Topic:"Cost Considerations" in M07544

Benchmarking If an incentive or technology is new, there may not be any historical data to assist with forecasting price and penetration curves in a utility's local market. Benchmarking incentive rates against similar technologies or progr...

AI summary Benchmarking is proposed to address data gaps in forecasting incentive prices and technology penetration when local market data is unavailable. Methods include direct benchmarking against similar jurisdictions and adjusting for factors like regulatory and infrastructure differences. Open dialogue with other regions is emphasized to understand market nuances affecting incentives.

Measure Project Cost ($) Simple Project Payback Current Cost to Customer Cost to Customer Threshold Custom Project Retrofit Track $96,424 4 years 25% 50% 2 years Table 28: Cost to Customer Incentive Level Threshold for Average Project in C...

AI summary Table 28 outlines the cost to customer incentive level threshold for an average project in a custom retrofit. The project cost is $96,424 with a simple payback period of 4 years. The current cost to customer is 25%, which is below the 50% threshold, indicating that the threshold is not breached.

- 4. Net Levelized cost ($/kWh)1 = PV (costs all benefits except for electric energy benefits) / PV (energy savings) Benefits Costs Avoided electric energy costs Avoided electric capacity costs Avoided non-electric fuel costs Customer non-...

AI summary The text outlines the calculation of net levelized cost per kWh, which involves comparing the present value of benefits such as avoided electric energy costs and customer non-energy impacts with the present value of costs like utility program costs and allocated overhead. Multiple tables further break down the benefits and costs associated with different programs.

2013-2015 Total Portfolio $/kWh 2013 2014 2015 Gross Savings (kWh) 828,999,924 845,181,086 769,529,791 Spending $ 317,221,372 $ 365,056,021 $ 385,199,846 $/kWh $ 0.38 $ 0.43 $ 0.50 Excludes C&S,EM&V and On-Bill Financing expenses reported...

AI summary The table presents data on energy efficiency programs from 2013 to 2015, including gross savings in kWh, spending, and the cost per kWh. It also includes incentive-to-administration spending ratios for PG&E. The section titled 'Cost Effectiveness' suggests a focus on evaluating the financial performance of these programs.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Incentive Costs $85,792,815 $87,475,385 $81,650,474 $90,618,627 Administration $68,482,871 $71,734,454 $72,025,504 $77,017,143 Incentive-to Administration Ratio 56:44 55:45 53:47 65:35 2015-2019 STRATEGIC PLAN 13

AI summary The table presents incentive costs and administration costs from 2013 to 2016, along with the ratio of incentive-to-administration costs. The 2015-2019 Strategic Plan is referenced as a key document in the context of these figures.

Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is provided below: Prior Year Current Year 2014 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 # participants with installations 37,483 54,135 131,094 131,094 Operating Costs 1 Adminis...

AI summary Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is detailed, including operating costs, technical assistance, support services, and incentive costs. The data highlights the distribution of expenses and participant engagement metrics.

Financial Considerations as Related to Participant Perceived Value There are several different costs and metrics that may affect the financial considerations involved a participant's perceived value: - 1. Retail Price - 2. Project Costs -...

AI summary The text outlines financial considerations related to participant perceived value in energy efficiency programs, focusing on retail price, project costs, project payback, and incremental equipment costs. It emphasizes the importance of defining a base case for accurate incremental equipment cost analysis, which is critical for incentive setting and program design.

Table 2: Incremental Equipment Cost Scenarios Scenario General Description The standard service is often considered to be the most popular service offering in terms of sales or penetration at the time. For example, if a program is offering...

AI summary The text defines and discusses incremental equipment cost scenarios, particularly focusing on the replacement of technology or services after failure or burnout. The standard service or technology is considered the most popular option based on sales or market penetration at a given time.

These metrics depend on the value of the incentive. Table 3: Participant Cost Test and Relationship to Incentive Setting from a Participant Perceived Value Perspective The analysis involved in determining the Incremental Equipment Cost and...

AI summary This text discusses the relationship between participant cost tests and incentive setting, highlighting that both analyses require defining a base case and calculating cost differences between efficient options and the base case. The Incremental Equipment Cost can include O&M and fuel costs depending on the program and technology.

Component of Incremental Equipment Cost and Participant Cost Test Component of Participant Cost Test Upfront Purchase Costs Upfront Installation Costs Lifecycle Purchase Costs (excluding Upfront Purchase Costs) Lifecycle Installation Costs...

AI summary The text outlines the components of the Incremental Equipment Cost and Participant Cost Test, including upfront and lifecycle costs, incentives, and residual value. It mentions that an NPV analysis may be required depending on when the costs are incurred.

Figure 23: Union Gas Targets & Performance Metric[s](#page-125-0) 4 Resource Acquisition Scorecard Aboriginal Furnace End-of-Life $ 8,000 $ 761,000 N/A 1,736,856 $ 419,000 $ 784,000 $ 511,000 $ 924,000 $ 456,000 $ 919,000 $ 448,000 $ 917,0...

AI summary The text presents a resource acquisition scorecard with various budget figures and performance metrics for different programs, including Low Income, Large Volume, and Market Transformation initiatives. The data includes budget allocations, overhead costs, and evaluations for Union Gas targets.

- 4. Net Levelized cost ($/kWh)1 = PV (costs all benefits except for electric energy benefits) / PV (energy savings) Benefits Costs Avoided electric energy costs Avoided electric capacity costs Avoided non-electric fuel costs Customer non-...

AI summary The text discusses the calculation of net levelized cost per kWh, highlighting the inclusion of avoided electric energy and capacity costs, as well as non-electric fuel costs and customer non-energy impacts as benefits. Costs include utility program costs, allocated overhead, customer costs, and lost revenues.

2013-2015 Total Portfolio $/kWh 2013 2014 2015 Gross Savings (kWh) 828,999,924 845,181,086 769,529,791 Spending $ 317,221,372 $ 365,056,021 $ 385,199,846 $/kWh $ 0.38 $ 0.43 $ 0.50 Excludes C&S,EM&V and On-Bill Financing expenses reported...

AI summary The table provides data on the 2013-2015 Total Portfolio \/kWh, including gross savings, spending, and \/kWh costs. It also includes PG&E's incentive-to-administrative spending ratios for the same period. The data is budgeted, not actual, and excludes certain expenses. The section titled 'Cost Effectiveness' suggests a focus on evaluating the efficiency of spending.

2013 2014 2015 2016 Incentive Costs $85,792,815 $87,475,385 $81,650,474 $90,618,627 Administration $68,482,871 $71,734,454 $72,025,504 $77,017,143 Incentive-to Administration Ratio 56:44 55:45 53:47 65:35 2015-2019 STRATEGIC PLAN 13

AI summary The table shows incentive costs and administration costs from 2013 to 2016, along with the ratio of incentive-to-administration costs. The 2015-2019 Strategic Plan is referenced as a key document in the context.

Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is provided below: Prior Year Current Year 2014 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 # participants with installations 37,483 54,135 131,094 131,094 Operating Costs Administr...

AI summary Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is detailed, showing increases in operating, technical assistance, support services, and incentive costs. The table also highlights annualized and lifetime MWh savings, as well as the percentage of incentive spending relative to total program spending and the cost per kWh.

Financial Considerations as Related to Participant Perceived Value There are several different costs and metrics that may affect the financial considerations involved a participant's perceived value: - 1. Retail Price - 2. Project Costs -...

AI summary The document outlines financial considerations related to participant perceived value, focusing on retail price, project costs, project payback, and incremental equipment costs. Incremental equipment costs are calculated as a net present value over the useful life of the efficient option, with the base case being critical for accurate analysis.

Table 2: Incremental Equipment Cost Scenarios Scenario General Description This approach to the calculation where a combination of two base cases is used is called the Remaining Useful Life Discounted Incremental Equipment Cost method (RUL...

AI summary The document presents two scenarios for calculating incremental equipment costs: the Remaining Useful Life Discounted Incremental Equipment Cost method (RULDICM) and the Replacement After Assumed Failure/Burnout scenario. RULDICM discounts the costs of existing equipment over its remaining useful life before comparing them to the costs of efficient equipment. The second scenario considers replacement after equipment failure, treating it similarly to early replacement.

Table 3: Participant Cost Test and Relationship to Incentive Setting from a Participant Perceived Value Perspective The analysis involved in determining the Incremental Equipment Cost and the PC test involve some of the same components. Bo...

AI summary The text discusses the analysis of Incremental Equipment Cost and Participant Cost (PC) tests, highlighting their shared components such as defining a base case and calculating cost differences. It also notes that Incremental Equipment Cost can include O&M and fuel costs depending on the program or project.

Component of Incremental Equipment Cost and Participant Cost Test Component of Participant Cost Test Upfront Purchase Costs Upfront Installation Costs Lifecycle Purchase Costs (excluding Upfront Purchase Costs) Lifecycle Installation Costs...

AI summary The document outlines the components of the Incremental Equipment Cost and Participant Cost Test, including upfront and lifecycle costs, incentives, and residual value. It provides a structured breakdown of factors considered in evaluating program costs and participant expenses.

Table 4: Cost Effectiveness Tests and Relationship to Incentive Setting from a Return on Investment Perspective Cost Effectiveness Test General Description and Features Implication for Incentive Setting typically quantified as the avoided...

AI summary The text discusses cost-effectiveness tests related to incentive setting, focusing on program administration costs (PAC), incentive costs, and the evaluation of utility conservation benefits using Net Present Value (NPV) over the lifetime of assumed savings persistence.

Year Annual Savings (m³) Costs ($) 2012 137,438,488 31,322,216 2013 179,966,564 32,838,926 2014 30,091,000(Budget) 3 Ontario Energy Board, Multiple documents from: ―Natural Gas Demand Side Management,‖ [http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/oeb...

AI summary The table provides annual savings and costs for demand-side management programs from 2012 to 2014, with a focus on the TRC ratio by program category in 2012-2013. A reference is made to the Ontario Energy Board's report on natural gas demand-side management.

Approved 1 Annual D SM B udgets Utility 2014 (Actuals) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2015-2020 Total Enbridge $ 32,511,266 $ 37,722,230 $ 56,361,117 $ 62,933,844 $ 67,554,087 $ 66,421,773 $ 67,757,376 $ 358,750,427 Union $ 33,713,172 $ 33,...

AI summary The document presents annual budget figures for Enbridge and Union from 2014 to 2020, including overhead costs and program budgets. It also mentions the use of a weighted scorecard approach to evaluate performance metrics for gas utilities, emphasizing lifetime natural gas savings and broader conservation priorities.

2013-2015 Total Portfolio $/kWh 2013 2014 2015 Gross Savings (kWh) 828,999,924 845,181,086 769,529,791 Spending $ 317,221,372 $ 365,056,021 $ 385,199,846 $/kWh $ 0.38 $ 0.43 $ 0.50 Excludes C&S,EM&V and On-Bill Financing expenses reported...

AI summary The table provides data on the 2013-2015 Total Portfolio in terms of Gross Savings (kWh) and Spending, including the \/kWh cost. It also highlights the Incentive-to-Administrative Spending Ratios for PG&E during this period. The data is budgeted, not actual, and excludes certain expenses.

Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is provided below: Prior Year Current Year 2014 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 # participants with installations 37,483 54,135 131,094 131,094 Operating Costs Administr...

AI summary Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is detailed, including operating costs, technical assistance costs, support services costs, and incentive costs. The data highlights the number of participants, savings in MWh, and spending ratios per kWh.

4. Incentive Rate Finalized Once the incremental measure cost is finalized, Efficiency Maine will set a standard incentive using the above considerations.

AI summary Efficiency Maine will establish a standard incentive once the incremental measure cost is finalized, based on prior considerations. The process reflects a structured approach to determining incentives following cost analysis.

ember 1995) (LBL-38201), at 27. Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board Page 5 of 10 August 17, 2016 The majority of ENS's program components target early-retirement scenarios, including the following: - Small Business Energy Solutions - Gree...

AI summary The document discusses the use of incremental costs in efficiency programs, with EfficiencyOne supporting the LBNL definition and highlighting the challenges in obtaining accurate incremental costs, citing a California study that took three years and cost $2 million USD.

Financial Considerations as Related to Participant Perceived Value There are several different costs and metrics that may affect the financial considerations involved a participant's perceived value: - 1. Retail Price - 2. Project Costs -...

AI summary The text outlines financial considerations related to participant perceived value, including retail price, project costs, project payback, and incremental equipment costs. Incremental equipment costs are defined as the net present value of the difference in purchase and installation costs between efficient options and a base case scenario, with variations depending on the base case status.

Table 2: Incremental Equipment Cost Scenarios Scenario General Description A customer may decide to make a new purchase for a technology or service. There is not a current technology or service in use. For example, if a customer purchases...

AI summary The document outlines scenarios for incremental equipment cost calculations, focusing on new purchases and installations. It defines the standard technology as the most popular option or a hybrid based on sales data, or non-existent in cases where no current technology is in use.

The analysis involved in determining the Incremental Equipment Cost and the PC test involve some of the same components. Both types of analyses require a definition of the base case, and a calculation of the cost differences between the ef...

AI summary The text discusses the determination of Incremental Equipment Cost and the Participant Cost (PC) test, highlighting their shared components such as defining the base case and calculating cost differences. It notes that Incremental Equipment Cost can include O&M and fuel costs depending on the program, and mentions the need for NPV analysis and discounting based on when costs are incurred.

Table 4: Cost Effectiveness Tests and Relationship to Incentive Setting from a Return on Investment Perspective Cost Effectiveness Test General Description and Features Implication for Incentive Setting TRC The utility benefits are evaluat...

AI summary This table outlines the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) as cost-effectiveness tests used in incentive setting. TRC evaluates benefits and costs over the product's lifetime using NPV, while PAC compares societal benefits to utility costs and is used in setting incentives.

Measure Project Cost ($) Simple Project Payback Current Cost to Customer Cost to Customer Threshold Custom Project Retrofit Track $96,424 4 years 25% 50% 2 years Table 33: Cost to Customer Incentive Level Threshold for Average Project in C...

AI summary The document presents a table showing the cost to customer threshold for a Custom Project Retrofit Track, indicating that the threshold is not breached for either the project cost or the simple payback period.

Year Annual Savings Costs ($) (m³) 2012 137,438,488 31,322,216 2013 179,966,564 32,838,926 2014 30,091,000(Budget) 3 Ontario Energy Board, Multiple documents from: "Natural Gas Demand Side Management," [http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/oeb...

AI summary The table presents annual savings and costs for various years, with a focus on 2012, 2013, and 2014. A reference is made to a report by the Ontario Energy Board on Natural Gas Demand Side Management. Figure 19 shows the TRC Ratio by program category for 2012 and 2013.

Figure 23: Union Gas Targets & Performance Metric[s](#page-125-0) 4 Resource Acquisition Scorecard Large Volume Large Volume - Revised Large Volume - Revised Large Volume Overhead - Revised Evaluation - Revised Administrative costs - Revis...

AI summary The text presents a resource acquisition scorecard with various cost categories and figures, including administrative costs, evaluation costs, and overhead costs. It includes sections and figures related to performance metrics and targets, indicating a focus on financial and operational planning.

2013-2015 Total Portfolio $/kWh 2013 2014 2015 Gross Savings (kWh) 828,999,924 845,181,086 769,529,791 Spending $ 317,221,372 $ 365,056,021 $ 385,199,846 $/kWh $ 0.38 $ 0.43 $ 0.50 Excludes C&S,EM&V and On-Bill Financing expenses reported...

AI summary The table presents the 2013-2015 Total Portfolio \/kWh, including gross savings, spending, and \/kWh costs, along with PG&E's incentive-to-administrative spending ratios for the same period. The data is budgeted, not actual, and excludes certain expenses such as C&S, EM&V, and On-Bill Financing.

Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is provided below: Prior Year Current Year 2014 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 # participants with installations 37,483 54,135 131,094 131,094 Operating Costs Administr...

AI summary Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is detailed, showing increases in operating and incentive costs, with a focus on participant and trade ally incentives. The data also includes metrics like MWh savings and cost-effectiveness ratios.

National Grid 2013-2015 Savings and Expenditure Sector Savings (MWh) Total Expenditure ($) Incentive Expenditure ($) Residential 805,157 $290,842,401 $222,323,354 Low Income 58,040 $85,604,742 $68,824,752 Commercial & Industrial 919,015 $3...

AI summary The table presents National Grid's energy savings and expenditures from 2013 to 2015, categorized by sector (Residential, Low Income, Commercial & Industrial). It also outlines the incentive to total program spending ratios and spending per kWh ratios for each sector.

Financial Considerations as Related to Participant Perceived Value There are several different costs and metrics that may affect the financial considerations involved a participant's perceived value: - 1. Retail Price - 2. Project Costs -...

AI summary The document outlines financial considerations affecting participant perceived value, focusing on retail price, project costs, payback, and incremental equipment costs. Incremental equipment costs are defined as the net present value of differences in purchase, installation, and lifecycle costs between efficient options and base cases, emphasizing the importance of defining the base case for accurate analysis.

Table 2: Incremental Equipment Cost Scenarios Scenario General Description A customer may decide to make a new purchase for a technology or service. There is not a current technology or service in use. For example, if a customer purchases...

AI summary This table outlines scenarios for incremental equipment costs, focusing on situations where a customer makes a new purchase or installation. It describes how the standard technology is determined, often based on market popularity or the absence of existing technology.

Component of Incremental Equipment Cost and Participant Cost Test Component of Participant Cost Test Upfront Purchase Costs Upfront Installation Costs Lifecycle Purchase Costs (excluding Upfront Purchase Costs) ] Lifecycle Installation Cos...

AI summary This table outlines the components of the Incremental Equipment Cost and Participant Cost Test, which includes upfront and lifecycle costs, program incentives, and residual value considerations.

Table 4: Cost Effectiveness Tests and Relationship to Incentive Setting from a Return on Investment Perspective Cost Effectiveness Test General Description and Features Implication for Incentive Setting TRC The utility benefits are evaluat...

AI summary This table outlines the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) as cost-effectiveness tests used in incentive setting. TRC evaluates utility benefits and costs over the lifetime of savings, using a discount rate, while PAC compares societal benefits to utility costs and can be used to set incentives.

Unique Combination Customer Cost Considered Rationale for Selection Residential Customer LED A Lamp Purchase Current Incandescent A Lamp Burned Out (Replacement on Burnout) Retail Price Residential customers for small purchases look at ret...

AI summary The table outlines different customer cost considerations for various replacement scenarios, such as residential LED lamp purchases and commercial chiller replacements. It explains that residential customers focus on retail price for small purchases, while larger purchases involve project costs, incremental equipment costs, and payback analysis.

r>i de d te an ne rg y w n rm av o ts. co s G P & E fo l ine d c f fec ive ing tre t e t te t t p er rm s s am os ne ss s a f t he du de lop in de tag t nt ev ery s e o p ro c ve me p roc es s or r de ine l im ina inc ive ha he to te t tes...

AI summary The text discusses the methodology for identifying incentive-setting best practices, referencing the Technical Reference Manual (TRM) and Public Affairs Committee (PAC), and mentions measures related to energy efficiency and cost considerations within PG&E's filings.

u a c os ne ss im t. p ac Du ing he D S M lan ing f fec ive for is de lop d it h l l t t e t t r p n p roc es s, a co s ne ss ec as ve e w a d he fo l io be ing d fo f fec ive ing he t t t e t t me as ure s, p rog ra ms an p or s cre en e...

AI summary The text discusses the Instant Savings Program and CLEAResult's recommendations for its development and implementation, including measures, program structures, and cost considerations. It also refers to the TRC and PAC, and mentions efficiency and cost-related topics.

r>ac n er es e nc an ex am p o co n o a na s w re re ne o lua d de ine he ir in d iv i du l c i bu ion lue fo he te to te t tr t to r t to p rog ra m we re ev a rm a on va cu s me r. E f f ic ien On du d de h ic h t de d he ha is ics f t h...

AI summary CLEAResult provides recommendations for the Home Energy Assessment program, focusing on efficiency, program management, and participant cost considerations. The text emphasizes the need for improved program structure, stakeholder engagement, and cost-effective implementation strategies.

Measure Project Cost ($) Simple Project Payback Current Cost to Customer Cost to Customer Threshold Custom Project Retrofit Track $96,424 4 years 25% 50% 2 years Table 33: Cost to Customer Incentive Level Threshold for Average Project in C...

AI summary Table 33 presents data on the 'Custom Project Retrofit Track,' including project cost, payback period, current and threshold cost to customer percentages, and timeframes. This information is relevant for assessing the cost-to-customer incentives for average projects in custom retrofits.

Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold EfficiencyOne has a PAC target of 4.9 for this program. For the calculation, it is assumed that program administration costs are 40 percent of total expenditure, which leaves the incentive costs...

AI summary EfficiencyOne has a PAC target of 4.9 for this program. Program administration costs are assumed to be 40% of total expenditure, with incentive costs making up 60%, resulting in program administration expenditure being 67% of incentive expenditure.

Figure 20: Gas Program Budgets 4 Utility 2014 (Actuals) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2015-2020 Total Proposed Program Overhead Costs $10,023,000 $8,342,000 $8,505,000 $8,524,000 $8,542,000

AI summary Figure 20 presents proposed program overhead costs for gas utilities from 2014 to 2020, showing a decrease in costs from 2014 to 2015, followed by relatively stable figures from 2015 to 2020.

- 4. Net Levelized cost ($/kWh)1 = PV (costs all benefits except for electric energy benefits) / PV (energy savings) Benefits Costs Avoided electric energy costs Avoided electric capacity costs Avoided non-electric fuel costs Customer non-...

AI summary The text outlines the calculation of net levelized cost per kWh, which involves dividing the present value of costs (excluding electric energy benefits) by the present value of energy savings. It also presents a table comparing benefits and costs associated with various programs, including avoided costs and incentive expenses.

Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is provided below: Prior Year Current Year 2014 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 Cumulative starting 1/1/12 # participants with installations 37,483 54,135 131,094 131,094 Operating Costs Administr...

AI summary Efficiency Vermont's spending for 2013 and 2014 is detailed, with a focus on operating costs, technical assistance, support services, and incentive costs. The data includes participant numbers, cost breakdowns, and energy savings metrics, highlighting the program's effectiveness in energy efficiency.

4. Incentive Rate Finalized Once the incremental measure cost is finalized, Efficiency Maine will set a standard incentive using the above considerations.

AI summary Efficiency Maine establishes a standard incentive after finalizing incremental measure costs, considering prior evaluations and cost-effectiveness criteria. The process ensures alignment with program objectives and regulatory guidelines for energy efficiency initiatives.