E-22024 DSM Programs Evaluation Reports
30 passages
› Costs and lack of budget are barriers to participation. Financial barriers constitute the main reasons most interviewed dropped-out participants withdrew from the program component. The majority had no budget available for building maint...
AI summary Financial barriers and lack of budget are primary reasons for participant withdrawal from programs, with most dropped-out participants citing unavailable funds for maintenance and efficiency upgrades. Affordable Multifamily Housing participants also highlighted low rental rates and ad-hoc repair approaches. Co-funding and low-interest financing are proposed as critical support mechanisms.
› Rental rates in the operating agreement cause division among dropped-out participants and non-participants. Opinions on the operating agreement among dropped-out participants and non-participants were polarized. Negative perceptions were...
AI summary The operating agreement's rental rates are lower than current market rates, causing division among dropped-out participants and non-participants by acting as a barrier to participation. Adjusting these rates to align with market conditions is seen as critical to improve perceptions of Affordable Multifamily Housing.
DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. Adjustment ratio The ratio of evaluated results to tracked results. This ratio expresses the adjustment made to tracked savings or other tracked values such as...
AI summary The text defines key terms used in the regulatory proceeding, including accuracy, adjustment ratio, available demand response (DR) capacity, and baseline. It also references the Affordability Covenant under section 3.3 and 3.4.
lates. Recommendation #3: Investigate the possibility of improving the audit reporting templates to improve time efficiencies for EAs, for example by streamlining the reports as much as possible. 2024 AMH-Finding: Costs and lack of budget...
AI summary The 2024 AMH findings highlight barriers like budget constraints and rental rate disparities, leading to lower-than-expected energy savings. Recommendations include improving audit templates for EAs and clarifying co-financing options. AMH achieved 39% less energy savings than planned, with 83 projects generating 21% fewer electrical savings compared to 2023.
3.2.1 Motivations for Participating in AMH Cost savings were the primary motivator for participating in AMH with seven out of 10 mentioning the rebates offered , and six of 10 mentioning saving money on energy bills . Reasons for taking pa...
AI summary Participants in AMH cited cost savings (rebates, energy bill reductions) as primary motivators, with secondary reasons including tenant comfort and energy efficiency. EAs noted rebates help non-profits maintain affordable housing, while GHG reduction was a minor factor. Figure 5 visualizes these reasons.
3.2.3 Barriers to Participation and Program Completion For the dropped-out participants who started but did not complete the program component, financial barriers were cited most often as reasons for dropping out of AMH. Dropped-out partic...
AI summary The analysis identifies financial barriers, low incentives, lengthy payback periods, and affordability covenant issues as key reasons for AMH program dropout. Participants cited insufficient budgets, unexpected costs, and dissatisfaction with rental rates. Program ineligibility and external factors like property sales or illness also contributed. E1 staff and EAs highlighted ongoing challenges with affordability and upfront costs.
Rebate, Calculations, and Financial Concerns For EAs, the AMH rebate is considered one of AMH's greatest strengths, as confirmed by participant satisfaction levels (see [Figure](#page-17-0) 8 above), along with the energy cost savings resu...
AI summary The AMH rebate program faces challenges with participant confusion over rebate calculations, tax obligations, and fluctuating incentive amounts due to supply chain costs. E1 staff report efforts to clarify incentives but note ongoing misunderstandings. Financial barriers include upfront capital needs and limited audit recognition for additional funding.
3.3.4 Affordability Covenant
AI summary The Affordability Covenant section outlines commitments related to ensuring energy programs and initiatives are accessible and affordable for residents and businesses in Nova Scotia, particularly focusing on low-income and multifamily housing.
AMH Participant Perceptions Questions about perceptions of the affordability covenant were posed to the six AMH participants with MURBs.[9](#page-24-0) All six indicated they charge rent to their tenants and therefore were obligated to agr...
AI summary Six AMH participants with MURBs reported positive or neutral perceptions of the affordability covenant, citing fairness in term length and rental rates. Most were already affordable housing providers, so the covenant did not alter their operations. One concern noted government divestment risks, while one participant suggested adjusting HRM rent caps.
Dropped-out Participant and Non-participant Perceptions Across the 14 dropped-out participants and non-participants who charge rent to tenants, opinions on the AMH operating agreement/affordability covenant tended to be highly polarized ;...
AI summary Perceptions of dropped-out participants and non-participants regarding AMH's affordability covenant were highly polarized. Positive views linked higher rental rates to current market levels, while opposition stemmed from perceived low rates. E1 is revising affordability criteria and rental rate methodologies, with some advocating for Halifax-specific rates. Term lengths had minimal impact on opinions.
3.4 Participant and EA Suggestions for Improvements AMH participants were presented with a list of seven tools and supports that could be offered to help them navigate the program component. Two of the top three tools/supports mentioned as...
AI summary AMH participants emphasized affordability tools like co-funding and low-interest financing as critical. EAs suggested administrative improvements (e.g., delivery agent portals, streamlined reporting) and training enhancements. Additional recommendations included heat pump tutorials, window upgrades, and solar panel eligibility.
Budget Half (5/10) of interviewed AMH participants specified a numeric answer in terms of their budget for building maintenance and efficiency upgrades . The remaining five participants indicated they either did not know or did not have a...
AI summary Half of AMH participants reported annual budgets for building maintenance and efficiency upgrades ranging from $500-$300,000 (average $3,625/year after removing an outlier). Non-participants and dropped-out participants typically lacked formal budgets, relying on ad hoc repairs. Non-profit organizations and smaller buildings were more likely to lack structured budgets.
Payback Period Three of the ten AMH participants considered a payback period for participation in their AMH project. Of these, two said their required period was less than five years , and the other said they would have gone ahead with a p...
AI summary The text discusses varying perspectives on acceptable payback periods for AMH project participation. Some participants require less than five years, while others find five to ten years acceptable. Non-participants and dropouts consider over a decade unreasonable. Funding availability and cost coverage also influence payback period relevance.
2024 AMH-Finding: Incentive calculations can cause confusion among participants. Participants do not always realize that they must pay tax on overall project expenditures and that the program component only covers up to 80% of pre-tax cost...
AI summary Participants in AMH programs are confused about tax obligations on project costs and the 80% pre-tax incentive coverage. E1 provides explanations but participants still struggle with rebate calculations. Preapproval estimates are often mistaken as final, despite potential changes based on installed equipment.
2024 AMH-Finding: Costs and lack of budget are barriers to participation. Financial barriers constitute the main reasons most interviewed dropped-out participants withdrew from the program component. The majority had no budget available fo...
AI summary Financial barriers and lack of budget are primary reasons for withdrawal from the AMH program, with participants citing insufficient funds for maintenance and efficiency upgrades. Half of dropped-out participants also faced low rental rates in operating agreements. Co-funding and low-interest financing are recommended as critical support tools.
at [https://s25.q4cdn.com/978989322/files/doc\_financials/2023/ar/Emera\_2023\_AR\_FINAL.pdf](https://s25.q4cdn.com/978989322/files/doc_financials/2023/ar/Emera_2023_AR_FINAL.pdf) (last accessed September 27, 2024). 53 At the time of writi...
AI summary The document references Nova Scotia Power's 2023 total system emissions data and electricity generation figures used to calculate a Nova Scotia-specific factor. The data is sourced from Nova Scotia Power's air emissions reporting and Emera Inc.'s 2023 Annual Report.
2024 Green Heat - Finding: Green Heat participation decreased for the third consecutive year. Green Heat participation levels decreased by 21% compared to 2023 levels, particularly for MSHPs (19% reduction) and demand reduction measures (3...
AI summary Green Heat participation fell 21% in 2024, the third consecutive year of decline, attributed to federal CGH Grant competition. Evaluation showed 35% net energy savings realization, with MSHPs and biomass measures underperforming. Recommends removing wood/pellet inserts due to negligible savings.
Reporting Requirements HEA incentives originate from three sources of funding: Nova Scotia Power ratepayers for DSM, the Province of Nova Scotia, and the Government of Canada (CGH Grant). The incorporation of the CGH Grant, as a cofunder o...
AI summary HEA incentives are funded by Nova Scotia Power ratepayers, the Province of Nova Scotia, and the Canadian government (CGH Grant). Savings are reported to NSUARB and the Province via separate evaluations, focusing on electrical savings (DSM) and participation/GHG reductions (government). Equations prevent double-counting, and solar PV savings are included in DSM reports regardless of heating source.
24 HEA Key Findings and Recommendations As mentioned previously, the main objectives of the 2024 HEA evaluation were as follows: › Calculate gross and net results, namely electrical first-year and lifetime energy savings, peak demand savin...
AI summary The 2024 HEA evaluation found that net electrical energy and demand savings exceeded targets, with participation reaching a historic high due to the CGH Grant. Solar PV measures contributed significantly to savings, but future participation may decline post-CGH Grant closure. Energy savings tracked by E1 were lower than evaluation results, prompting adjustments. A recommendation to remove wood/pellet fireplace inserts from HEA is proposed due to low savings.
- C12. What, if any, unanswered questions do you have about the different technologies installed in your building through the program? Specify 97. None 98. (Don't know) 99. (Refusal) D. Operating Agreement (Affordability Covenant)
AI summary The document asks about unanswered questions regarding technologies installed in buildings through the program, with options for respondents to indicate none, don't know, or refusal. It then moves to a section titled 'Operating Agreement (Affordability Covenant)' on page 23-3.
B. Reasons for Ending / Barriers to Participation - B1. [ASK DROPPED OUT PARTICIPANTS ONLY] The information I have shows that you have not continued your participation in the Affordable Multifamily Housing program for the building at < INS...
AI summary The document outlines reasons for participants dropping out of the Affordable Multifamily Housing (AMH) program, including communication issues, ineligibility, application difficulties, and dissatisfaction with program terms. It seeks detailed feedback on the stage of exit and specific barriers encountered.
[Financial Reasons] - 26. I hadn't realised how much the upgrades would cost - 27. The available budget didn't stretch far enough - 28. The payback period was too long - 29. The incentives were too low - 30. Split incentives (tenants pay t...
AI summary Participants cite financial barriers to energy efficiency upgrades, including high costs, insufficient budgets, long payback periods, low incentives, and split incentives where tenants bear energy costs. These factors hinder program participation and effectiveness.
[RECORD FROM DATABASE: MEASURE TYPE] - 1. [IF MEASURE CATEGORY = HP-ONLY] Heat pump participants [CHECK QUOTA AND CONTINUE] - 2. [IF MEASURE CATEGORY = MODELLED] Modelled participants (participant had a home energy assessment) [CHECK QUOTA...
AI summary The document outlines conditional processing rules for measure types in a regulatory proceeding, distinguishing between heat pump participants and modelled participants (those with home energy assessments). It includes a database check for the Oil to Heat Pump Affordability (OHPA) program, though no specific arguments or entities are explicitly discussed.
4.3 Barriers to High-Efficiency Buildings and Program Participation Participating builders, non-participant modellers, and new energy modellers were asked about concerns and barriers related to building high-efficiency buildings. When aske...
AI summary Financial barriers, including measure costs and low incentives, are primary concerns for builders and modellers in adopting high-efficiency buildings. Builders also cite lack of local expertise and limited understanding of energy efficiency value. Modellers note that cost and time constraints discourage energy modelling, while builders may not prioritize exceeding code requirements due to perceived low returns.
4.6.2 Decarbonization and Electrification Program participants and non-participating and new energy modellers were also asked about the importance of reducing GHG emissions and the electrification in building design. Six of the eight parti...
AI summary Participants emphasized the importance of GHG emission reduction and electrification in building design, citing financial incentives from E1. Builders expressed concerns about upfront costs, grid reliability, and regulatory complexity. Electrification challenges include long lead times for specific equipment and grid reliability risks for critical facilities.
4.8.2 Barriers Based on interviews with program staff, participating builders, and non-participant and new energy modellers, the evaluator found that high measure costs, modelling costs, and limited developer awareness are the primary barr...
AI summary The evaluator identifies high measure and modelling costs, limited developer awareness, and insufficient modeller capacity as key barriers to achieving energy efficiency service objectives. E1 staff note rising energy modelling costs and high upfront efficiency measure costs deter builder participation, while modellers report inadequate capacity to meet project demands.
4.8.3 Alignment of Program Logic With Barriers The service addresses the high costs barrier through financial inputs in the form of modelling and implementation incentives, which result in financial benefits to developers that encourage th...
AI summary The service addresses high costs through financial incentives for energy modeling and implementation. However, 30% of projects hit the 50% cost cap, and E1's incentives are lower than some jurisdictions. The shift to NECB 2020 may require adjusting incentive tiers to align with new code standards.
d lower satisfaction on elements related to the value of the program given the time and costs requirements for builders, and the ability to estimate a return on investment associated with the program. 2024 New Construction-Finding: Non-par...
AI summary The 2024 New Construction findings highlight barriers to program participation, including financial costs, builder awareness gaps, and insufficient modeller engagement. Decarbonization motivates participation, but financial factors remain the primary obstacle. Non-participant modellers show limited service awareness despite eligibility.
D4. [ASK IF D2=1] Why did you decide not to include these technologies? [RECORD VERBATIM RESPONSE] - 1. (Higher cost) - 2. (Lower profits) - 3. (Slower speed of construction) - 4. (Unavailability of the technologies in the marketplace) - 5...
AI summary The response lists 11 reasons for excluding technologies, including higher costs, lower profits, slower construction, unavailability, labor shortages, lack of expertise, complexity, performance issues, and occupant satisfaction concerns. Other unspecified factors and refusals are also noted.
- B3. In your experience, what are the reasons builders choose NOT to design higher energy efficient buildings that exceed code requirements? [DO NOT READ. MULTIPLE RESPONSES] - 1. (Cost builders believe energy efficiency upgrades are too...
AI summary The text explores barriers (cost, time, market uncertainty) and motivations (lower costs, property value, climate goals) builders face in designing energy-efficient buildings beyond code requirements. It highlights cost concerns, lack of expertise, and market recognition as key barriers, while incentives, competitiveness, and government mandates drive proactive measures.