E-22024 DSM Programs Evaluation Reports
11 passages
National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings [NECB] 2020 Part 9 buildings); such an approach could be considered by E1 if the program wishes to capture a higher proportion of projects outside the HRM. › Participants are satisfied with the...
AI summary Participants report high satisfaction with E1's responsiveness but moderate satisfaction with program value due to costs and ROI uncertainty. Decarbonization motivates participation, yet financial barriers (higher costs, modelling expenses) and low modeller engagement hinder adoption. Insufficient modelling cost coverage is a key concern.
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.
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.
[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.
7.3.1 LED Lighting Costs
AI summary This section introduces the discussion on LED Lighting Costs, though no detailed analysis or specific data are provided in the excerpt. The focus is likely on evaluating the financial implications of transitioning to LED lighting within regulatory contexts.
enable this, the service could conduct an analysis to identify high-opportunity non-MURB sectors, including relevant stakeholders, and develop targeted outreach and engagement plans for these sectors. E1 program staff explained that popula...
AI summary The service aims to boost non-MURB participation in energy efficiency programs by analyzing high-opportunity sectors, engaging stakeholders like architects early, and hiring Energy Managers with non-MURB expertise. Challenges include limited data outside HRM and higher costs for smaller buildings, with public sector buildings seen as key opportunities outside HRM.
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.
2024 Custom NC Process Highlights - › There is a relatively high level of participant satisfaction with Custom New Construction overall. - › The service has been more successful in reaching MURBs than non-MURBs inside the HRM. - › There ar...
AI summary The 2024 Custom NC Process shows high participant satisfaction but faces challenges in reaching non-MURBs due to eligibility rules and municipal codes. Builders cite financial risks and upfront costs as major barriers to decarbonization, with concerns about NECB 2020 compliance timelines. Key barriers include high modelling costs, limited modeller participation, and low developer awareness, though the service addresses some issues outside its logic model.
6.2.4 Evaluated Gross Savings [Table](#page-18-0) 24 below presents the overall evaluated gross savings for Building Optimization, which were obtained by applying project-specific adjustments to energy and peak demand savings as a result o...
AI summary The section discusses the evaluation of gross savings for Building Optimization projects, including adjustments for energy and peak demand savings based on project reviews. Line loss factors from the 2014 Cost of Service Study Progress Update were used to calculate savings at the generator level for each project.
D. Barriers and Motivations - D1. What were your primary concerns when you were considering building a high-efficiency building? [DO NOT READ. MULTIPE RESPONSE] - 1. (Cost of energy efficient technologies) - 1. (Cost of energy modeling) -...
AI summary The section explores barriers to high-efficiency building practices, including concerns about technology costs, profitability, construction speed, expertise gaps, and performance risks. It also inquires about uninstalled efficiency technologies and their specifics, aiming to identify motivations and obstacles in energy-efficient construction.
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.