ECW Report Number 234-1 Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 Residential Survey March 2002
Program Evaluation 234-1 Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 Residential Survey March 2002 Prepared by Research Into Action, Inc. P.O. Box 12312 Portland, OR 97212 503.287.9136 Contact: Jane S. Peters Surveys fielded by Opinion Dynamics Corporation 2916 Market Place Madison, WI 53719 608.276.9880 Prepared for 455 Science Drive, Ste. 200 Madison, WI 53711-1076 Phone: 608.238.4601 Fax: 608.238.8733 Email: ecw@ecw.org www.ecw.org
Copyright 2002 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) 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 (b) 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 Bobbi Tannenbaum Energy Center of Wisconsin
Contents Abstract...i Report Summary...iii Energy Guide and ENERGY STAR...iii Appliance Comparisons...iii Refrigerators...iv Water Heaters...v Forced-air Furnaces...v Central Air Conditioning...v Clothes Washers...vi Lighting...vi Programmable Thermostats...vi Introduction...1 Objectives...1 Method...3 Survey Development...3 Major Appliance Purchase Behavior...5 Multiple Appliance Purchasers...6 Brand Name and Model Number...6 Lighting Technologies...6 Demographic Information...7 Results...9 Response Rates...9 Number of Appliance Purchases...9 Household Demographic and Appliance-Specific Data...10 Data Quality...10 Brand Name and Model Number...10 Purchase Rates Appliances...10 Representativeness of the Data...11 Discussion...15 Response Rates...15 Who is Purchasing Appliances?...15 Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents...15 Appliances Purchase Rates...16
Energy Guide and ENERGY STAR Awareness...18 Analysis of Efficient Appliance Purchases...21 Efficient Appliances...21 Awareness of Efficiency Differences while Selecting a New Appliance...22 Purchasers Reporting Seeking New Appliance due to Desire for Increased Efficiency...22 Purchasers Selecting Specific Unit Due to an Efficiency-Related Reason...23 Efficient Appliances among Purchasers Better Informed about Energy Efficiency...23 Self-reported Efficiency and ENERGY STAR Compliance among Purchasers Better Informed about Energy Efficiency...23 Over-reporting of High Efficiency and ENERGY STAR Compliance...24 Major Appliance Purchasing Behaviors...25 Refrigerators...25 New and Replaced Refrigerator Characteristics...25 Disposition of Replaced Refrigerator...25 Reason for Purchasing New Refrigerator...26 Refrigerator Efficiency...26 Water Heaters...29 New and Replaced Water Heater Characteristics...29 Reason for Purchasing New Water Heater...29 Water Heater Efficiency...29 Forced-air Furnaces...30 New and Replaced Forced-air Furnace Characteristics...30 Reason for Purchasing New Forced-air Furnace...30 Forced-air Furnace Efficiency...30 Central Air Conditioners...31 New and Replaced Central Air Conditioner Characteristics...31 Reason for Purchasing Central Air Conditioner...31 Central Air Conditioner Efficiency...31 Clothes Washers...31 New and Replaced Clothes Washer Characteristics...32 Reason for Purchasing Clothes Washer...32 Clothes Washer Efficiency...32 Lighting Purchasing Behaviors...33 Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs...33 Torchiere Lamps...35 Recessed Lighting...35 Programmable and Setback Thermostats...35
Contents References...37 Appendix A: Demographics...A-1 Appendix B: ENERGY STAR...B-1 Appendix C: Refrigerators...C-1 Appendix D: Water Heaters...D-1 Appendix E: Forced Air Furnaces... E-1 Appendix F: Central Air Conditioners... F-1 Appendix G: Clothes Washers...G-1 Appendix H: Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs...H-1 Appendix I: Floor Lamps... I-1 Appendix J: Recessed Lighting Fixtures...J-1 Appendix K: Analysis of Efficient Appliance Purchases...K-1
Tables and Figures Table 1: Appliance-specific purchases and surveys...9 Table 2: Breakdown of appliance-specific survey completions...10 Table 3: Annual appliance purchase rates...11 Table 4: Comparison of surveyed households with 2000 census data...12 Table 5: Demographics and purchases of major appliances...16 Table 6: Appliance purchase rates by ownership status...17 Table 7: Appliance purchase rates by type of structure...18 Table 8: Information on the Energy Guide label...19 Table 9: Meaning of the ENERGY STAR logo...20 Table 10: Accurate understanding of Energy Guide and ENERGY STAR by purchasing/shopping experience...20 Table 11: Influence of ENERGY STAR designation on appliance purchases...21 Figure 1: Trends in refrigerator energy use, average size, and features...28 Table 12: Compact fluorescent light bulbs...33 Table 13: Barriers to the purchase of compact fluorescent light bulbs...34
Abstract What kind of appliances and lighting are Wisconsin residents purchasing? How do appliance purchases compare over time? To answer these questions, the Energy Center of Wisconsin created an ongoing system to track appliance sales. This 2001 study is the latest in a series of periodic sales tracking studies that quantify residential appliance purchasing patterns in Wisconsin. The study surveyed 3,000 people, asking them about recent purchases of five major appliances. The study also included questions about purchases of compact fluorescent light bulbs and torchiere lamps. The study included questions about ENERGY STAR awareness and its influence on energy efficient appliance purchases. Some of the major findings include: Twenty-two percent of Wisconsin residents are aware of and have an adequate understanding of the federal ENERGY STAR program. Respondents who have purchased or shopped for an appliance or electronic equipment in the past year are significantly more aware of the ENERGY STAR and Energy Guide labels than those who have not shopped or purchased. While there has been a definite movement toward larger refrigerators and refrigerators with more features during the past six years, annual refrigerator electricity use has declined. Energy factors (i.e., efficiency) for both electric and gas water heaters have remained relatively stable over the past six years. The probability that new central air conditioning purchasers will have the unit on during a peak period exceeds the probability in previous years. One-quarter of new clothes washers were reported to be front loading, which are more efficient than top loading clothes washers. Seventy-three percent of all respondents said they are aware of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs). The largest barrier to the purchase of CFLs among the 5 of the population who have never purchased or installed them is lack of awareness, which accounts for 27% of the residential population (5 of those respondents who have never purchased or installed CFLs). i
Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 ii
Report Summary What kind of new appliances and lighting products are Wisconsin residents purchasing and how efficient are they? How do appliance purchases compare over time? To help answer these questions, the Energy Center of Wisconsin created an ongoing system to track appliance sales. This 2001 study is the latest in a series of periodic sales tracking studies that quantify residential appliance purchasing patterns in Wisconsin. The study surveyed 3000 people, asking them about recent purchases of refrigerators, water heaters, forced-air furnaces, central air conditioners, and clothes washers. The study also included questions about purchases of compact fluorescent light bulbs and torchiere lamps. Some questions addressed ENERGY STAR awareness and its influence on energy efficient appliance purchases. Researchers then compared, as appropriate, the results of the 2001 study to those of similar studies conducted in 1999, 1997, 1995, and 1993 and identified changes in appliance purchasing patterns in Wisconsin. Some of the major findings include: Energy Guide and ENERGY STAR Statewide awareness of the federal ENERGY STAR program has increased since 1999. Twenty-two percent of all survey respondents have an adequate understanding of ENERGY STAR. Nearly one-fifth of these informed respondents had spontaneously named ENERGY STAR when asked what labels or logos about energy they had seen or heard of. The other respondents could adequately define it when asked explicitly about ENERGY STAR and when the appearance of the logo was described. Respondents who have purchased or shopped for an appliance or electronic equipment in the past year are significantly more aware of ENERGY STAR than those who had not shopped or purchased (27% ENERGY STAR awareness among the former group compared with 16% among the latter group). Half of all survey respondents (47%) have an adequate understanding of Energy Guide labels. Respondents who have purchased or shopped for an appliance or electronic equipment in the past year are significantly more likely to have an adequate understanding of Energy Guide labels than those who had not shopped or purchased (5 Energy Guide understanding among the former group compared with 4 among the latter group). These percentages are roughly unchanged since 1999. Energy Guide and ENERGY STAR awareness increases with education and awareness of Energy Guide increases with income. Awareness of ENERGY STAR is lowest for households with annual average income less than $15,000, but is roughly the population average for all other income categories. Appliance Comparisons Nearly 9 of furnace purchasers, half of purchasers of refrigerators and water heaters, one-third of clothes washer purchasers, and one-fifth of central air conditioner purchasers bought high efficiency units. Respondents who had an accurate understanding of the Energy Guide label or the ENERGY STAR logo were only slightly more likely than the population at large to purchase a high efficiency appliance. iii
Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 About 9 of all purchasers described their appliances as high efficiency, and about 8 described them as ENERGY STAR compliant. Purchasers claiming high efficiency were no more likely than the population at large to have purchased high efficiency. The minority of purchasers who did not describe their appliances in these terms were more likely than those who did to accurately answer the question about efficiency. Purchasers of forced-air furnaces and central air conditioners were more likely than purchasers of other appliances to report that sales staff had told them that different efficiency levels were available (about 5 of furnace and air conditioner purchasers, compared with about 30 to 4 of purchasers of the other appliances.) However, purchasers of the other appliances were more likely to report that even though sales staff did not mention efficiency, they already knew about it or learned about it while shopping. Consequently, about 7 of purchasers of all appliances knew about efficiency levels while shopping. Across all appliances, among sales staff that mentioned energy efficiency, about one-third encouraged the purchase of a high efficiency unit. Another ten percent said that the unit they were recommending for other reasons was also high efficiency. About five percent of sales staff discouraged the purchase of a high efficiency unit or said that everything on the market was high efficiency. The remaining half of sales staff made other comments, such as explaining the concept of energy efficiency. For refrigerators only, purchasers who spoke with sales staff about energy efficiency bought units having a higher average efficiency than purchasers who did not speak with sales staff about efficiency. This finding did not hold for water heaters, forced-air furnaces, central air conditioners, or clothes washers. About 1 of purchasers of forced-air furnaces, central air conditioners, and clothes washers said that one of the reasons they sought to replace their old appliance was because they wanted a more energy-efficient unit. Smaller proportion of purchasers of refrigerators and water heaters gave this response. These percentages are comparable to those in 1999 and 1997. Nonetheless, purchasers with this reason for replacing their old appliances were no more likely than other purchasers to purchase high efficiency units. Just under one-fifth of purchasers said that they selected the specific unit that they did, rather than one of the other models they saw, because of an efficiency-related reason. Nonetheless, purchasers who made the selection on this basis were no more likely than other purchasers to purchase high efficiency units. Among purchasers who said that the unit that they purchased was ENERGY STAR compliant and that this designation was very or somewhat influential in their decision to purchase the unit, a large proportion had not, in fact, purchased a high efficiency unit. The proportion of efficient units among these respondents was: refrigerators 69%, water heaters 5, forced-air furnaces 4, central air conditioners 10, and clothes washers 28%. Refrigerators Purchases of side-by-side and bottom mount freezer models continue to increase relative to top mounts. Sideby-sides increased from 1 of all purchases in 1993, to 27% in 2001. Bottom mounts increased from three percent of all purchases in 1993, to eight percent in 1999 and 2001. On average, refrigerators with bottom mount freezers exceeded the current standard for bottom-mounts by 2, side-by-sides exceeded the standard for side-by-sides by 1, and top mounts exceeded the standard for topmounts by 1. The percentages by which the average bottom-mount and side-by-side units have exceeded standards have not varied much since 1997, while that for top-mount units has steadily increased. iv
Report Summary While there has been a definite movement toward larger refrigerators and refrigerators with more features (such as through-the-door ice and water) during the past eight years, the average annual electricity use of all refrigerators has declined during this same period. This fact suggests that increased features and size don t necessarily mean higher average energy use. Respondents who said that a salesperson spoke with them about energy efficiency levels were significantly more likely to purchase an energy efficient unit than respondents who did not speak with a salesperson about efficiency levels. The refrigerators of the former group were an average of 18% over the standard, compared with an average of 9% for the latter group. (This finding for salesperson mention of efficiency did not hold for any of the other appliances.) Water Heaters Energy factors (i.e., efficiency) for both electric and gas water heaters have remained relatively stable over the past six years, although electric water heater efficiencies appear to be declining slightly. The market share of gas water heaters did not change from 1999 to 2001. The market share of propane, bottled gas, or LP grew at the expense of electric water heaters, whose market share fell. Over one-quarter of new water heaters are larger than the units they replaced. Forced-air Furnaces About sixty percent of purchasers said they did not know the efficiency rating of their new forced-air furnace. Of the respondents who said they knew the efficiency level of their new forced-air furnace, 87% gave an efficiency rating of 9 or higher and 1 gave an efficiency rating of below 9, the cut-off for high efficiency. Both furnaces using natural gas and propane, bottled gas, or LP gained market share in 2001. Electric furnaces and furnaces using fuel oil lost market share. Central Air Conditioning About one-quarter of respondents who purchased new central air conditioning (CAC) units in the past year were replacing previous units. Over one-third said they did not previously have a CAC, one-tenth said they previously had a room air conditioner, and about one-quarter were purchasing units for their new residences. The probability that new purchasers will have the central air conditioning on during a peak period when temperatures are between 85 and 95 degrees Fahrenheit is higher in 2001 than any time previously. Seventy percent of respondents would have the CAC on at 85 to 90 degrees, and 86% would have it on at 90 to 95 degrees. Nearly 9 would have the CAC on when the temperature is over 95 degrees, comparable to that of 1997, but higher than all other years. Forty-six percent of respondents said their salesperson discussed efficiency with them. This is comparable to that of furnace purchasers but much higher than for the other appliances. v
Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 Clothes Washers Three-quarters of new clothes washers were reported to be top loading while 2 were said to be front loading, up from 15% in 1999. Front loading washers use less water and have more energy efficient motors than top loading washers. Lighting Seventy-three percent of all respondents said they are aware of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), comparable to 1999. Twenty-six percent of respondents have purchased CFLs in the past year, up from 1 in 1999. Forty-three percent of respondents currently have one or more CFLs installed either within or outside of their home, up from 26%. Fifty percent of the population have never purchased or installed CFLs, a proportion that has steadily declined from 7 in 1997. Over half of these households are unaware of CFLs. About 2 of respondents have a torchiere lamp. About 15% of households have purchased these torchieres in the past year. About one-fifth of recent purchasers and 7% of all purchasers said that their torchiere was ENERGY STAR compliant. About two-thirds of the purchasers saying their torchieres were ENERGY STAR later reported a bulb type inconsistent with an ENERGY STAR designation. About 1 of all respondents reported that their torchieres had fluorescent bulbs. Half of all homes have recessed lighting fixtures. Programmable Thermostats About 3 of households use a programmable thermostat to control their heating and or cooling loads. More than half of these households (18%) use it in both the heating and cooling seasons, 9% use it in the heating season only, and use it in the cooling season only. The proportion of households using programmable thermostats had increased steadily from 19% in 1997. vi
Introduction This report summarizes the results of the fourth wave of an ongoing appliance sales tracking initiative. It is a continuation of the work that began with appliance distribution studies conducted in 1991 and appliance sales tracking studies conducted in 1993, 1995, and 1997. As in the previous four tracking studies, we asked about appliance purchases during the previous 12 months. For the 2001 survey, the purchase period covered from October 1999 through September 2001. We report the results of the 2001 surveys and, as appropriate, compare the results to the previously collected data. We collected general information about ENERGY STAR and appliance purchase information for clothes washers, both lines of questioning that were initiated in 1999. We also collected purchase and saturation information for compact fluorescent light bulbs, torchiere lamps, and recessed lighting fixtures. The sales tracking project involved randomly calling a representative statewide sample of households to collect data on household purchasing patterns. We obtained detailed information about their appliance purchases from respondents who had purchased refrigerators, water heaters, forced-air furnaces, central air conditioners, and clothes washers in the previous 12 months. We asked respondents who purchased refrigerators and water heaters to provide the brand name and model number, which we subsequently used to look up the unit s efficiency in industry databases. 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) 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 six selected appliances for 2000-2001. Quantifying consumer awareness of the federal ENERGY STAR program. 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, 1995, 1997, and 1999 appliance purchasing studies. 1
Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 2
Method The basic approach was to conduct a random-digit-dial (RDD) survey with a representative sample of 3000 households in the state of Wisconsin to identify households that had purchased one or more of five appliances in the past year. We pursued detailed questioning with respondents that had purchased appliances. Respondents purchasing appliances completed questions for each of appliance purchased, up to a total of three appliances. We asked all respondents except those answering detailed questions about three appliances a series of lighting questions. The survey concluded by gathering respondents demographic characteristics. We purchased a total of 11,834 RDD numbers. Of these 11,834 numbers, we considered 5,766 to be valid sample points. In an RDD sample, some numbers are non-working, some are businesses, and some are fax machines or other uses that are not considered valid residential household listings. As in past studies, the survey was comprised of numerous modules. The survey asked about the use of programmable thermostats, awareness and understanding of the Energy Guide and ENERGY STAR labels, and purchase and shopping behaviors during the 12 months prior to the survey. Separate modules for refrigerators, water heaters, forced-air furnaces, central air conditioners, and clothes washers explored the respondents purchase behaviors and potential barriers to the purchase of high efficiency equipment. We also collected purchase and saturation information for compact fluorescent light bulbs, torchiere lamps, and recessed lighting fixtures. As in previous studies, 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. We asked purchasers of refrigerators and water heaters for the brand name and model number of the units they purchased. We did not ask this information from purchasers of central air conditioners because previous studies found this to be ineffective. 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. We did, however, collect some brand names, but not model numbers, for clothes washers. Survey Development We revised the 1999 survey instrument to expand some areas of inquiry, eliminate some questions that were of lesser importance or usefulness, and change question phrasing to improve the accuracy of responses. We expanded the study s inquiry by including more detailed questions on lighting products (torchiere lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, and recessed fixtures). Another innovation in 2001 was to include the CLASSIFY needs-based segmentation battery developed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1 This battery will support subsequent analyses to identify customers most knowledgeable about ENERGY STAR and related issues. To improve our understanding of the decision-making process of purchasers, we asked all purchasers (not just those who said they bought a high-efficiency unit, as we did in previous studies) about the criteria that led to the selection 1 A full set of references will be included in formal reports. They are available on request, if needed at this time. 3
Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 of the specific unit purchased. Further, we asked all purchasers if the sales staff had spoken with them about energy efficiency and whether they were aware of efficiency levels prior to shopping. We eliminated questions that asked if purchasers of high efficiency appliances noticed a price difference for these units and, if so, what was the average additional cost of an efficient unit. We improved the accuracy of responses by revising questions based on what we learned from a survey we administered to a sample of 437 households over WebTV. We had two objectives for the WebTV survey, which we conducted in July 2000. We wanted to determine whether the accuracy and completeness of responses was enhanced to such a degree that we should switch from telephone administration of the survey to WebTV administration. If the accuracy and completeness of the WebTV responses were not substantially better than that for the phone survey, we wanted to learn how to refine question phrasing in the phone survey to increase accuracy. The WebTV survey asked that subset of questions from the full study about which we were most concerned. We concluded that a phone survey better met the objectives of the Energy Center of Wisconsin. Through the personal contact of a phone conversation, interviewers in 1999 were able to persuade 45% of refrigerator purchasers to report accurate model numbers. In contrast, 1 of respondents to the impersonal WebTV survey reported their refrigerator model numbers. As key objective for the study is the determination of the efficiency level of the newly purchased stock of appliances, this finding drove the decision to continue with a telephone administration of the survey. The WebTV survey also explored whether the use of graphics increased the accuracy with which respondents identified compact fluorescent lamps, torchiere lamps, their type of clothes washer, and the ENERGY STAR label. For compact fluorescent lamps, pin-based compact fluorescents, torchiere lamps, and halogens in torchieres, between 88 and 94 percent of respondents gave a response to the written question that they continued to endorse after seeing the graphic. Stated differently, graphics for these questions led respondents to change their answers (from positive to negative or from negative to positive) only 1 of the time. We concluded that any gain in the accuracy of lighting data that we might obtain through a WebTV administration of the survey would be more than offset by the loss of brand name and model number data. The WebTV results suggested that clothes washers pose a challenge no matter what form of survey administration is used. Resource efficient clothes washers come in a variety of styles: some top loaders with a central agitator, all front loaders, and Whirlpool s Calypso washer, which is top loading without a central agitator and with a tub that moves in an untraditional manner. Perhaps as a consequence, it appeared that respondents could not obtain sufficient information from the graphics to clearly differentiate their washer type. Unfortunately, recent purchasers of washers that participated in the WebTV survey provided the brand and model names of their units with less frequency than did other owners of clothes washers, suggesting that brand and model names may be less obvious on new machines. We concluded from these findings that the telephone survey questions needed to ask respondents for descriptions of their washers. These questions were augmented with a question asking whether their machines were among a list of top loading machines known to be high efficiency. The graphics for the ENERGY STAR logo were among the most useful graphics in the WebTV survey. Many respondents commented on their usefulness and one respondent specifically noted that the graphic led to a change in his or her answer. The graphic resulted in four percent of respondents of all respondents changing their answer from familiar with ENERGY STAR to not familiar. However, 17% of all respondents changed their answer from not familiar to familiar. We conclude that the ENERGY STAR logo has higher visual recognition than it has name 4
Method recognition. Consequently, we structured the telephone survey questions to include a detailed description of the logo s appearance. In summary, we designed the survey and appliance surveys to: Quantify consumer awareness of the ENERGY STAR program Identify new appliance purchasers Request new refrigerator and water heater brand names and model numbers Provide insight into the appliance purchase process Provide insight into potential barriers to the purchase of higher efficiency appliances Determine the purchase and saturation of compact fluorescent bulbs and torchiere lamps Determine the saturation and use of programmable set-back or clock thermostats. Collect demographic information. The purchase period covered from October 2000 through September 2001. Major Appliance Purchase Behavior 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. 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 previous four biannual studies demonstrated that telephone surveys can be used to successfully collect this type of information. Given this success, we designed the 2001 survey to collect similar information to 1999, 1997, 1995, and 1993. We revised and added questions to improve our understanding in some areas. Included among the questions on the five major appliances (refrigerators, water heaters, forced-air furnaces, central air conditioners, and clothes washers) are: 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. Fuel type of new and old water heaters and forced-air furnaces. Disposal of old refrigerators. Brand name and model number of refrigerators and water heaters. 5
Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 Multiple Appliance Purchasers We collected general purchase rate information for five major appliances as well as room air conditioners. Because respondents could have purchased all five appliances in the past year, we limited detailed questioning to a maximum of three randomly-selected appliances. In previous studies, we limited questioning to a maximum of two appliances. Any respondents who completed three appliance modules were not asked any of the lighting questions. 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. We asked respondents to look for brand names and model numbers on their receipts or on the appliance s serial-number plate while the interviewer waited. We used this information to look up the energy efficiency of the appliances in the California Energy Commission s (CEC) databases, including the online database of refrigerators and freezers and the online database of water heaters. Information used from the CEC database of refrigerators and freezers includes refrigerator type, defrost system, fresh food volume, freezer volume, total cubic feet, projected (estimated) annual kwh use, and maximum allowable kwh consumption standards. Information used from the CEC database of water heaters includes fuel type, water heater first hour rating (gallons), energy factor, rated storage volume (gallons), input kw for electric units, input Btu for gas units, and recovery efficiency percentage. For water heaters, we augmented the CEC data with data from the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) Consumers Directory of Certified Efficiency Ratings. Lighting Technologies The study addressed the purchase and use of, and attitudes toward, compact fluorescent bulbs, the purchase and use of torchiere lamps, and the saturation of recessed lighting fixtures. The primary goals for the lighting modules were to collect purchase rate, penetration rate, purchase decision-making, and use information. All respondents were asked lighting questions with the exception of those who had completed modules for three appliance purchases. This method differs from that of previous studies, where only respondents who did not purchase one of the five major appliances were asked the lighting questions. However, this approach excludes a large proportion of people who have lived in their homes for one year or less, as these people purchase appliances at a higher rate than do other households. Nonetheless, the analysis that follows compares, for some lighting questions, results from 2001 with results from 1999. Respondents who indicated that they were aware of compact fluorescent light bulbs were directed to one of two compact fluorescent light bulb modules. Respondents who purchased compact fluorescent light bulbs within the past 12 months were asked a set of questions related to their purchasing process and use of the bulbs. Respondents who said they were aware of compact fluorescent light bulbs but had not purchased them in the past 12 months were asked a similar set of questions tailored to their situation. We designed the lighting modules to: 6
Method Identify purchase and saturation rates for compact fluorescent light bulbs and torchiere lamps Provide insight into the compact fluorescent light bulb purchasing process Identify satisfaction with compact fluorescent light bulbs and reasons for dissatisfaction Identify and measure the barriers that exist in energy-efficient lighting purchasing process Measure the likelihood that all respondents (regardless of past purchasing behavior) intended to purchase compact fluorescent light bulbs in the future Identify the types and saturation of bulbs used in torchiere lamps Identify the saturation of recessed lighting fixtures. Demographic Information The demographic information we collected included: Home 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 Number of residents Age of household members Size of residence Number of bedrooms Annual household income 7
Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 8
Results Response Rates From the valid sample of 5,766 phone numbers, we completed a total of 3,000 surveys for a completion rate of 5. The refusal rate was 8%; numbers in process at the time the quota was complete totaled 38%, and MIT numbers totaled of the valid sample. The starting sample was 11,834 numbers, from which the valid sample was determined by subtracting 4,870 out-of-sample numbers (business, fax, blocked, disconnected, and duplicated numbers), 915 numbers that were tried 15 times with no contact, and 283 numbers associated with language problems. Number of Appliance Purchases Of the 3,000 completed surveys, 706 respondents had purchased one of the six appliances (the five major appliances discussed above plus room air conditioning) within the past year. Nearly one-third of these households (211 respondents) indicated that they had purchased two or more of the six appliances within the last year. We identified 1,023 total new purchases of the six appliances. As illustrated in Table 1, the number of new purchases varies notably across the six target appliances. Our goal was to complete up to 200 modules for each of the five major appliances. We did not ask respondents detailed questions about room air conditioner purchases. Respondents that had purchased four or five of the major appliances were asked questions relating to only three appliances. Table 1: Appliance-specific purchases and surveys Number of Purchasers Identified Number of Module Completions Refrigerator 289 210 Water heater 178 178 Forced-air furnace 107 107 Central air conditioner 119 119 Clothes washer 232 206 Room air conditioner 128 Total purchases identified 1,023 820 9
Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 Household Demographic and Appliance-Specific Data Tables presenting the survey findings 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 1999, 1997, 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 because with this information we could verify the actual efficiency of the appliances purchased. We collected this information in two steps. First, respondents gave the interviewers a specific brand name and model number. Second, the survey coders found the brand name and model number in the appropriate appliance database. The success rate in getting respondents to tell the interviewer a brand name was 8 for refrigerators and 56% for water heaters (Table 2). About two-thirds of these respondents also provided a model number, although in a number of cases the model number was inaccurate. The model numbers were accurate for about half of those giving a refrigerator brand name (about 4 of all refrigerator purchasers) and more than half of those giving a water heater brand name (about 3 of all water heater purchasers). Table 2: Breakdown of appliance-specific survey completions Refrigerators Water Heaters Number of completed surveys 210 178 Brand name reported 8 56% Brand names and model numbers matched with efficiency 4 3 information 1 1 Count is the number of respondents who gave a specific brand name and model number that was found in the applicable efficiency directory. Purchase Rates Appliances Respondents purchased refrigerators and clothes washers more frequently than they did the other appliances, with 8.6% and 7.7% of respondents, respectively, purchasing these appliances (Table 3). Purchase rates for the other appliances ranged between 5.9% and 3.6%. The water heater purchase rate was lower in 2001 than in 1999; all other appliance purchase rates in 2001 are comparable to those in 1999. 10
Results Table 3: Annual appliance purchase rates (percent)* 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Refrigerator 1 7.8% 6.9% 8. 8.8% 8.6% Water heater 2 7.8% 6.9% 6.9% 7. 5.9% Forced-air furnace 3 4.8% 3.5% 3.6% 3.8% 3.6% Central air conditioner 4 2. 2. 3.5% 4. 4. Clothes washer 8. 7.7% Room air conditioner 4 1. 1.7% 4. 4.6% 4. (n=3,036) (n=3,103) (n=3,285) (n=3,000) (n=3,000) * Purchase rate = number of respondents purchasing appliances divided by the total number of respondents. 1 2 3 4 Differences significant at the 0.05 level between the 1995 saturation and the saturations in 1997, 1999, and 2001. Differences significant at the 0.05 level between the 2001 saturation and the saturations in 1993 and 1999. Differences significant at the 0.05 level between the 1993 saturation and the saturations in 1995, 1997, and 2001. Differences significant at the 0.05 between the saturations in 1993 and 1995 and the saturations in 1997, 1999, 2001. Representativeness of the Data The third key issue regarding data quality was the representativeness of the data. The study has a sampling error of plus or minus 1.8% at the 95% confidence level. Given a response rate of 5, potential systematic error was introduced because we did not complete surveys for all valid phone numbers attempted, and because brand name and model number information was only available for about one-third of refrigerator and water heater purchasers. The results of this study could be biased if nonrespondents prove to be different from respondents. To examine the representativeness of the 2001 survey data, we compared seven sociodemographic variables that were available in both the survey and 2000 census data. Overall, the 2000 survey appears to be reasonably representative of residential households in the state of Wisconsin, although a few key groups may be over- or underrepresented. The most likely source of survey bias would be the over representation of single-family homes. Telephone surveys often over-represent this group. The comparison of the survey sample with the census data in Table 4 shows the following: Owner/Renter: The 2001 survey over-represented the number of people who own their home. In the 2001 survey, 8 of respondents owned their homes, whereas the 2000 Census data indicated that 68% owned their homes. Among the variables examined, this difference of thirteen percentage points was the largest difference between the survey and the 2000 Census data. Number of Bedrooms: Data from the 2000 Census on number of bedrooms was not available. Using the 1990 census data for comparison, the average number of bedrooms in the survey was slightly higher (2.99 compared to 2.68). Since 1990, there are slightly more three-, four-, and five or more-bedroom homes among survey respondents and slightly fewer one- and two-bedroom homes. 11
Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 Years Lived at the Residence: Since the years lived at residence differ significantly between those who own and rent their homes, we compared tenure at residence within ownership groups. Homeowners in the survey lived at their residence an average of 14.6 years, compared with a tenure among census homeowners of 13.2 years. Surveyed renters had a tenure of 4.8 years, compared with census renters of 4.5 years. Number of Full-time Residents: The average number of full-time residents per household in the survey was 2.8. This compares to 2.5 in the 2000 Census data. Income: The average income was slightly higher in the 2001 survey than the 2000 Census data. Table 4: Comparison of surveyed households with 2000 census data 1 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2000 census Ownership status Own/buying Rent/lease 7* 26%* (n=3099) 75%* 25%* (n=3081) 77%* 2* (n=3285) 8* 2* (n=2947) 8 19% (n=2938) 68% 3 (n=5,363,675 ) Number of bedrooms 0 1 2 3 4 5 or more 0. 7.* 26.* 44.8%* 17.8%* 3.9% (n=3127) 0.* 7.* 26.* 47.6%* 15. 4.* (n=3058) 0.* 6.* 25.* 47.* 15.7% 5.6%* (n=3285) 0.* 6.* 24.6%* 47.9%* 17.* 3.9% (n=2934) 0. 5. 23. 48.9% 17.7% 5. (n=2931) N/A Average number of bedrooms 2 2.84* (n=3066) 2.85* (n=3058) 2.88* (n=3251) 2.87* (n=2934) 2.99 (n=2931) N/A Average time lived at residence (years) 3 11.4* (n=3062) 13.0* (n=3066) 13.0* (n=3138) 11.9* (n=2953) 12.8 (n=2908) See text Median year structure was built 4 Average year in which structure was built 1963 (n=2600) 1965 (n=2461) 1967 1958 (n=2682) 1969 1960 (n=2424) 1970 1961 (n=2503) 1966 (n=2,321,144 ) Continued 12
Results Table 4: Comparison of surveyed households with 2000 census data (Cont.) 1 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2000 census Number of full-time residents 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or more 18.* 34.7%* 17. 16. 8.5%* 3.5%* 1. (n=3056) 18.* 34.5%* 16. 17.* 8.7%* 3.* 2.* (n=3024) 18.* 35. 15.* 17.* 7. 4.7%* 2.7%* (n=3279) 18.8%* 36.8% 15.5% 17.* 7. 2.9% 1. (n=2955) 16. 36. 15.9% 18. 7.8% 2.5% 2.9% (n=2915) N/A Average number of full-time residents 6 2.78* (n=3048) 2.84* (3024) 2.77* (3255) 2.71 (2955) 2.84 (n=2915) 2.5 (n=5,363,675 ) Gross annual household income 7 Less than $10,000 $10,000-$14,999 $15,000-$19,999 $20,000-$29,999 $30,000-$39,999 $40,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 Over $100,000 9.6%* 9.7% 11.* 18.7% 18.6%* 12.9% 12.8% 4. 2.6% 7.* 8. 9.9% 18. 16.5% 14.8%* 15.8%* 5.9%* 3.5%* 6.* 6.5%* 8. 15.9%* 16.7% 15.* 19.9%* 7.* 3.9%* 5.5%* 4.8%* 8 8 8 24.* 9.* 5.9%* 4. 4. 5. 11.8% 15. 16. 23.5% 11.8% 8. 7. 6.8% 6. 13.5% 13. 11. 22. 10.6% 8.7% Average gross annual household income 7 $35,296 (n=2513) $38,993 (n=2448) $42,373 (n=2193) $46,592 (n=2012) $50,462 (n=1964) $47,712 (n=2,081,884 ) 1 2 3 4 5 The statistical significance of the difference between the 2001 survey and census data could not be calculated due to lack of sufficiently-detailed census data available at the time of this analysis. Both the census data and the survey averages were calculated by giving responses of five or more bedrooms a value of 5. Census data were reported in categories. Census categories were converted to a single number representing the midpoint of the category prior to calculating the average number of years. For the oldest category, both the census data and 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 2000 and the final category was moved into residence before 1969 (a period of 31 years or more). Census data included both occupied and vacant units. Census data were reported as Persons in Household. 13
Appliance Sales Tracking 2001 6 7 The survey averages were calculated by assigning households with seven or more persons a value of 7 when calculating the average. Methods used for calculating averages in the 2000 Census are uncertain. The 1993 survey collected 1992 household income, the 1995 survey collected 1994 household income, the 1997 survey collected 1996 household income, the 1999 survey collected 1998 household income, and the 2001 Census data reported is "Household Income in the Past 12 Months. 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). Survey data were reported in categories in 1999 that do not contain these income intervals. Instead the following ranges were used: $15,000 - $24,999; $25,000 - $34,999; $35,000 - $49,999. Averages were set for the ranges in footnote number eight as follows: $15,000 - $24,999 was set equal to $20,000; $25,000 - $34,999 was set equal to $30,000; $35,000 - $49,999 was set equal to $42,500. * Significant difference between survey and the 1990 Census data at the 0.05 level. 14
Discussion We collected five types of information for the 2001 study: household demographics, Energy Guide and ENERGY STAR awareness, appliance purchasing behaviors, appliance brand names and model numbers, and purchasing behaviors for compact fluorescent bulbs and torchieres. We also gathered information on the use of programmable thermostats and recessed lighting fixtures. Where possible, we compared the results to the 1999, 1997, 1995, and 1993 studies. Response Rates The 2001 study had a completion rate of 5. This compares of a 46% completion rate for the 1999 survey and completion rates of about 7 in 1993 through 1997. The higher response rate in 2001 compared with 1999 may owe to the fact that the survey was reorganized and no longer began with a lengthy screener. Rates of appliance purchases made within the past year were similar to those of 1999 and 1997. We were able to meet or exceed our goals for each appliance module, which were the lesser of 200 completions or completions for all purchases made. We found refrigerator efficiency information for 4 of respondents purchasing full-size refrigerators and 3 of water heater respondents. These results are comparable to those attained in 1999, although somewhat lower than those attained in 1997. Of the 197 people who had purchased full-size refrigerators, 8 reported the unit s brand name and 58% reported a model number (about one-quarter of which were inaccurate or could not be found in the efficiency dataset). Of the 178 people who purchased water heaters, 56% reported the unit s brand name and 39% reported a model number (about one-quarter of which were inaccurate or could not be found in the efficiency dataset). Who is Purchasing Appliances? Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents Results show that 79% of all survey respondents own their own single-family home, and 19% rent or lease their home (Table A1). Two percent of survey respondents did not fit into either category. On average, residents of single-family households have lived in their homes longer than residents of multifamily households, 14.3 years versus 5.7 years, respectively. Residents of single-family homes also have slightly larger households and draw significantly greater annual incomes. The housing characteristics reported in Table A2 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, Table A2 also provides the same characteristics for homeowners only. Most people who are homeowners own single-family residences. 15