Save to Give Challenge

Completed Pilot Programs & Demo Projects Save to Give Challenge

About the Pilot

In 2016, a Public Service Commission (PSC) of Wisconsin investigation found barriers in the ability of customers in rural areas to benefit from energy efficiency programs run by Focus on Energy. These findings resulted in the Commission directing Focus on Energy to create a pilot, which was named Save to Give, to learn more about behavioral savings opportunities within rural communities. Through this pilot participants were encouraged to adopt energy-efficiency behaviors and the dollars saved as a result of adopting those behaviors were invested into the community via donations to local non-profit organizations.

Project Timeline: January 2021- January 2022
Customer Segment: Single-family Residential, Multifamily Residential

Pilot Objectives:

Test the efficacy of behavioral strategies and program design on rural Wisconsin customers including incorporation of an energy use and engagement platform.
Determine if behavioral savings programs can deliver quantifiable savings.
Determine if additional behavior savings programs should be integrated into the Focus on Energy portfolio.

Key Outcomes

The Pilot recruited potential communities based on those identified as most like “average” rural communities across Wisconsin. The communities were selected via a competitive application process. Communities selected through this process included Lodi, Bayfield, New Richmond, and Mount Horeb.

Each community had a stakeholder group who provided input on marketing and outreach tactics. When possible, the pilot coordinated with the local utility on customer outreach and engagement efforts which included, but was not limited to, email newsletters, utility bill inserts, social media, local radio, community event participation, and door knocking.

Customers were asked to opt-in to the pilot to participate. Opting in provided customers with exclusive access to information on the Save to Give challenge within their utility’s existing portal. The utility portals already included an interactive feedback platform called MyMeter which provided customers with access to their year-round energy data, however once enrolled, customers were also given access to the Save to Give Challenge “actions” page. This page included energy “action tiles” describing behaviors for reducing energy consumption in their home or activities they could undertake to learn more about their energy usage.

Customers used MyMeter to report on actions taken, each of which had a point-to-dollar ratio based on the difficulty or cost of the behavior. As communities reported actions, they earned donation dollars which were tracked on a leaderboard (“progress page”) within the platform. As part of the sign-up process, individuals selected a non-profit who would benefit from their energy savings. Each community had a goal to earn $25,000 from reported actions which would be given back through donations to local non-profits.

Actions taken by residents in Lodi and Bayfield County reduced a participant’s electric usage by an average of 2.2% and 2.7% respectively. Evaluation results for New Richmond and Mount Horeb indicated electric savings per participant of 2.5% and –1% respectively. For comparison, home energy reports, a type of energy behavior change program, yield between 1.2-2.2% savings, indicating this community-based model for rural communities was effective. The average community earned just under $10,000 in donations.

Lessons Learned

Community Selection: Communities must have sufficient density to be responsive to a community-based program design. Strong community pride and active community particularly increased the likelihood community members would rally around their nonprofits and fellow community members.

Energy Champion: Non-profits were the best champions for the program as they stood to gain the most from its success. Limiting the number of non-profits to three per community was most manageable while also still offering diverse options and drawing unique audiences for support. Food shelves were often the most effective partner because of their visibility, reputation, and high level of support in their communities.

Engagement: In-person outreach proved to be most effective. As an example, in New Richmond, staff attended 48 community events and door knocking resulted in conversations at 198 homes, signing up 275 participants in person (70% of participants). Lawn signs were also placed in yards of 90 homes in New Richmond. Staff attended 37 community events and door knocking resulted in conversations at 50 homes in Mt Horeb, signing up 63 participants in person (48% of participants).

Online Platform: Leveraging real-time energy feedback could drive more review and reflection on energy use which has the potential to drive more energy saving actions. There is more to be understood around action reporting accuracy and how the program instructs the recording of actions to facilitate analysis of reporting accuracy.

Recommendations and Next Steps

The pilot was not extended or integrated into existing program offerings due to high savings acquisition costs. While remaining within the scientific guidance, new programs should consider including behavioral strategies to optimize, refine, and improve savings potential.

Learn More

Evaluation Memos:
Save to Give CY 2021 Impact Evaluation Memo
Save to Give CY 2022 Impact Evaluation Memo

Pilot Reports:
Pilot White Paper

Questions

Contact the Future Focus team with questions at futurefocus@focusonenergy.com.

A white paper was produced detailing the results of the pilot which can be found here on the Focus on Energy website.