Participants in utility-sponsored residential conservation programs are systematically
different from nonparticipants. As a result self-selection is an important validity threat in
studies of conservation program impact. Three approaches to dealing with this self-
selection bias are reviewed: (1) designs that use participants as a control group, (2)
construction of a matched sample on the basis of predicted energy consumption values,
and (3) multiple regression analysis. The advantages and disadvantages of each approach
are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amaroli, G. (1981)"1980 energy savings and peak demand reductions, and 1976-1981 expenses for energy conservation programs." California Public Utilities Commission, October 29.
2.
Barnow, B.S. (1975) "The effect of Head Start and socioeconomic status on cognitive development of disadvantaged children." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
3.
Berry, L., J. Soderstrom, E. Hirst, B. Newman, and R. Weaver (1981) Review of Evaluations of Utility Home Energy Audit Programs. ORNL/ CON-58, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, March.
4.
Boruch, R.F., A.J. McSweeney, and E.J. Soderstrom (1978) "Randomized field experiments for program planning, development and evaluation: an illustrative bibliography ." Evaluation Q.2:655-695.
5.
Bradley, R. and J.C. Shaffer (1981) "Evaluation of Seattle City Light's Residential Insulation Program." SeattleCity Light, February.
6.
Bu Rnett, T. (1982) "Measuring weatherization effectiveness: Portland General Electric Company's experience." Presented at Electric Power Research Institute Workshop on Measuring Effects of Utility Conservation Programs, Columbus, Ohio, February 11.
7.
Cain, G.G. (1975) "Regression and selection models to improve nonexperimental comparisons," in C. A. Bennett and A. A. Lamsdaine (eds.) Evaluation and Experiments: Some Critical Issues in Assessing Social Programs. New York: Academic.
8.
Croft, J.J. (1981) "Residential weatherization evaluation: actual vs estimate." Puget Sound Power and Light, January 21.
9.
Electric Power Research Institute (1982) Workshop proceedings: measuring the effects of utility conservation programs . EPRI EA-2496, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, July.
10.
Goldberger, A.S. (1972) "Selection bias in evaluating treatment effects: some formal illustrations." Discussion Paper 123-172, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin.
11.
——— (1982) "Residential conservation programs at Pacific Power and Light Company: models, forecasts and assessments." Presented at Electric Power Research Institute Workshop on Measuring Effects of Utility Conservation Programs, Columbus, Ohio, February 11.
12.
Price-Waterhouse, (1980) Final Report on Technical Assistance Provided to the States and Territories in Evaluating State Energy Conservation Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy.
13.
Reichardt, C.S. (1979) "The statistical analysis of data from nonequivalent group designs," Chapter 4 in T. D. Cook and D. T. Campbell, Quasi-Experimentation Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago : Rand McNally.
14.
Rogers, E.M. and F.F. Shoemaker (1979) Communication of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
15.
Soderstrom, J., L. Berry, and E. Hirst (1981) "The use of metaevaluation to plan evaluations of conservation programs." Evaluation and Program Planning4: 113-122.
16.
Solar Energy Research Institute (1981) A New Prosperity: Building a Sustainable Energy Future. Andover, MA: Brick House Publishing.
17.
Stromsdorfer, E.W. and G. Farkas (1980) "Introduction," pp. 13-42 in E. W. Stromsdorfer and G. Farkas (eds.) Evaluation Studies Review Annual, Vol. 5. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Energy Conservation and Rates, Office of Power (1981) Program Summary October.
19.
Hausman, J.A. and D.A. Wise (1979) "Attrition bias in experimental and panel data the Gary Income maintenance experiment," Econometrica42: 455-473.
20.
Hausman, J.A. and J.L. Trimble (1981) "Sample design considerations and sample selection for the Vermont time-of-day electricity use survey." Rev. of Public Data Use9: 83-96.
21.
Hirst, E., B. Bronfman, R. Goeltz, J. Trimple, and D. Lerman (forthcoming) "Evaluation of the BPA residential weatherization pilot program "ORNL/ CON-124, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
22.
Hirst, E., J. Trimble, R. Goeltz, and S. Cardell (1983) "Methods to deal with self-selection in estimating conservation program energy savings: use of synthetic data to test alternative approaches." ORNL/CON-120, Oak Ridge National Laboratory , March.
23.
Olsen, M. and C. Cluett (1979) "Evaluation of the Seattle City Light's neighborhood energy conservation program" Battelle Human Affairs Research Center, October.
24.
Ozenne, D.G. (1981) "Planning evaluations of residential conservation programs." ICF Inc., prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy.
25.
Pacific Power and Light Company (1981) "Analysis of actual savings from Oregon zero interest weatherization program at Pacific Power and Light Company."
26.
Williams, M.V. and R.J. Walther (1982) "Issues in the evaluation of conservation programs: nonrandom data and participation bias." Presented at the Electric Power Research Institute Workshop on Measuring Effects of Utility Conservation Programs, Columbus, OH: February 11-12.
