are somewhat lower for refrigerators (73 percent in 1995) and somewhat higher for water heaters (45 percent in 1995). Purchase Rates Appliance purchases made within the past year were similar between 1995 and 1997, with the exception of purchases of room air conditioners and central air conditioners. Significantly more room air conditioner and central air conditioner purchases were reported for percent and 3.5 percent than were reported for percent and 2.2 percent, respectively. Representativeness of the Data When we analyzed the representativeness of the data for electric utilities, customers from Wisconsin Power & Light Company were slightly over-represented and Wisconsin Electric Power Company customers were slightly under-represented. The difference between the screening survey data and data from the PSCW were never different by more than 2.5 percentage points. And in looking at the gas utility data, we found that customers from Wisconsin Power & Light Company were over-represented while Wisconsin Natural Gas Company customers were under-represented. Wisconsin Natural Gas Company has been combined with the Wisconsin Electric name. Gas customers of Wisconsin Energy may refer to their gas company as Wisconsin Natural Gas Company, Wisconsin Southern Gas Company, or Wisconsin Electric Power Company. It is difficult to determine how these mergers have impacted customer recall. With the exception of Wisconsin Natural Gas Company, we can attribute the relatively small differences between the screener data and PSCW data to two factors. First, customers may not always know who their electric utility and gas utility is. This can be especially problematic for customers who receive gas and electric service from different utilities or who reside on the border of a given utility s service area. Second, the customer counts provided by each utility to the PSCW may include slightly different definitions for determining the residential customer population. 17

29 Appliance Sales Tracking 1997 Household Demographics As part of the screening survey, we collected some basic demographic information, in addition to the respondent s electric and gas utility. The distribution across electric utilities in 1997 is almost identical to the distribution reported in the 1995 study. With the exception of Wisconsin Natural Gas Company and Wisconsin Power & Light Company, the distribution across gas utilities is also very close to the results observed in 1995 (Table D1). Single-Family versus Multifamily Households Results show that 77 percent of all survey respondents own their own single-family home, and 23 percent rent or lease their home (Table D2). This suggests that the majority of survey respondents represent older, more established households. Respondents residing in single-family households reported their homes to be an average of 40 years old built in 1957 and approximately 1767 square feet in size (Table D3). In contrast, residents in multifamily housing reported their buildings to be 34 years old on average built in 1963 and their dwelling unit to be substantially smaller, at approximately 1207 square feet. Reports from multifamily households also indicate they have, on average, 2.07 bedrooms, in comparison with the 3.14 reported for single-family units. On average, residents of single-family households have lived in their homes longer than multifamily households, 14.8 years versus 6.6 years, respectively. Residents of single-family homes also have larger households and draw significantly greater annual incomes. The housing characteristics reported in Table D3 show significant differences between single-family and multifamily units. However, these results are reported for all survey respondents, regardless of whether they own their residence. This leads to the possibility that tenants who did not know accurate information about their building may have used their best guess instead. Given this, we recalculated Table D3 using responses provided by homeowners only. Table D4 shows these results. Although it is not appropriate to compare the results reported by all screener respondents with those reported by the homeowners, it is instructive to look at the characteristics of homeowners in different types of housing. Restricting these analyses to only homeowners results in a substantial decrease in the number of cases in the multifamily column. The number of cases represented in the single-family column decreased as well, but less dramatically, indicating that most people who are homeowners own single-family residences. Building information reported by homeowners shows that the average age of the buildings is similar, regardless of whether it is a single-family or multifamily building. Multifamily units are smaller than single-family homes both in terms of square footage and number of bedrooms. On average, residents in single-family homes have lived there longer than those in multifamily homes, have more children, are less likely to be 65 years old or older, and have slightly higher incomes. Programmable and Setback thermostats We asked all screener respondents whether their main heating and cooling system was controlled by a programmable setback or clock thermostat. We defined a programmable setback or clock thermostat as a 18