Energy Extension Service Pilot Program: evaluation report after two years. Volume I. Evaluation summary

The EES pilot program was initiated in August 1977, when 10 states were selected on a competitive basis for participation. The pilot states (Alabama, Connecticut, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) devoted the first 6 months to start-up activiti...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: None
Language:unknown
Published: 2015
Subjects:
32 ENERGY CONSERVATION
CONSUMPTION
AND UTILIZATION
29 ENERGY PLANNING
POLICY AND ECONOMY
ALABAMA
DATA COMPILATION
ENERGY EXTENSION SERVICE
EVALUATION
CONNECTICUT
MICHIGAN
NEW MEXICO
PENNSYLVANIA
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
WASHINGTON
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
ATTITUDES
BUDGETS
COST
ENERGY CONSERVATION
PUBLIC OPINION
REVIEWS
CENTRAL REGION
DATA
DOCUMENT TYPES
GREAT LAKES REGION
INFORMATION
NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
NORTH AMERICA
NORTH ATLANTIC REGION
NUMERICAL DATA
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGION
ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION
SOUTHEAST REGION
SOUTHWEST REGION
US DOE
US ORGANIZATIONS
USA
Pacific
Alabama
North Atlantic
Online Access:http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5080271
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5080271
https://doi.org/10.2172/5080271
Description
Summary:The EES pilot program was initiated in August 1977, when 10 states were selected on a competitive basis for participation. The pilot states (Alabama, Connecticut, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) devoted the first 6 months to start-up activities. This document is a follow-up report to the three volume Evaluation Summary of the first year of the pilot EES program published in September 1979. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the impacts and costs of the two years of the pilot program, and to check the consistency of findings over the two year period. The analysis addresses the following: (1) were the impact findings of Year I and Year II consistent, or did Year I and Year II attitudes and behavior vary. If variation existed, could it be attributed to program changes as the EES progressed from a start-up phase (Year I) to more normal service delivery (Year II); and (2) did costs of service delivery change (again reflecting start-up and normal service delivery costs). Did cost changes affect conclusions about the relative cost effectiveness of delivering services to different target audiences.

Similar Items