Review of Policy ResearchVolume 5, Issue 1 p. 133-144 Improving Technological Innovation Through Laboratory/Industry Cooperative R&D Jon Soderstrom, Jon Soderstrom Currently Director of the Office of Research and Technology Applications at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He received his Ph. D. in psychology and evaluation research at Northwestern University. He is the author of a number of books, chapters, journal articles, ana reports on the innovation process and the impact of technology on society.Search for more papers by this authorEmily Copenhaver, Emily Copenhaver Research Associate and Technical Training Coorainator in the Environmental and Occupational Safety Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where she is currently developing a general employee training program for nuclear facilities.Search for more papers by this authorMarilyn A. Brown, Marilyn A. Brown Leader of the Technology Transfer Research Group at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She received her Ph.D. from the Ohio State University and taught in the Department of Geography at the University of Iliinois, Urbana-Champaign, for seven years. Her research and publications have focused on the diffusion of innovations.Search for more papers by this authorJohn Sorensen, John Sorensen Research Staff Member at Oak Ridge National Labo-ratory. He has a dual assignment with the Hazard Management ano Analysis and the Emergency Planning Groups in the Energy Division. He received his Ph.D. in geography in 1977 from the University of Colorado and his research has included emergency planning for nuclear power plant accidents, transport of hazardous materials, evacuation behavior, and hazard warning systems.Search for more papers by this author Jon Soderstrom, Jon Soderstrom Currently Director of the Office of Research and Technology Applications at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He received his Ph. D. in psychology and evaluation research at Northwestern University. He is the author of a number of books, chapters, journal articles, ana reports on the innovation process and the impact of technology on society.Search for more papers by this authorEmily Copenhaver, Emily Copenhaver Research Associate and Technical Training Coorainator in the Environmental and Occupational Safety Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where she is currently developing a general employee training program for nuclear facilities.Search for more papers by this authorMarilyn A. Brown, Marilyn A. Brown Leader of the Technology Transfer Research Group at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. She received her Ph.D. from the Ohio State University and taught in the Department of Geography at the University of Iliinois, Urbana-Champaign, for seven years. Her research and publications have focused on the diffusion of innovations.Search for more papers by this authorJohn Sorensen, John Sorensen Research Staff Member at Oak Ridge National Labo-ratory. He has a dual assignment with the Hazard Management ano Analysis and the Emergency Planning Groups in the Energy Division. He received his Ph.D. in geography in 1977 from the University of Colorado and his research has included emergency planning for nuclear power plant accidents, transport of hazardous materials, evacuation behavior, and hazard warning systems.Search for more papers by this author First published: August 1985 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1985.tb00016.xCitations: 4 This article is drawn from: Soderstrom, et al. (1985, Enhancing Technology Transfer (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Energy Division, Report 6107); for a more detailed discussion, please see this document. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume5, Issue1August 1985Pages 133-144 RelatedInformation

This article discusses the results of 2 alternative approaches for estimating the energy- savings impact of Department of Energy (DOE) conservation programs. The first approach analyzed program-by-program estimates that indicated DOEprograms reduced U. S. energy use by more than 0.5 quadrillion BTUs or about 86 million barrels of oil. The second approach was an econometric analysis of aggregate energy use data that produced an estimate of energy savings 10 times greater than the first approach, but with a strong price effect interaction. The limitations of both approaches preclude reaching unambigu ous conclusions.

The contribution of government energy conservation programmes to reducing national energy is an important but largely unresolved issue. This paper discusses estimating the energy-savings impact of US Department of Energy (DOE) conservation programmes. Programme-by-programme estimates of energy savings have been analysed, the results indicating that DOE conservation programmes have reduced US energy use by more than 0.5 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) annually since 1981. Limitations in the available evaluative information, however, preclude reaching unambiguous conclusions.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is sponsoring and will be required to evaluate a wide range of conservation programs. The development of evaluation plans for such programs can often be improved by reviewing evaluations that have been done on similar programs. The Residential Conservation Service (RCS), sponsored by DOE, is discussed as an example of how conducting metaevaluations can improve evaluation planning. Many utilities have sponsored programs that are similar to the RCS. A review of the utility program evaluations suggested key methodological issues and data problems that should be considered in the development of an RCS evaluation plan. The implications of these metaevaluation findings for an RCS evaluation plan are discussed.

Evaluation efforts of utilities with active home energy audit programs were reviewed to provide insights into the operations and effectiveness of existing utility home energy audit programs. About half the utilities contacted had little or no evaluation activity. Of those with evaluation activity, most conducted only informal evaluations for in-house use. A few utilities had conducted fully documented formal evaluations. On the basis mainly of written reports received from the utilities, findings about customer response to programs are summarized. The topics discussed include: determinants of program participation rates, use of financing, attitudes toward programs, actions taken, characteristics of participants and energy savings due to programs.

The contribution of government energy conservation programs to reducing national energy use is an important but largely unresolved issue. The results of two alternative approaches for estimating the energy-savings impact of Department of Energy (DOE) conservation programs are discussed. The first approach attempts to develop program-by-program estimates of energy savings based on available program evaluations and other empirical evidence. The results of this analysis indicate that DOE conservation programs reduced total energy use by more than 0.5 quads annually as of 1981. Limitations to this approach, however, suggest that this result is best interpreted as an estimate of a lower bound of the range of overall DOE savings estimates. The second is based on an aggregate statistical modeling approach. The results of this analysis are generally consistent with significant energy savings but also indicate that any potential effect strongly depends on the price of energy. Once again, limitations in the approach inhibit reaching unambiguous interpretations of the results.