E-22021 DSM Evaluation Reports
15 passages
Site Visits The Evaluator performed a total of 106 on-site visits during the summer and fall of 2021. For Business Energy Rebates, the objective of on-site visits was to collect data to establish or validate some of the parameters used in...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted 106 on-site visits in 2021 to validate data and parameters for various programs, including Business Energy Rebates, Affordable Multifamily Housing, and Efficient Product Installation. These visits aimed to ensure accuracy in savings calculations and model simulations.
Strategic Energy Management - › SEM net energy and peak demand savings did not meet targets. - › The SEM participation level has remained stable over the past four years - › While adjustments to energy savings were minor, adjustments made...
AI summary The Strategic Energy Management (SEM) program's net energy and peak demand savings have not met targets. Participation levels have remained stable, but adjustments to peak demand savings were significant due to unreported savings by EOne. A new methodology for estimating EUL values has led to higher average EUL for SEM.
- › Driven by increases in participation, Appliance Retirement slightly surpassed its 2021 energy savings targets and achieved 17% more savings than in 2020. While it did not achieve its 2021 peak demand savings targets, these savings were...
AI summary The document outlines the performance of various energy efficiency programs in 2021, highlighting successes and challenges. Appliance Retirement and Green Heat exceeded their energy savings targets, while Home Energy Assessment and Efficient Product Installation faced challenges. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Mi'kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project is also noted.
DEFINITIONS Accuracy Reflects the proximity of measurements to the true value. 10 INSTANT SAVINGS KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS76 CONCLUSION79 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of 2021 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program Evaluat...
AI summary The text provides definitions and lists tables related to the evaluation of energy efficiency programs, including the 2021 Residential Efficient Product Rebates Program and the ARet program. It includes details on tracked and evaluated savings, free-ridership, and other metrics.
Other Products No interactive effects factors were calculated for power bars, outdoor devices, and thermostats sold through the program component. For clotheslines and outdoor drying racks, as well as large appliances, interactive effects...
AI summary The text states that interactive effects factors were not calculated for certain products like power bars, outdoor devices, and thermostats sold through the program component. For clotheslines, outdoor drying racks, and large appliances, interactive effects were considered negligible.
HEA Findings and Recommendations This section presents the key findings and recommendations from the HEA evaluation. 2021 HEA-Finding: HEA net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets. As outlined in [Figure](#page-7...
AI summary The 2021 HEA evaluation found that net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets by 37% and 40%, respectively. Savings per home decreased, though the rate of decline slowed. The tracking sheet has become more complex, increasing the risk of calculation errors. A recommendation is made to update and simplify the tracking sheet for the next evaluation.
11.2 Follow-up on Past Evaluation Report Recommendations The Evaluator evaluated EPI in previous years and issued improvement recommendations. [Table](#page-151-2) 45 provides a summary of the implementation status of each recommendation p...
AI summary The document discusses the follow-up on past evaluation report recommendations for the Efficient Product Installation (EPI) program. It mentions that a market evaluation for EPI was deferred to 2022 and provides a table summarizing the implementation status of these recommendations.
Table 46: 2021 EPI Evaluation Approach Evaluation Objectives Research Questions Methodology Collect information on participant perspectives › How did participants become aware of EPI? › Why did participants want to participate in EPI? › Wh...
AI summary Table 46 outlines the 2021 EPI Evaluation Approach, detailing objectives, research questions, and methodologies for evaluating the Efficient Product Installation program. It includes participant surveys, tracking sheet audits, on-site visits, and calculations for gross and net results, including free-ridership and spillover levels.
Table 57: 2021 EPI Net-to-gross Ratios by Product Category LED Lamps Low-flow Showerheads Other Products Non-low income Participants Low-income Participants Non-low income Participants Low-income Participants Non-low income Participants Lo...
AI summary Table 57 presents the 2021 Net-to-gross Ratios (NTGR) for the Efficient Product Installation (EPI) program by product category and participant type. The table shows that low-income participants had higher NTGR values for LED lamps and other products, while non-low-income participants had a higher proportion of gross savings. A footnote explains that 2019 owner values were used for comparison due to lack of differentiation between owners and tenants in 2021.
On-Site Visits and Desk Reviews In the fall of 2021, Equilibrium performed on-site visits and simulation model reviews for three comprehensive projects and reviewed the documentation of four prescriptive projects. Affordable Multifamily Ho...
AI summary Equilibrium conducted on-site visits and desk reviews in 2021 for energy efficiency projects, including Affordable Multifamily Housing 134, to validate simulation models and savings tracking. The process involved reviewing documentation, collecting participant perspectives, and following a protocol outlined in Appendix XX.
On-site Visit Protocol The on-site visits were conducted to verify the number of products installed and recorded in the tracking sheet as well as verify house characteristics needed for impact calculations. The on-site visit protocol was d...
AI summary The on-site visit protocol was developed to verify product installations and house characteristics for impact calculations, with a focus on establishing installation rates and determining reasons for product removal.
APPENDIX XV EPI: ALGORITHM FOR PARTICIPANT SPILLOVER CALCULATION Participant spillover was measured using a participant survey. Participants were asked, pursuant to participating in EPI, whether they implemented any additional energy effic...
AI summary This appendix outlines the algorithm used to calculate participant spillover in the EPI program. It involves surveying participants to determine if they implemented additional energy efficiency measures outside of rebates, and quantifying the influence of the program on these decisions. The spillover level is calculated by dividing additional savings attributable to the program by total program savings.
Tracking Sheet Audit Prior to performing the savings calculation review, the Evaluator performed an audit of the final 2021 tracking sheets to ensure they were complete and the entered data were consistent. The detailed protocols used for...
AI summary The Evaluator conducted an audit of the final 2021 tracking sheets to ensure completeness and data consistency prior to performing the savings calculation review. Detailed protocols and results are presented in Appendices VI and XI.
Table 39: Evaluated 2021 EMIS Gross Energy and Peak Demand Savings 82 Table 40: Evaluated 2021 EMIS GHG Emission Reductions83 Table 41: Comparison of 2021 EMIS Tracked and Evaluated Savings at the Generator84 Table 42: Implementation Statu...
AI summary The text presents a list of tables and figures from a regulatory proceeding document, focusing on energy management and efficiency programs. Tables evaluate energy savings, GHG emissions, and program implementation status, while figures illustrate program performance, participant satisfaction, and participation trends over time.
Table 1: Participant Interview Questionnaire and Free-ridership Algorithm Question (From the Custom New Construction Participant Interview Guide) Response Score A4. [IF A1=NO, DK or REFUSED] Who were the key decision-makers that played a k...
AI summary This table outlines a participant interview questionnaire focused on decision-making processes related to constructing buildings that exceed code standards, including questions about key decision-makers and whether design was finalized before knowing about incentives from Efficiency Nova Scotia.