Topic:"Energy Efficiency Budgets" in M07544

Table 3: Research Engagement Phase Research and Engagement Phase Technology This research is conducted with the goal of understanding the savings opportunity for the technology, and to establish a range for the incentive level. All of the...

AI summary This section discusses the Research and Engagement Phase, focusing on understanding technology savings opportunities and establishing incentive levels. It highlights the use of benchmarking, market research, and the creation of documents similar to Technology Research Methodologies (TRMs) to guide incentive practices.

Year Annual Savings (GWh) Expenditure ($ million) Unit Cost ($/kWh) 2016 139.9 $50.5 $0.36/kWh 2017 141.7 $50.0 $0.35/kWh 2018 136.2 $52.4 $0.38/kWh Total 417.8 $152.9 $0.37/kWh Table 10 : Nova Scotia Achievable Potential Summary The numbe...

AI summary The table shows annual energy savings and expenditures from 2016 to 2018, with total savings of 417.8 GWh and total expenditure of $152.9 million. The achievable potential study indicates that ENS's savings targets are nearly 100% of achievable potential, but the UARB approved only 50-70% of the required budget.

Current Programs Program Name Program Offer and Incentive Structure Custom For larger commercial and industrial customers, recommissioning specialists will review the building's original operating documents, equipment, temperature settings...

AI summary The current programs include custom recommissioning services for large commercial and industrial customers, offering up to $25,000 per building for energy efficiency improvements, and assistance with energy modeling and prescriptive incentives for new builds or renovations, with up to $15,000 fully covered.

Basis for Program Budget Incentive Threshold Customer and Decision Basis Absolute Limit Suggested Boundary/Ceiling Low Income Customer, Direct Install Model $/kWh $1.50/kWh $1.20/kWh Residential Customer, Small Purchase at Retailer $/kWh $...

AI summary The table outlines the incentive thresholds for various customer types and program models, including absolute limits and suggested boundaries for cost effectiveness. These thresholds are used to determine acceptable levels of incentives for different categories of customers and programs.

m delivery structure, there may be options to improve tracking frequency. It is advised that as much granularity as possible should be used for frequency. This granularity will provide insight into potential program or portfolio budget ris...

AI summary The text discusses the importance of using high granularity in tracking frequency for program and portfolio budget risks, allowing EfficiencyOne to adjust spending as needed. Some programs may only be able to track data monthly.

Program Budget Incentive Level Threshold As discussed in the Financial Impact Analysis section of the General Principles recommendations, a program that features residential customers making small purchases at retailers should use $/kWh fo...

AI summary The document discusses the incentive level threshold for a residential program budget, suggesting a boundary of $0.50/kWh based on CLEAResult's recommendation, while EfficiencyOne uses $0.26/kWh. It also notes that program administration costs typically range between 20-30% of total expenditures.

The current incentive for the ENERGY STAR specialty lamp is 9 percent higher than the program budget incentive level threshold (assuming a 30 percent program administration expenditure). It means a reduction of $0.41 from the current incen...

AI summary The text discusses the current incentives for ENERGY STAR specialty lamps, recessed downlights, and dimmer switches, which exceed the program budget incentive level threshold. Adjustments are proposed to reduce these incentives to meet the threshold. EfficiencyOne's program budget expenditure limit of $0.26/kWh is also mentioned, allowing less expensive measures to subsidize more expensive ones.

JURISDICTIONAL SCANS - GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Jurisdiction Peak Load (MW) or Annual Consumption (Therms) Population Served Types of Electricity Generation Nova Scotia (ENS) 2,124 MW ≈ 950,000 Coal, Renewables, Natural Gas Ontario Electricity...

AI summary The jurisdictional scans compare electricity generation, consumption, and energy efficiency frameworks across various regions. Nova Scotia's energy framework period is 2016-2018, with an annual savings target of 135.3 GWh and a budget of $34.05 million. The table highlights differences in peak load, population served, generation sources, and efficiency programs.

FUTURE TARGETS The Conservation First Framework covers the time period from 2015-2020. The province-wide budget for the six years is $2.2 billion, of which LDCs are provided with $1.8 billion. The IESO retains some funds for central servic...

AI summary The Conservation First Framework for 2015-2020 outlines a province-wide budget of $2.2 billion, with $1.8 billion allocated to LDCs. The total Ontario target is 8.7 TWh, with LDCs having a combined target of 7 TWh. Each LDC must submit a CDM plan aligned with cost effectiveness and budget requirements.

INCENTIVE LEVEL SETTING METHODOLOGY LDC Name Target (GWh) Budget Algoma Power Inc. 7.5 $2,107,963 Atikokan Hydro Inc. 1.1 $311,330 Attawapiskat Power Corporation 0.5 $148,832 Bluewater Power Distribution Corporation 62.4 $15,838,687 Brant...

AI summary The document outlines the incentive level setting methodology for various Local Distribution Companies (LDCs), including their target energy generation in gigawatt-hours (GWh) and corresponding budgets. Each LDC is listed with specific figures, indicating the financial allocation for their operations.

Approved Approved Annual D SM Budgets 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...

AI summary The document presents approved annual DSM budgets for Enbridge and Union from 2014 to 2020, including overhead costs and proposed program budgets. It also mentions the use of a weighted scorecard approach to incorporate performance metrics and broader conservation priorities.

Figure 22: Union Gas Targets & Performance Metric[s](#page-112-0) 4 Resource Acquisition Scorecard Metric Units Weight 2016 Target Metrics and Targets Cumulative Savings CCM (millions) 75% 1,11 Home Reno Rebate Participants Homes 25% 3,000...

AI summary The text presents a scorecard with performance metrics and targets for Union Gas, including cumulative savings, participant numbers, and energy efficiency goals for various programs such as Home Reno Rebate, Low Income, Market Transformation, and Performance Based initiatives.

EXISTING MAIN PROGRAMS – UNION GAS [4](#page-112-1) Program Area Program Name Description Incentives Links Resource Acquisition C&I Prescriptive Program provides customers rebates for a list of recommended efficient technologies and equipm...

AI summary Union Gas offers two main programs for commercial and industrial customers: C&I Prescriptive and C&I Custom. The Prescriptive program provides rebates for efficient technologies, while the Custom program offers incentives based on specific customer needs and savings realized.

- 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.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE & COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY California has long been recognized as one of the leading jurisdiction in North America regarding the regulatory standards and policies established to guide the des...

AI summary California has implemented a 'Rolling Target' system for energy efficiency programs, requiring IOUs to submit annual budgets and a 'business plan' every five years. The CPUC has committed to allocating approximately $1B in ratepayer funds for energy efficiency and conservation programs.

Budget & Spending PG&Es total budget spending on energy efficiency programming (including Codes & Standards funding and On-Bill Financing) achieved through actual expenditures of $1.53B vs. a budget of $1.68B. This is to be commended given...

AI summary PG&E's energy efficiency programming budget spending reached $1.53B, exceeding the $1.68B budget. This achievement is acknowledged, highlighting PG&E's success in surpassing its targets.

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.

13. Incentive Rate Finalized Once the incremental measure cost is finalized, the Products team will set a standard incentive using the above considerations. Currently, PG&E is attempting to standardize this process in order to cascade the...

AI summary PG&E is finalizing an incentive rate process to standardize incentives across its utility-administered and third-party programs. The process considers incremental measure costs, payback periods, targeted incentives, and cost effectiveness at the program level. Incentives based on \/kWh or \/kW are updated less frequently than fixed incentives.

Below are the annual budgets and targets presented by the Energy Trust in its Annual Budget and Action Plans referred to below. 2013 2014 2015 2016 Electricity Efficiency $125,804,504 $130,262,893 $130,359,188 $141,288,266 Gas Efficiency $...

AI summary The Energy Trust has presented annual budgets and targets for electricity and gas efficiency from 2013 to 2016, showing increasing funds allocated to electricity efficiency and fluctuating amounts for gas efficiency.

12 2013 2014 2015 2016 Electricity Savings (aMW) 50.3 57.7 53.1 55.1 Natural Gas Savings (MM Therms) 6.0 6.1 5.8 6.0 INCENTIVE-TO-ADMINISTRATION EXPENSE RATIOS

AI summary The table shows electricity and natural gas savings from 2013 to 2016, with a focus on incentive-to-administration expense ratios. These figures indicate energy efficiency achievements over the years.

Figure 41: NYSERDA Efficiency Programs: Energy Savings and Program Costs: 1998-2009 7 Year Cumulative Annual Reductions Cumulative Annual Peak Non- Curtailable Electric Demand Reductions Cumulative Peak Curtailable Demand Reductions Annu a...

AI summary Figure 41 presents data on energy savings and program costs for NYSERDA efficiency programs from 1998 to 2009. It includes cumulative annual energy reductions, peak demand reductions, and annual spending for various programs administered by NYSERDA and on behalf of three utilities: Consolidated Edison, National Fuel Gas, and National Grid.

Figure 42: Overall Targets 2007 - 20158 Energy Efficiency Savings (GWh) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Statewide Goals 1 New York State 15 x 15 Goals 564 1,471 3,991 7,263 10,631 14,082 17,608 21,222 24,927 NYSERDA SBC III Cu...

AI summary Figure 42 outlines energy efficiency savings targets from 2007 to 2015, including statewide goals, jurisdictional gaps, and specific territory targets. It also presents energy efficiency potential studies, such as the Con Edison Energy Efficiency Study 2010 and the Optimal Energy Efficiency Study 2008. Figures 43 and 44 provide program budgets for electric and gas programs over the same period.

The costs calculated in the TRC are costs paid by the program administrators and participants plus the increase in supply costs for any period when load is increased. Program Names (Targets in Dth) Target to Date Residential HVAC Multifami...

AI summary The TRC calculates costs paid by program administrators and participants, along with increased supply costs due to load increases. A table shows program targets and achievements from 2009 to 2015, and a section on incentive rate setting is mentioned.

Program Analysis Initiatives Target Market Incentive Setting Methodology Multi-family Energy Efficiency (Electric and Gas) Customers that own/manage a multifamily building looking to make their property more energy-efficient. Free in-unit...

AI summary The document outlines energy efficiency initiatives targeting multifamily and commercial/industrial customers, detailing incentive structures and rebate programs. These include free installations, per-unit savings incentives, and prescriptive rebates for equipment upgrades, with specific caps and requirements such as the TRC test.

Previous Results (Savings, Expenditure, Cost Effectiveness) Year Electricity Savings Expenditure Cost Effectiveness 2013 Not Available Not Available Not Available 2014 Not Available Not Available Not Available 2015 Not Available Not Availa...

AI summary The document outlines previous results and future targets related to electricity savings, expenditure, and cost effectiveness, but data is not available for the years 2013 to 2018. It also mentions an incentive level setting methodology, though details are not provided.

VERMONT ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY Vermont is viewed as one of the leading jurisdictions for promoting conservation in North America. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) has won multiple awar...

AI summary Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) leads energy efficiency efforts in Vermont through negotiated budgets and performance-based targets. The 2015-2017 cycle has a savings target of 321,800 MWh and a total resource benefits target of $336.3 million. Targets are determined through a Demand Resource Plan (DRP) process with a 20-year horizon, and budgets are set for each year in the cycle.

The total budget for all of Efficiency Vermont's portfolio from 2015-2017, including the performance award is indicated below: _ RESOURCE ACQUISITION Electric Efficiency Business Sector 201 15 1 2016 2017 2015-2017 Business Existing Facili...

AI summary The document outlines the total budget for Efficiency Vermont's portfolio from 2015 to 2017, including the performance award, with detailed breakdowns across various sectors and categories such as electric efficiency, thermal energy, and research & development.

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.

EFFICIENCY VERMONT CORE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS) Program Name Program Area Program Measures (Prescriptive Incentives) Links Agricultural Equipment Rebates Agricultural (Commercial)  Lighting  Equipment Rebates are pai...

AI summary This section outlines the core program offerings of Efficiency Vermont, focusing on residential and business programs. It details incentives for agricultural equipment and appliances, including eligibility criteria and rebate processes.

MARKET STRUCTURE OVERVIEW The Efficiency Maine Trust Act came in effect in 2009 and is responsible for Efficiency Maine's inception as an independent Trust. Their purpose is to develop, plan, coordinate, and implement energy efficiency/alt...

AI summary The Efficiency Maine Trust Act, effective in 2009, established Efficiency Maine as an independent trust responsible for implementing energy efficiency programs in Maine. These programs aim for significant energy savings, job creation, and greenhouse gas reductions. Triennial plans are developed and approved by the MPUC, and funding is sourced from ratepayers, the Forward Capacity Market, and utility contracts.

Figure 56: 2011-2015 Gas Savings Result [11](#page-184-0) Year Total (MMBtu) 2011 16,115 2012 1,845 2013 12,169 2014 30,839 2015 19,274 Total 80,242 Figure 57: Gross Electricity Savings 12 Program Annual kWh Savings Lifetime kWh Savings Ef...

AI summary Figure 56 presents gas savings results from 2011 to 2015, with a total of 80,242 MMBtu saved. Figure 57 details electricity savings from various programs in Efficiency Maine, including annual and lifetime kWh savings, costs, and benefit-to-cost ratios for each program.

Figure 58: Gross Gas Savings [12](#page-185-0) Program Annual MMBtu Savings Lifetime MMBtu Savings Efficiency Maine Costs Participant Cost Lifetime Energy Benefit Cost/MMBTu (Lifetime) Benefit-to- Cost Ratio Business Incentive Program Natu...

AI summary The document presents data on gas savings and program costs for various energy efficiency initiatives in Maine, including business incentives, low-income direct install programs, and home energy savings programs. It also provides details on the use of funds in FY2015, highlighting administrative and program expenses.

Costs TRC at the Program level: - Costs incurred by program participants (incremental costs) - Costs of running the energy efficiency programs (delivery and administration costs) TRC at the Measure level: Costs incurred from the measure (i...

AI summary The text outlines Total Resource Costs (TRC) and Program Administrator Costs (PACT) at both the program and measure levels, detailing incremental costs, delivery and administration costs, and incentive costs associated with energy efficiency programs.

Figure 60: Benefit- Cost Ratios: Electric Programs 2015 [12](#page-185-0) Adjusted Gross Benefit-to-Cost-Ratio Net Benefit-to-Cost-Ratio Programs TRC PACT Last Evaluation Net to Gross Ratio TRC PACT Business Incentive Program Electric Meas...

AI summary The text presents benefit-cost ratios for various electric and natural gas programs in 2015, showing adjusted gross and net benefit-to-cost ratios. These ratios are calculated for different programs such as the Business Incentive Program, Home Energy Savings Program, and Low-Income Direct Install Initiative, with varying TRC and PACT values.

Figure 62: Electric Program Expenditures 2015 [12](#page-185-0) Program Incentive Delivery Total Business Incentive Program Electric Measures $15,642,304 $1,520,601 $17,162,905 Large Customer Program Electric Measures $6,439,194 $544,245 $...

AI summary Figure 62 presents a detailed breakdown of electric and natural gas program expenditures in 2015, including incentive, delivery, and total costs for various programs such as business incentives, home energy savings, and low-income initiatives, highlighting the overall financial commitment to energy efficiency and conservation efforts.

MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY Massachusetts is viewed as one of the leading jurisdictions for promoting energy efficiency in North America. It is ranked as the #1 jurisdiction in ACEEE's 20...

AI summary Massachusetts is a leader in energy efficiency, with aggressive targets and a structured planning cycle. The Green Communities Act requires utilities to prioritize cost-effective energy efficiency programs. The 2016-2018 plan aims to save 4,122 GWh with a budget of $1.96 billion, with funding from sources like the Systems Benefit Charge and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

NATIONAL GRID CORE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS) Program Name Program Area Program Measures Links Small Business Program Commercial  For customers with a demand under 300 kW, offer a free audit for identifying energy saving...

AI summary The document outlines National Grid's core program offerings for residential and business customers, including incentives for energy efficiency measures such as audits, retrofits, and new construction or renovation projects. These programs aim to reduce energy consumption and promote sustainable practices.

Budget Threshold Measure level, program or portfolio budgets can also limit incentive levels. For example, for high-volume measures, there may be an overall budgetary restriction due to the volume risk of participation. Additionally, certa...

AI summary Budget thresholds can limit incentive levels in high-volume programs due to volume risk and jurisdiction-specific spending limits, such as \/kWh or \/kW metrics. Commercial and industrial sectors typically have lower \/kWh spending compared to residential, requiring a balance in incentive allocation.

Year Residential Energy Savings (GWh) Business, Not for Profit and Institutional Savings (GWh) Residential Demand Reduction (MW) Business, Not for Profit and Institutional Demand Reduction (MW) Fully Allocated Residential Expenditure ($ mi...

AI summary The document presents tables showing historical energy savings and expenditure for residential and business sectors in Nova Scotia, and compares Nova Scotia's energy efficiency performance with other jurisdictions. It notes that Nova Scotia's efficiency programs are comparable to those in other regions in terms of spending and energy savings.

Year Annual Savings (GWh) Expenditure ($ million) Unit Cost ($/kWh) 2016 139.9 $50.5 $0.36/kWh 2017 141.7 $50.0 $0.35/kWh 2018 136.2 $52.4 $0.38/kWh Total 417.8 $152.9 $0.37/kWh Table 14 : Nova Scotia Achievable Potential Summary The numbe...

AI summary Table 14 presents annual energy savings and expenditures from 2016 to 2018, showing that ENS's current savings targets are nearly 100% of achievable potential. However, the UARB approved budget is only 50-70% of the forecasted required budget, depending on the year and scenario.

Table 15 : ENS Program Overview Program Name Program Offer and Incentive Structure Type of Program (for CE modelling purposes) Commercial, institutional and industrial customers are eligible to apply to the Custom Program for measures or p...

AI summary The ENS Custom Program allows commercial, institutional, and industrial customers to apply for energy efficiency measures not covered by standard project streams. Incentives are negotiated based on factors like total cost and payback period, and interest-free financing is available. A compressed air-focused component includes no-cost studies and leak fixing incentives.

Basis for Program Budget Incentive Threshold Customer and Decision Basis Suggested Boundary/Ceiling Low Income Customer, Direct Install Model $/kWh $1.20/kWh Residential Customer, Small Purchase at Retailer $/kWh $0.50/kWh Basis for Progra...

AI summary The text outlines suggested incentive thresholds for different customer types and program decisions, providing a basis for program budget incentives. These thresholds are expressed in dollars per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and, in some cases, include total incentive limits.

Program Budget Incentive Level Threshold As discussed in the Financial Impact Analysis section of the General Principles recommendations, a program that features residential customers making small purchases at retailers should use $/kWh fo...

AI summary The document discusses the program budget incentive level threshold for residential customers making small purchases, suggesting a \/kWh metric. CLEAResult recommends a threshold of \/kWh, while EfficiencyOne uses \/kWh. Program administration costs are estimated at 20-30% of total expenditures.

Even though programmable thermostats have an incentive of 50 percent of their retail price, their low market penetration and high per unit energy savings make them important for future program success, especially when considering Nova Scot...

AI summary The document discusses the current incentive levels for programmable thermostats, heavy-duty timers, and outdoor clotheslines in Nova Scotia's energy efficiency programs. It highlights that while some incentives are effective, others may need adjustment due to market penetration and cost-effectiveness considerations.

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 at 60 percent of expenditure. Therefore the...

AI summary EfficiencyOne has a PAC target of 4.9 for the program. Program administration costs are estimated at 40% of total expenditure, with incentive costs making up the remaining 60%. This results in program administration expenditure being 67% of incentive expenditure.

Comparison of Current Incentive Level to Incentive Level Thresholds Measure Cost to Customer Incentive Level Threshold Exceeded? Program Budget Incentive Level Threshold Exceeded? Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold Exceeded? Cust...

AI summary The document compares the current incentive levels in the Custom Project Retrofit Track to the incentive level thresholds for cost to customer, program budget, and cost effectiveness. It concludes that the Custom Program has appropriate incentive levels for the average project.

JURISDICTIONAL SCANS - GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Jurisdiction Peak Load (MW) or Annual Consumption (Therms) Population Served Types of Electricity Generation Nova Scotia (ENS) 2,124 MW ≈ 950,000 Coal, Renewables, Natural Gas Ontario Electricity...

AI summary The text presents a jurisdictional scan comparing electricity generation, peak load, population served, and energy efficiency frameworks across various regions, including Nova Scotia (ENS), Ontario, British Columbia, and others. It highlights differences in energy generation types, savings targets, and budget allocations for energy efficiency programs.

INCENTIVE LEVEL SETTING METHODOLOGY LDC Name Target (GWh) Budget Algoma Power Inc. 7.5 $2,107,963 Atikokan Hydro Inc. 1.1 $311,330 Attawapiskat Power Corporation 0.5 $148,832 Bluewater Power Distribution Corporation 62.4 $15,838,687 Brant...

AI summary The document presents a table outlining various Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) with their respective energy efficiency targets in gigawatt-hours (GWh) and corresponding budgets. The data highlights the financial commitments and energy efficiency goals for each LDC.

Approved opproved Annual DSM Budgets 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...

AI summary The document presents approved annual DSM budgets for Enbridge and Union from 2014 to 2020, along with overhead costs and performance metrics. The gas utilities use a weighted scorecard approach that prioritizes lifetime natural gas savings while considering broader conservation goals.

Figure 23: Union Gas Targets & Performance Metric[s](#page-125-0) 4 Resource Acquisition Scorecard Metric Units Weight 2016 Targo Metrics and Targets Cumulative Savings CCM (millions) 75% 1,1: Home Reno Rebate Participants Homes 25% 3,000...

AI summary Figure 23 outlines Union Gas's targets and performance metrics, including cumulative savings targets, participant numbers for various programs, and performance-based goals. Metrics include home renovation rebate participants, low-income savings, and market transformation 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.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE & COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY California has long been recognized as one of the leading jurisdiction in North America regarding the regulatory standards and policies established to guide the des...

AI summary California's CPUC introduced a 'Rolling Target' system to set annual energy efficiency program targets and budgets, requiring IOUs to submit annual budgets and business plans every five years. The D.14-10-046 decision ensures approximately $1B in ratepayer funds will be allocated annually for energy efficiency and conservation programs.

Budget & Spending PG&Es total budget spending on energy efficiency programming (including Codes & Standards funding and On-Bill Financing) achieved through actual expenditures of $1.53B vs. a budget of $1.68B. This is to be commended given...

AI summary PG&E's total budget spending on energy efficiency programming, including Codes & Standards funding and On-Bill Financing, was $1.53B, achieving its targets despite a $1.68B budget. This performance is commendable.

Below are the annual budgets and targets presented by the Energy Trust in its Annual Budget and Action Plans referred to below. 2013 2014 2015 2016 Electricity Efficiency $125,804,504 $130,262,893 $130,359,188 $141,288,266 Gas Efficiency $...

AI summary The Energy Trust's annual budgets and targets for electricity and gas efficiency programs from 2013 to 2016 are presented in a table, showing increasing funding for electricity efficiency and fluctuating amounts for gas efficiency.

Below are the incentive-to-administration expense ratios by year obtained from the annual approved budgets for the Energy Trust's Annual Budget and Action Plans. The expenses listed are related to energy efficiency. Please note that ―admin...

AI summary The text provides incentive-to-administration expense ratios by year from the Energy Trust's annual approved budgets, focusing on energy efficiency. Administration includes both Energy Trust's program management costs and third-party delivery agent costs, while incentives relate to product incentives and direct services like audits.

Figure 43: Overall Targets 2007 - 2015 8 Energy Efficiency Savings (GWh) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Statewide Goals 1 New York State 15 x 15 Goals 564 1,471 3,991 7,263 10,631 14,082 17,608 21,222 24,927 NYSERDA SBC III C...

AI summary The text presents energy efficiency savings targets and program budgets for New York State and Con Edison from 2007 to 2015, highlighting the gap between statewide goals and jurisdictional targets, as well as the financial commitments allocated to various energy efficiency programs.

Figure 46: Electric Savings Result 9 Program Names (Savings in MWh) Accumulated Savings to Year C&I Custom Efficiency C&I Equipment Rebate Small Business Direct Install Residential Direct Install Appliance Bounty Residential Room Air Condi...

AI summary Figure 46 and 47 present accumulated electric and gas savings results by program and year, highlighting program names, savings in MWh and Dth, and percentages achieved. The data reflects contributions from various programs such as C&I Custom Efficiency, Residential Direct Install, and Multifamily Energy Efficiency. The figures also show program discontinuations and changes in targets over time.

VERMONT ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY Vermont is viewed as one of the leading jurisdictions for promoting conservation in North America. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) has won multiple awar...

AI summary Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) manages energy efficiency programs in Vermont, which does not have state legislation setting annual energy efficiency targets. Instead, targets are negotiated in three-year cycles and are based on achieving all reasonably available, cost-effective energy efficiency. The current cycle (2015-2017) has a savings target of 321,800 MWh and a total resource benefits target of $336.3 million.

The total budget for all of Efficiency Vermont's portfolio from 2015-2017, including the performance award is indicated below: DESCRIBEE ACQUISITION RESOURCE ACQUISITION Electric Efficiency 1 Business Sector 2015 2016 2017 2015-2017 Busine...

AI summary This document outlines the total budget for Efficiency Vermont's portfolio from 2015 to 2017, including the performance award. It details various sectors such as business and residential, along with non-resource acquisition activities like education, research, and administration, and concludes with a total budget of $174,156,931.

2012 2013 2014 2012–2014 Total Energy savings in megawatt- hours (MWh) 110,179 85,582 91,146 286,907 Total Resource Benefits 2 $118,358,445 $83,830,177 $82,101,439 $284,290,061 U.S. tons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided through efficien...

AI summary The document presents key quantifiable performance indicators (QPIs) for energy efficiency programs, including energy savings in megawatt-hours, total resource benefits, and carbon dioxide emissions avoided from 2012 to 2014. The results show that most goals were achieved or exceeded, with a notable 163% achievement in the ratio of gross electric benefits to spending.

Figure 57: 2011-2015 Gas Savings Result [11](#page-197-0) Year Total (MMBtu) 2011 16,115 2012 1,845 2013 12,169 2014 30,839 2015 19,274 Total 80,242 Figure 58: Gross Electricity Savings 12 Program Annual kWh Savings Lifetime kWh Savings Ef...

AI summary The text presents data on gas savings from 2011 to 2015 and electricity savings from Efficiency Maine programs. The data includes annual and lifetime savings, program costs, participant costs, and benefit-to-cost ratios for various initiatives.

Figure 59: Gross Gas Savings [12](#page-198-0) Program Annual MMBtu Savings Lifetime MMBtu Savings Efficiency Maine Costs Participant Cost Lifetime Energy Benefit Cost/MMBTu (Lifetime) Benefit-to- Cost Ratio Business Incentive Program Natu...

AI summary The text presents data on gas savings and financial expenditures related to energy efficiency programs in Maine. It includes tables with metrics like annual and lifetime MMBtu savings, costs, and benefit-to-cost ratios for various programs. It also outlines the use of funds in FY2015, categorized by program type and administrative expenses.

Figure 61: Benefit- Cost Ratios: Electric Programs 2015 [12](#page-198-0) Adjusted Gross Benefit-to-Cost-Ratio Net Benefit-to-Cost-Ratio Programs TRC PACT Last Evaluation Net to Gross Ratio TRC PACT Business Incentive Program Electric Meas...

AI summary The text presents benefit-cost ratios for various electric and natural gas programs in 2015, including adjusted gross and net benefit-to-cost ratios for different initiatives such as the Business Incentive Program, Home Energy Savings Program, and Low-Income Direct Install Initiative. These ratios are calculated using TRC and PACT metrics.

Figure 63: Electric Program Expenditures 2015 [12](#page-198-0) Program Incentive Delivery Total Business Incentive Program Electric Measures $15,642,304 $1,520,601 $17,162,905 Large Customer Program Electric Measures $6,439,194 $544,245 $...

AI summary Figure 63 outlines electric program expenditures for 2015, detailing various programs such as the Business Incentive Program, Home Energy Savings Program, and Low-Income Direct Install Initiative, along with their respective incentive, delivery, and total costs.

MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY Massachusetts is viewed as one of the leading jurisdictions for promoting energy efficiency in North America. It is ranked as the #1 jurisdiction in ACEEE's 20...

AI summary Massachusetts leads in energy efficiency, with aggressive targets set by the Green Communities Act. Programs are funded through multiple sources, including the Systems Benefit Charge and the Energy Efficiency Surcharge. A portion of the budget is allocated to low-income initiatives, and the state's 2016-2018 plan aims for 4,122 GWh of savings.

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 document presents National Grid's energy savings and expenditure data from 2013 to 2015, showing savings and costs across residential, low-income, and commercial/industrial sectors. It also provides ratios of incentive to total program spending and spending per kWh for each sector.

NATIONAL GRID CORE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS) Program Name Program Area Program Measures Links Deep Energy Retrofit Residential  Roof upgrades ($3.00/sqft), exterior walls ($3.50/sqft) and basement insulation ($2.00/sqft...

AI summary The document outlines National Grid's core program offerings for residential and business customers, including incentives for deep energy retrofits and rebates for early heating and cooling equipment replacement. These programs aim to improve energy efficiency and reduce costs through financial incentives and access to financing options.

Customer Cost Threshold The Customer Cost theoretical threshold for incentive setting is based on a customer's perception of what they are paying for a product. There are several considerations that may go into determining Customer Cost (s...

AI summary The Customer Cost theoretical threshold is determined by various factors including retail price, project cost, incremental equipment cost, and participant cost test/payback analysis. The choice of parameter depends on the customer, efficient option, and replacement decision. Customer education and research are emphasized to determine the most applicable threshold for different scenarios.

Research and Engagement Phase Consolidation of Findings Once the research and engagement phase is completed, findings must be compiled to be analyzed and weighed against each other. This sets the first stage for setting incentive rates. Th...

AI summary This section discusses the consolidation of findings from the research and engagement phase, emphasizing the analysis of findings to set incentive rates. It references the Energy Trust of Oregon's Preliminary Measure Development stage and mentions the use of the Technology Readiness Model (TRM) by program administrators to document barriers and solutions.

After the end of the most recent DSM planning process, ENS's 2016-2018 savings targets and budgets are as follows: Year Savings (GWh) Expenditure ($ million) Unit Cost ($/kWh) 2016 133.1 $33.21 $0.25/kWh 2017 136.5 $34.02 $0.25/kWh 2018 13...

AI summary This table outlines ENS's 2016-2018 energy efficiency savings targets and budgets, showing annual savings in gigawatt-hours and expenditures in millions of dollars, with unit costs per kilowatt-hour. The total savings over the period is 405.9 GWh, with a total expenditure of $102.15 million.

Year Annual Savings (GWh) Expenditure ($ million) Unit Cost ($/kWh) 2016 139.9 $50.5 $0.36/kWh 2017 141.7 $50.0 $0.35/kWh 2018 136.2 $52.4 $0.38/kWh Total 417.8 $152.9 $0.37/kWh Table 141014 : Nova Scotia Achievable Potential Summary The n...

AI summary The table shows annual savings and expenditures related to energy efficiency programs in Nova Scotia from 2016 to 2018. ENS's current savings targets are nearly 100% of achievable potential, but the UARB approved only 50-70% of the required budget, depending on the year and scenario.

The values for the Absolute Limit and the Suggested Boundary/Ceiling are derived from the jurisdictional studies and CLEAResult's experience from program design and incentive setting activities. Basis for Cost to Customer Cost Incentive Th...

AI summary The document outlines the basis for determining cost-to-customer incentive thresholds for different customer categories, derived from jurisdictional studies and CLEAResult's experience. Thresholds vary by customer type and include factors such as project cost, retail price, and incremental equipment cost.

elivery structure, there may be options to improve tracking frequency. It is advised that as much granularity as possible should be used for frequency. This granularity will provide insight into potential program or portfolio budget risks...

AI summary The text discusses the importance of tracking frequency in program and portfolio budget management, emphasizing the need for granularity to identify potential risks and adjust spending. Some programs may only track data monthly.

The Custom Program Retrofit incentive provides a level of flexibility that is best-in-class. Incentives are individually negotiated, based on four different parameters: - 1. Capped at percentage of project costs; - 2. Capped by simple payb...

AI summary The Custom Program Retrofit incentive offers flexible, individually negotiated incentives based on multiple parameters. It allows ENS to balance customer, utility, and societal perspectives. Incentives average 20-25% of project costs and contribute to about 60% of program expenditure. The program encourages non-lighting measures for portfolio diversity and includes safeguards against collusion and information sharing.

s and cost information through discussions with the manufacturers and distributors, as well as through the submission of project invoices, which confirm product pricing. Program Evaluation Through the annual program evaluation process, the...

AI summary CLEAResult recommends continuing engagement with the supply chain and reviewing project invoices to understand technology savings and pricing. They also suggest investigating methods to document operating hours for program participants in the Instant Rebates stream and implementing recommendations from the General Principles section to support the Business Energy Rebates program.

ants in the Home Energy Assessment program. It was found that some customers were implementing a subset of recommended measures after receiving an audit report, although they did not complete a final audit to receive the incentives. The re...

AI summary The Home Energy Assessment program has seen customer participation with some implementing recommended measures but not completing final audits for incentives. Research found that initial audits lower unit costs through spillover savings, leading to increased audit subsidies. A 2014 study by EfficiencyOne showed a 25% incentive was more effective than interest-free financing for major efficiency upgrades. Ongoing management involves understanding customer motivations and benchmarking against federal programs.

Program Budget Incentive Level Threshold As discussed in the Financial Impact Analysis section of the General Principles recommendations, a program that features residential customers making small purchases at retailers should use $/kWh fo...

AI summary The document discusses the appropriate program budget incentive level threshold for residential energy efficiency programs, suggesting a \/kWh metric. CLEAResult recommends a threshold of \/kWh, while EfficiencyOne uses \/kWh. Program administration costs are estimated at 20-30% of total expenditure.

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 at 60 percent of expenditure. Therefore the...

AI summary EfficiencyOne's program has a PAC target of 4.9, with program administration costs assumed to be 40% of total expenditure, leaving 60% for incentives. Program administration expenditure is 67% of incentive expenditure.

Measure Energy Savings Persistence Cost Effectiveness Threshold Custom Project Retrofit Track 10 3.14 Custom Project Retrofit Track 15 4.50 Custom Project Retrofit Track 20 5.69 Table 343034: Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold fo...

AI summary The table outlines the cost effectiveness incentive level thresholds for the Custom Project Retrofit Track based on energy savings persistence. The analysis indicates that the Program Administrator Cost (PAC) exceeds 4.9 for measures with energy savings persistence over 15 years, with a break-even point between 16-17 years.

JURISDICTIONAL SCANS - GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Jurisdiction Peak Load (MW) or Annual Consumption (Therms) Population Served Types of Electricity Generation Nova Scotia (ENS) 2,124 MW ≈ 950,000 Coal, Renewables, Natural Gas Ontario Electricity...

AI summary The document provides a jurisdictional scan comparing electricity generation and energy efficiency frameworks across various regions, including Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia, and others. It includes data on peak load, population served, types of generation, and energy efficiency targets and budgets.

FUTURE TARGETS The Conservation First Framework covers the time period from 2015-2020. The province-wide budget for the six years is $2.2 billion, of which LDCs are provided with $1.8 billion. The IESO retains some funds for central servic...

AI summary The Conservation First Framework (CFF) for 2015-2020 includes a total budget of $2.2 billion, with $1.8 billion allocated to Local Distribution Companies (LDCs). The overall target for energy savings is 8.7 TWh, with LDCs responsible for 7 TWh annually. Each LDC must develop a CDM plan that aligns with budget and cost-effectiveness requirements.

APPENDIX A-2: ONTARIO GAS (UNION GAS) Program Name Program Area Program Measures Links Retrofit Business This program features prescriptive incentives for qualifying equipment. Incentive applications are submitted online or through a paper...

AI summary This appendix outlines two programs under Ontario Gas (Union Gas): the Retrofit program, which offers prescriptive incentives for qualifying equipment, and another program designed for larger commercial and industrial projects with incentives based on upfront costs and cost effectiveness.

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.

Figure 232223: Union Gas Targets & Performance Metrics [44](#page-130-0) Resource Acquisition Scorecard Metric Units Weight 2016 Target Metrics and Targets Cumulative Savings CCM (millions) 75% 1,110 Home Reno Rebate Participants Homes 25%...

AI summary The text presents a scorecard with performance metrics and targets for Union Gas, including cumulative savings, participant numbers, and savings percentages for various programs such as Home Reno Rebate, RunSmart, and SEM, with specific targets for different years and categories.

- 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 is determined by dividing the present value of costs (excluding electric energy benefits) by the present value of energy savings. It lists various categories of benefits and costs associated with energy efficiency programs.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE & COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY California has long been recognized as one of the leading jurisdiction in North America regarding the regulatory standards and policies established to guide the des...

AI summary California has established leading regulatory standards for energy efficiency programs. The CPUC proposed a 'Rolling Target' system to set annual energy efficiency targets and budgets, requiring IOUs to submit annual budgets and a business plan every five years. D.14-10-046 has committed to funding approximately $1B annually for energy efficiency and conservation programs.

Budget & Spending PG&Es total budget spending on energy efficiency programming (including Codes & Standards funding and On-Bill Financing) achieved through actual expenditures of $1.53B vs. a budget of $1.68B. This is to be commended given...

AI summary PG&E's total budget spending on energy efficiency programming, including Codes & Standards funding and On-Bill Financing, was $1.53B, achieving its targets despite a budget of $1.68B. This performance is commendable.

Below are the annual budgets and targets presented by the Energy Trust in its Annual Budget and Action Plans referred to below. 2013 2014 2015 2016 Electricity Efficiency $125,804,504 $130,262,893 $130,359,188 $141,288,266 Gas Efficiency $...

AI summary The Energy Trust's annual budgets and targets for electricity and gas efficiency programs from 2013 to 2016 are presented in a table, showing increasing funding for electricity efficiency and fluctuating funding for gas efficiency. A reference to a strategic plan is also included.

Below are the incentive-to-administration expense ratios by year obtained from the annual approved budgets for the Energy Trust's Annual Budget and Action Plans. The expenses listed are related to energy efficiency. Please note that ―admin...

AI summary The text discusses incentive-to-administration expense ratios by year from the Energy Trust's annual approved budgets, focusing on energy efficiency. Administration includes costs for managing programs, third-party delivery agents, marketing, IT, and evaluation, while incentives relate to product incentives and direct services like audits.

Figure 434243 : Overall Targets 2007 - 2015 8 E- normy Effi cionar Car vings (GW (b.) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Statewide Goals 1 2007 2000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2013 New York State 15 x 15 Goals 564 1,471 3,991...

AI summary The text presents data on energy efficiency targets and program budgets from 2007 to 2015, including statewide goals, jurisdictional gaps, and program expenditures for electric and gas initiatives in New York State. It outlines energy efficiency potential studies and budget allocations for various programs targeting residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.

2010 $2.046.E99 2011 $3,046,588 2012 2013 $8,066,906 $4,748,800 $25,945,436 $12,790,000 $6,963,628 2014 $6,000,900 φ4,740,000 $25,945,430 $12,790,000 φ0,903,026 2015 Figure 464546 : Electric Savings Result 99 Program Names (Savings in MWh)...

AI summary The text presents tables showing electric and gas savings results from various programs between 2009 and 2015. It includes data on accumulated savings, program names, and specific savings by program type and year. The section also mentions 'Cost Effectiveness Testing,' indicating a focus on evaluating the financial performance of these programs.

Program Analysis Initiatives Target Market Incentive Setting Methodology Central Air Conditioning (Electric) Residential or business customers looking to add a thermostat to their property. Residential customers who already own a smart the...

AI summary The document outlines three energy efficiency initiatives by Con Edison, including incentives for residential and business customers to install thermostats and upgrade to energy-efficient appliances, with specific rebate and incentive amounts provided.

VERMONT ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY Vermont is viewed as one of the leading jurisdictions for promoting conservation in North America. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) has won multiple awar...

AI summary Vermont's energy efficiency program, managed by Efficiency Vermont, sets three-year energy savings targets and budgets negotiated between the PSB and VEIC. The 2015-2017 cycle targets 321,800 MWh of savings and a total resource benefits target of $336.3 million. Performance is measured through an EM&V process, with payments contingent on meeting targets.

The total budget for all of Efficiency Vermont's portfolio from 2015-2017, including the performance award is indicated below: DESCRIPTION ASSURED RESOURCE ACQUISITION Electric Efficiency Business Sector 2015 1 2016 2017 2015-2017 Business...

AI summary The document outlines the total budget for Efficiency Vermont's portfolio from 2015 to 2017, including the performance-based fee. It provides a detailed breakdown of resource acquisition, non-resource acquisition, and operations fees. The 2015 budgets were modified in the digital version, which may differ from printed versions.

2012 2013 2014 2012–2014 Total Energy savings in megawatt- hours (MWh) 110,179 85,582 91,146 286,907 Total Resource Benefits 2 $118,358,445 $83,830,177 $82,101,439 $284,290,061 U.S. tons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided through efficien...

AI summary The table presents energy savings, total resource benefits, and carbon dioxide emissions avoided from 2012 to 2014. It also outlines key quantifiable performance indicators (QPIs) related to electric and thermal energy savings, along with the achievement of goals set for the period. The data highlights the success of energy efficiency initiatives in meeting and exceeding targets.

Figure 575657: 2011-2015 Gas Savings Result [1111](#page-205-0) Year Total (MMBtu) 2011 16,115 2012 1,845 2013 12,169 2014 30,839 2015 19,274 Total 80,242 Figure 585758: Gross Electricity Savings 12 Program Annual kWh Savings Lifetime kWh...

AI summary The document presents gas savings results from 2011 to 2015 and electricity savings data from various programs under Efficiency Maine. The data includes annual and lifetime savings, costs, and benefit-to-cost ratios for different initiatives.

Figure 595859: Gross Gas Savings [1212](#page-206-0) Program Annual MMBtu Savings Lifetime MMBtu Savings Efficiency Maine Costs Participant Cost Lifetime Energy Benefit Cost/MMBTu (Lifetime) Benefit-to- Cost Ratio Business Incentive Progra...

AI summary The text presents tables detailing gas savings and program costs for various energy efficiency initiatives in Maine, highlighting savings, costs, and benefit-to-cost ratios. It also includes a breakdown of FY2015 payments for different programs and categories, indicating the distribution of funds.

Figure 616061: Benefit- Cost Ratios: Electric Programs 2015 [1212](#page-206-0) Adjusted Gross Benefit-to-Cost-Ratio Net I Benefit-to-Cost-F Ratio Programs TRC PACT Last Evaluation Net to Gross Ratio TRC PACT Business Incentive Program Ele...

AI summary The text presents benefit-cost ratios for various electric and natural gas programs in 2015, including details such as TRC, PACT, and net-to-gross ratios. These data are used to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of different energy programs.

Figure 636263: Electric Program Expenditures 2015 [1212](#page-206-0) Program Incentive Delivery Total Tier 1 incentive: Achieve a minimum of 20 percent projected whole energy savings through any combination of savings measures and receive...

AI summary The text outlines various incentive tiers and financial assistance programs for energy efficiency in residential settings, including specific funding amounts for energy-saving measures and loan options for homeowners. It highlights programs such as the Low Income Home Energy Savings Program and mentions additional incentives for specific utility customers.

MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY Massachusetts is viewed as one of the leading jurisdictions for promoting energy efficiency in North America. It is ranked as the #1 jurisdiction in ACEEE's 20...

AI summary Massachusetts is a leader in energy efficiency, with aggressive targets and funding mechanisms. The Green Communities Act mandates cost-effective energy efficiency programs, requiring utilities to prioritize efficiency over supply resources. The 2016-2018 plan aims for 4,122 GWh of savings with a budget of $1.96 billion, with 10% allocated to low-income programs. Funding sources include the Systems Benefit Charge, Forward Capacity Market revenues, and cap and trade programs.

NATIONAL GRID CORE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS) Program Name Program Area Program Measures Links Large Retrofit Program Commercial  Provides incentives for lighting and lighting controls, variable speed drives, food servic...

AI summary The National Grid Core Program Offerings include incentives for energy efficiency retrofits in commercial settings, covering lighting, variable speed drives, and food service equipment. Custom incentives are available for non-prescriptive measures, with engineering studies to assess savings.

Program administrators are not only affected by cost effectiveness concerns when determining their return on investment. From CLEAResult's experience, in several jurisdictions, the program budget is usually the limiting factor for expendit...

AI summary Program administrators face budget constraints that can override cost-effectiveness when determining return on investment. While incentives may be cost-effective, they must also align with program budgets. Budget considerations include per unit savings, per participant, and total impact. Return on investment criteria set ceilings for incentives, but actual values are often lower due to participant perceived value.

Research and Engagement Phase General Principle Definition Examples Identified Best Practice  Capture incentive rates used in benchmark jurisdictions (for new incentives)  Develop target budget and cost effectiveness thresholds

AI summary The text outlines a general principle related to research and engagement, emphasizing the capture of incentive rates from benchmark jurisdictions and the development of target budget and cost effectiveness thresholds as best practices.

After the end of the most recent DSM planning process, ENS's 2016-2018 savings targets and budgets are as follows: Year Savings (GWh) Expenditure ($ million) Unit Cost ($/kWh) 2016 133.1 $33.21 $0.25/kWh 2017 136.5 $34.02 $0.25/kWh 2018 13...

AI summary This document outlines ENS's 2016-2018 savings targets and budgets for demand-side management, including savings in gigawatt-hours and expenditures in millions of dollars. The table provides a breakdown by year, with total savings and costs over the three-year period.

Table 15 : ENS Program Overview Program Name Program Offer and Incentive Structure Type of Program (for CE modelling purposes) Appliance Retirement Residential customers receive a financial incentive for the old equipment that is being pro...

AI summary The document presents an overview of ENS programs, including Appliance Retirement and Home Energy Assessment. These programs offer financial incentives, free equipment pickup, and subsidized assessments to residential customers for energy efficiency upgrades.

4. What is the acceptable incentive threshold in terms of program budget? With respect to program budgets, there may be an acceptable incentive level threshold that is based on total expenditure or unit costs. For certain programs, this th...

AI summary The acceptable incentive threshold for program budgets should be based on total expenditure or unit costs, with a focus on customer cost rather than budget ceilings. A suggested upper limit should consider forecasted program expenditure minus administration costs.

Basis for Program Budget Incentive Threshold Customer and Decision Basis Suggested Upper Limit Low Income Customer, Direct Install Model $/kWh $1.20/kWh Residential Customer, Small Purchase at Retailer $/kWh $0.50/kWh Residential Customer,...

AI summary The document presents tables outlining suggested upper limits for program budget incentive thresholds based on customer type and decision. These thresholds are set in dollars per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and total incentive amounts for different customer categories, including low-income, residential, and commercial/industrial customers.

Program Budget Incentive Level Threshold As discussed in the Financial Impact Analysis section of the General Principles recommendations, a program that features residential customers making small purchases at retailers should use $/kWh fo...

AI summary The text discusses setting a program budget incentive level threshold for residential customers making small purchases, suggesting a maximum of $0.50/kWh based on CLEAResult's recommendation, with EfficiencyOne currently at $0.26/kWh. It also notes that program administration costs typically range between 20-30% of total expenditures.

Parameter Program Budget Incentive Level Threshold Total Expenditure (Incentive + Program Administration) $0.26/kWh Incentive Expenditure (@ 30% Program Administration Expenditure) $0.18/kWh Incentive Expenditure (@ 20% Program Administrat...

AI summary The document presents tables detailing the program budget incentive level thresholds for the Instant Savings Program, comparing current incentives with thresholds at different program administration expenditure levels. It notes that most current incentives are suitable, but three measures exceed the 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 at 60 percent of expenditure. Therefore the...

AI summary EfficiencyOne has a Program Administrator Cost (PAC) target of 4.9 for this program. It is assumed that program administration costs make up 40% of total expenditure, with incentive costs accounting for 60%. This results in program administration expenditure being 67% of incentive expenditure.

Measure Energy Savings Persistence Cost Effectiveness Threshold Custom Project Retrofit Track 10 3.14 Custom Project Retrofit Track 15 4.50 Custom Project Retrofit Track 20 5.69 Table 35: Cost Effectiveness Incentive Level Threshold for Av...

AI summary The table outlines the energy savings persistence and cost effectiveness threshold for the Custom Project Retrofit Track. The PAC exceeds 4.9 for measures with energy savings persistence greater than 15 years, and the break-even point is between 16-17 years. EfficiencyOne is advised to consider the energy savings persistence when evaluating individual project incentives.

JURISDICTIONAL SCANS - GENERAL OBSERVATIONS Jurisdiction Peak Load (MW) or Annual Consumption (Therms) Population Served Types of Electricity Generation Nova Scotia (ENS) 2,124 MW ≈950,000 Coal, Renewables, Natural Gas Ontario Electricity...

AI summary The jurisdictional scans compare energy data across various regions, including Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia, and others. Nova Scotia's energy framework period is 2016-2018 with a target of 135.3 GWh annual savings, while Ontario's framework period is 2015-2020 with a much higher savings target of 1,450 GWh. The data highlights differences in peak load, population served, electricity generation types, and energy efficiency programs.

Program Net Savings (GWh) Expenditure Appliance Retirement 58 Not available Retailer Coupons 280 Not available Heating & Cooling Incentive 174 Not available Home Assistance Program 55 Not available Other Residential Programs 5 Not availabl...

AI summary The document presents a table of energy efficiency programs with their associated net energy savings and expenditures, followed by a table showing TRC and PAC values for various program categories. The data provides insights into the performance and costs of different energy efficiency initiatives.

INCENTIVE LEVEL SETTING METHODOLOGY LDC Name Target (GWh) Budget Algoma Power Inc. 7.5 $2,107,963 Atikokan Hydro Inc. 1.1 $311,330 Attawapiskat Power Corporation 0.5 $148,832 Bluewater Power Distribution Corporation 62.4 $15,838,687 Brant...

AI summary The document outlines the incentive level setting methodology for various Local Distribution Companies (LDCs), specifying their target energy consumption in gigawatt-hours (GWh) and corresponding budgets. This information is presented in a table format, listing the names of the LDCs along with their respective targets and budget allocations.

APPENDIX A-2: ONTARIO GAS (UNION GAS) Program Name Program Area Program Measures Links Residential New Business Construction This program features both a prescriptive and performance track for incentives. Prescriptive incentives are availa...

AI summary This document outlines energy efficiency programs offered by Union Gas in Ontario, including prescriptive and performance-based incentives for residential and business construction and retrofit projects. Incentives are capped at 50% of the total costs and are based on upfront costs and savings delivered.

Approved Approved Annual D SM Budgets 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...

AI summary The document presents annual DSM budgets for Enbridge and Union from 2014 to 2020, along with overhead costs and performance metrics. The gas utilities developed targets and used a weighted scorecard approach to evaluate program performance, emphasizing natural gas savings and broader conservation priorities.

Figure 23: Union Gas Targets & Performance Metric[s](#page-125-0) 4 Resource Acquisition Scorecard Metric Units Weight 2016 Targe Metrics and Targets Cumulative Savings CCM (millions) 75% 1,110 Home Reno Rebate Participants Homes 25% 3,000...

AI summary The text presents Union Gas's performance metrics and targets, including cumulative savings, participant numbers for home rebate programs, and energy efficiency goals. It outlines specific targets for different housing types and years, such as the number of participants in RunSmart and SEM programs and savings percentages.

EXISTING MAIN PROGRAMS – UNION GAS [4](#page-125-1) Program Area Program Name Description Incentives Links Performance Based RunSmart Program provides smaller commercial and industrial customers with a free on site building assessment, a r...

AI summary Union Gas offers two main programs: RunSmart for smaller commercial and industrial customers, providing free energy assessments and financial incentives up to $20,000, and a Large Volume program offering technical support, training, and financial incentives for large volume customers.

- 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, focusing on the ratio of present value of costs (excluding electric energy benefits) to present value of energy savings. It lists various benefits and costs associated with energy efficiency programs, including avoided costs, customer impacts, and program expenses.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE & COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY California has long been recognized as one of the leading jurisdiction in North America regarding the regulatory standards and policies established to guide the des...

AI summary California has implemented a 'Rolling Target' system for energy efficiency programs, requiring IOUs to submit annual budgets and a five-year business plan. The CPUC has committed to funding approximately $1B annually for energy efficiency and conservation programs.

Avoided Costs Within California, the avoided costs of electricity are generated by E3 for a 20-year period based on the following components: generation energy, generation capacity, ancillary services, transmission and distribution capacit...

AI summary This text discusses the calculation of avoided costs in California, including components such as generation energy, capacity, and environmental benefits. It also mentions the update of the avoided cost model in 2011 and the inclusion of natural gas avoided costs.

Budget & Spending PG&Es total budget spending on energy efficiency programming (including Codes & Standards funding and On-Bill Financing) achieved through actual expenditures of $1.53B vs. a budget of $1.68B. This is to be commended given...

AI summary PG&E's total budget spending on energy efficiency programming, including Codes & Standards funding and On-Bill Financing, was $1.53B, exceeding its $1.68B budget. This achievement is commendable.

All California PAs must deliver energy efficiency portfolios which have a TRC and PAC greater than 1. Below is PG&E's historical cost effectiveness for its 2013 and 2014 program portfolio. PG&E 2013-2015 Incentive-to-Administrative Spendin...

AI summary The text outlines the requirement for California Program Administrators (PAs) to deliver energy efficiency portfolios with Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) greater than 1. It provides PG&E's historical cost effectiveness for its 2013 and 2014 program portfolios, showing TRC and PAC values for those years.

Below are the annual budgets and targets presented by the Energy Trust in its Annual Budget and Action Plans referred to below. 2013 2014 2015 2016 Electricity Efficiency $125,804,504 $130,262,893 $130,359,188 $141,288,266 Gas Efficiency $...

AI summary The Energy Trust has presented annual budgets and targets for electricity and gas efficiency programs from 2013 to 2016, with increasing figures for electricity efficiency and fluctuating figures for gas efficiency.

Below are the incentive-to-administration expense ratios by year obtained from the annual approved budgets for the Energy Trust's Annual Budget and Action Plans. The expenses listed are related to energy efficiency. Please note that "admin...

AI summary The text presents incentive-to-administration expense ratios by year from the Energy Trust's annual approved budgets, focusing on energy efficiency expenses. Administration costs include program management, third-party delivery, marketing, IT, and evaluation, while incentives relate to product incentives and direct services like audits.

Figure 43: Overall Targets 2007 - 20158 Eı nergy Effi ciency Sa vings (GW /h) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Statewide Goals 1 New York State 15 x 15 Goals 564 1,471 3,991 7,263 10,631 14,082 17,608 21,222 24,927 NYSERDA SBC...

AI summary The text presents tables showing energy efficiency targets and program budgets from 2007 to 2015 for New York State and Con Edison territories, including goals set by NYSERDA and the New York State Public Utilities Commission (PUC). These tables include energy efficiency savings targets, jurisdictional gaps, and program budgets for electric and gas programs.

Program Analysis Initiatives Target Market Incentive Setting Methodology Neighborhood (Electric) Delivers energy-saving and management solutions to local communities where the demand for electricity is expected to grow significantly becaus...

AI summary The document discusses the Neighborhood Program by Con Edison, which offers energy-saving solutions and incentives to local communities with growing electricity demand. It includes free products for small businesses and apartment buildings and a partnership with NYSERDA for combined heat and power, with incentives up to $1,800/kW.

Previous Results (Savings, Expenditure, Cost Effectiveness) Year Electricity Savings Expenditure Cost Effectiveness 2013 Not Available Not Available Not Available 2014 Not Available Not Available Not Available 2015 Not Available Not Availa...

AI summary The text presents tables with missing data on electricity savings, expenditure, and cost effectiveness for the years 2013 to 2018, and mentions an incentive level setting methodology, though no details are provided.

VERMONT ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY Vermont is viewed as one of the leading jurisdictions for promoting conservation in North America. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) has won multiple awar...

AI summary Vermont's energy efficiency programs are managed by Efficiency Vermont, which operates under budgets and targets negotiated with the PSB. These targets aim for 'all reasonably available, cost effective energy efficiency' and are set in three-year cycles. The 2015-2017 cycle had a savings target of 321,800 MWh and a total resource benefits target of $336.3 million, with funding contingent on performance verified through an EM&V process.

The total budget for all of Efficiency Vermont's portfolio from 2015-2017, including the performance award is indicated below: DESCRIBCE ACCURSITION RESOURCE ACQUISITION Electric Efficiency 1 Business Sector 2015 2016 2017 2015-2017 Busine...

AI summary The document provides a detailed breakdown of Efficiency Vermont's budget from 2015 to 2017, including the performance-based fee. It outlines various sectors such as electric efficiency, thermal energy, and non-resource acquisition activities. The data includes figures for different years and overall totals.

2012 2013 2014 2012–2014 Total Energy savings in megawatt- hours (MWh) 110,179 85,582 91,146 286,907 Total Resource Benefits 2 $118,358,445 $83,830,177 $82,101,439 $284,290,061 U.S. tons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided through efficien...

AI summary The table presents energy savings, total resource benefits, and carbon dioxide emissions avoided through efficiency programs from 2012 to 2014. It also includes key quantifiable performance indicators (QPIs) such as electric savings, total resource benefits, peak demand reduction, and the ratio of gross electric benefits to spending.

EFFICIENCY VERMONT CORE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS) Program Name Program Area Program Measures (Prescriptive Incentives) Links Agricultural Equipment Rebates Agricultural (Commercial)  Lighting  Equipment Rebates are pai...

AI summary The document outlines Efficiency Vermont's core program offerings for residential and business customers, including agricultural equipment rebates and appliance incentives. Rebates are available for items such as dehumidifiers, clothes dryers, and refrigerators, with specific qualification criteria and application processes outlined.

Figure 59: Gross Gas Savings [12](#page-198-0) Program Annual MMBtu Savings Lifetime MMBtu Savings Efficiency Maine Costs Participant Cost Lifetime Energy Benefit Cost/MMBTu (Lifetime) Benefit-to- Cost Ratio Business Incentive Program Natu...

AI summary Figure 59 presents gross gas savings data across various energy efficiency programs in Maine, highlighting annual and lifetime MMBtu savings, costs, and benefit-to-cost ratios. Figure 60 outlines FY2015 payments for these programs, detailing administrative and program-specific expenditures. The data emphasizes the cost-effectiveness of different initiatives, with some programs showing high benefit-to-cost ratios.

Costs TRC at the Program level: - Costs incurred by program participants (Incremental Equipment Costs) - Costs of running the energy efficiency programs (delivery and administration costs) TRC at the Measure level: Costs incurred from the...

AI summary The text outlines different cost categories at the Program and Measure levels, including Incremental Equipment Costs, delivery and administration costs, and incentive costs, distinguishing between TRC and PACT frameworks for energy efficiency programs.

Figure 61: Benefit- Cost Ratios: Electric Programs 2015 [12](#page-198-0) Adjusted Gross Benefit-to-Cost-Ratio Net I Benefit-to-Cost-I Ratio Programs TRC PACT Last Evaluation Net to Gross Ratio TRC PACT Business Incentive Program Electric...

AI summary The text presents benefit-cost ratios for various electric and natural gas programs in 2015, including measures like the Business Incentive Program and Home Energy Savings Program. These ratios help assess the cost-effectiveness of different initiatives, with TRC and PACT being key metrics used for evaluation.

Budget ($) Energy Savings Target (GWh) Demand Savings Target (MW) Initial Filing $121.5 million 405.9 62.5 Quantum Agreement $113.5 million 405.9 62.5 Final Order $102.15 million 405.9 62.5 Table 1: EfficiencyOne Targets and Budgets

AI summary The table outlines the EfficiencyOne program's targets and budgets, showing initial, quantum agreement, and final order figures for funding, energy savings, and demand savings.

After the end of the most recent DSM planning process, ENS's 2016-2018 savings targets and budgets are as follows: Year Savings (GWh) Expenditure ($ million) Unit Cost ($/kWh) 2016 133.1 $33.21 $0.25/kWh 2017 136.5 $34.02 $0.25/kWh 2018 13...

AI summary This document outlines ENS's 2016-2018 savings targets and budgets following the most recent DSM planning process, detailing annual savings in GWh and corresponding expenditures in millions of dollars.

\ The dollar amounts for these jurisdictions are quoted in US dollars. Total 405.9 $102.15 $0.25/kWh Table 13 : 3 : ENS's Targets and Budgets

AI summary Table 13.3 outlines ENS's targets and budgets, including total figures, financial amounts in US dollars, and a rate of $0.25 per kWh. The table provides an overview of ENS's financial planning and targets.

Year Annual Savings (GWh) Expenditure ($ million) Unit Cost ($/kWh) 2016 139.9 $50.5 $0.36/kWh 2017 141.7 $50.0 $0.35/kWh 2018 136.2 $52.4 $0.38/kWh Total 417.8 $152.9 $0.37/kWh Table 14 : 4 : Nova Scotia Achievable Potential Summary

AI summary The table presents annual energy savings and expenditures from 2016 to 2018, showing consistent savings in GWh with slight variations in expenditure and unit cost per kWh. The total savings and expenditure over the three years are also summarized.

The numbers presented are for the base scenario, where the incentives do not change over time. This suggests that ENS's current savings targets are almost 100 percent of the achievable potential. However, the approved budget by the UARB is...

AI summary The analysis shows that ENS is operating efficiently, achieving nearly 100% of its savings targets with only 50-70% of the budget approved by the UARB. This suggests that ENS is optimizing savings relative to expenditure, and historical performance is strong compared to other jurisdictions. The study uses data from the Nova Scotia 2015-2040 DSM Potential Study to provide context.

Table 15 : ENS Program Overview Program Name Program Offer and Incentive Structure Type of Program (for CE modelling purposes) Green Heat Residential customers that are electrically heated receive incentives or low cost financing for the i...

AI summary The document outlines the Green Heat and New Home Construction programs offered by Efficiency Nova Scotia. These programs provide incentives and financing for residential customers to install energy-efficient heating technologies and improve the energy efficiency of new homes through certified energy advisors.

4. What is the acceptable incentive threshold in terms of program budget? With respect to program budgets, there may be an acceptable incentive level threshold that is based on total expenditure or unit costs. For certain programs, this th...

AI summary The acceptable incentive threshold for program budgets may be based on total expenditure or unit costs, such as \/kWh. Budget considerations can set ceilings for incentives, but customer cost should be the primary factor in determining the amount of the proposed incentive.

Basis for Program Budget Incentive Threshold Customer and Decision Basis Suggested Boundary/CeilingUpper Limit Low Income Customer, Direct Install Model $/kWh $1.20/kWh Residential Customer, Small Purchase at $/kWh $0.50/kWh Basis for Prog...

AI summary The document outlines suggested incentive thresholds for various customer types and program categories, including low-income customers, residential, and commercial/industrial customers, with specific dollar-per-kWh and total incentive limits provided for each category.

ac • u E f f ic ien On ho l d int du fo l ion l i da ion t t • cy e s u ro ce a rm a me as ure s as su mp v a d l. Ma he j is d ic ion fer he l a t t to t p roc es s a n su mm ary m an ua ny o r ur s re m an ua s he T R M d ha for l fo int...

AI summary The document outlines the implementation of efficiency measures and the development of a comprehensive energy plan for Nova Scotia from 2015 to 2020, focusing on energy efficiency, renewable energy, and stakeholder engagement. It includes discussions on policy frameworks, program development, and the role of Efficiency Nova Scotia.

Other Considerations for the Custom Program The Custom Program Retrofit incentive provides a level of flexibility that is best-in-class. Incentives are individually negotiated, based on four different parameters: - 1. Capped at percentage...

AI summary The Custom Program Retrofit incentive offers flexibility through individually negotiated incentives based on multiple parameters. It allows ENS to balance customer, utility, and societal perspectives. The program's expenditure averages $0.10/kWh to $0.15/kWh, with a growing emphasis on non-lighting projects. Avoided supply costs in Nova Scotia do not consider timing of savings, and local avoided costs can influence incentives once available.

Program Budget Incentive Level Threshold As discussed in the Financial Impact Analysis section of the General Principles recommendations, a program that features residential customers making small purchases at retailers should use $/kWh fo...

AI summary The document discusses the program budget incentive level threshold for residential customers, suggesting a maximum of $0.50/kWh as recommended by CLEAResult, while EfficiencyOne has a lower threshold of $0.26/kWh. Program administration costs are estimated to be between 20-30% of total expenditures.

FUTURE TARGETS The Conservation First Framework covers the time period from 2015-2020. The province-wide budget for the six years is $2.2 billion, of which LDCs are provided with $1.8 billion. The IESO retains some funds for central servic...

AI summary The Conservation First Framework spans 2015-2020 with a total budget of $2.2 billion, of which $1.8 billion is allocated to LDCs. The total Ontario target for energy savings is 8.7 TWh, with LDCs having a combined target of 7 TWh. Each LDC must complete a CDM plan aligned with their budget and target.

INCENTIVE LEVEL SETTING METHODOLOGY LDC Name Target (GWh) Budget Thunder Bay Hydro Electricity Distribution Inc. 48.4 $12,927,445 Tillsonburg Hydro Inc. 11.3 $2,881,461 Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited 1,576.1 $400,296,506 Veridian Co...

AI summary This table lists the incentive level setting methodology for various Local Distribution Companies (LDCs) in Ontario, showing their target energy distribution in gigawatt-hours (GWh) and corresponding budgets.

APPENDIX A-2: ONTARIO GAS (UNION GAS) Program Name Program Area Program Measures Links Energy Managers This program provides funding for hiring an Energy Manager for larger commercial or industrial customers. The incentive funding is provi...

AI summary This table outlines the 'Energy Managers' program, which provides funding for larger commercial or industrial customers to hire Energy Managers. The program offers two funding options: a guaranteed salary or a pay-for-performance model with a rate of $40/MWh. Annual savings targets are set to ensure program cost effectiveness.

Figure 20: Gas Program Budgets 4 Utility 2014 (Actuals) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2015-2020 Total Approved Portfolio Overhead Costs $11,235,000 $5,642,000 $5,642,000 $5,642,000 $5,642,000

AI summary Figure 20 presents gas program budgets for various years, showing approved portfolio overhead costs for a utility. The data includes actuals for 2014 and projected figures from 2015 to 2020.

Figure 23: Union Gas Targets & Performance Metrics 4 Resource Acquisition Scorecard Metric Units Weight 2016 Target Metrics and Targets Cumulative Savings CCM (millions) 75% 1,110 Home Reno Rebate Participants Homes 25% 3,000 Low Income Sc...

AI summary The document presents Union Gas's targets and performance metrics across various scorecards, including cumulative savings, home rebate participants, and energy efficiency programs. These metrics are measured against specific targets and weights for the years 2016 and beyond.

- 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.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE & COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY California has long been recognized as one of the leading jurisdiction in North America regarding the regulatory standards and policies established to guide the des...

AI summary California has established robust energy efficiency policies, including a 'Rolling Target' system for setting annual energy efficiency program targets and budgets. The CPUC requires IOUs to submit annual budgets and a 'business plan' every five years, with D.14-10-046 committing to fund approximately $1B in ratepayer funds for energy efficiency and conservation programs.

Avoided Costs Within California, the avoided costs of electricity are generated by E3 for a 20-year period based on the following components: generation energy, generation capacity, ancillary services, transmission and distribution capacit...

AI summary The document discusses avoided costs in California, including components like generation energy, capacity, and environmental benefits, as well as natural gas avoided costs. The avoided cost model is updated periodically, with the most recent update in 2011.

Budget & Spending PG&Es total budget spending on energy efficiency programming (including Codes & Standards funding and On-Bill Financing) achieved through actual expenditures of $1.53B vs. a budget of $1.68B. This is to be commended given...

AI summary PG&E's total budget spending on energy efficiency programming, including Codes & Standards funding and On-Bill Financing, was $1.53B, exceeding its $1.68B budget target. This achievement is recognized and commended.

Below are the annual budgets and targets presented by the Energy Trust in its Annual Budget and Action Plans referred to below. 2013 2014 2015 2016 Electricity Efficiency $125,804,504 $130,262,893 $130,359,188 $141,288,266 Gas Efficiency $...

AI summary The Energy Trust presents annual budgets and targets for electricity and gas efficiency programs from 2013 to 2016, showing increasing funding for electricity efficiency and fluctuating funding for gas efficiency programs.

Peak Demand Electricity: 12,316 MW (2015)Gas: 1,068 MDt (2016) Electric Retail Price per kWh in 2014 for Con Ed (In Cents) Residential: 28.85Commercial: 22.16Industrial: 20.18Transportation: 17.44 Retail Price per Thousand Cubic Feet in 20...

AI summary The text provides statistics on peak demand and energy generation, including electricity and gas figures, retail prices for different sectors, and state net generation by energy source. It includes data from 2014 to 2016, highlighting the share of energy generated from various sources such as nuclear, natural gas, hydroelectric, coal, wind, and others.

Figure 42: NYSERDA Efficiency Programs: Energy Savings and Program Costs: 1998-2009 7 Year Cumulative An nual Reductions Cumulative Annual Peak Non- Curtailable Electric Demand Reductions Cumulative Peak Curtailable Demand Reductions Annu...

AI summary Figure 42 presents data on NYSERDA's energy efficiency programs from 1998 to 2009, showing cumulative energy savings, demand reductions, and program costs. It includes programs administered for Con Edison, National Fuel Gas, and National Grid, highlighting energy savings and expenditures over time.

Figure 43: Overall Targets 2007 - 2015 8 Energy Efficiency Savings (GWh) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Statewide Goals 1 New York State 15 x 15 Goals 564 1,471 3,991 7,263 10,631 14,082 17,608 21,222 24,927 NYSERDA SBC III C...

AI summary Figure 43 presents energy efficiency savings targets from 2007 to 2015 for New York State and Con Edison, highlighting statewide goals, jurisdictional gaps, and studies on achievable potential. Figure 44 and 45 provide electric and gas program budgets across various years, illustrating funding allocated to energy efficiency initiatives.

Previous Results (Savings, Expenditure, Cost Effectiveness) Year Electricity Savings Expenditure Cost Effectiveness 2013 Not Available Not Available Not Available 2014 Not Available Not Available Not Available 2015 Not Available Not Availa...

AI summary The document includes tables with data on electricity savings, expenditure, and cost effectiveness for the years 2013 to 2018, though all data points are marked as 'Not Available'. It also references an 'Incentive Level Setting Methodology', indicating a focus on future planning and program design.

VERMONT ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM INCENTIVE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS POLICY Vermont is viewed as one of the leading jurisdictions for promoting conservation in North America. Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC) has won multiple awar...

AI summary Vermont promotes energy efficiency through negotiated targets with the PSB and VEIC, operating under three-year cycles with performance-based payments. The 2015-2017 cycle has a savings target of 321,800 MWh and a total resource benefits target of $336.3 million. The DRP process sets these targets over a 20-year horizon.

The total budget for all of Efficiency Vermont's portfolio from 2015-2017, including the performance award is indicated below: DECOLIDEE ACQUIRETION RESOURCE ACQUISITION Electric Efficiency Business Sector 2015 1 2016 2017 2015-2017 Busine...

AI summary The document outlines the total budget for Efficiency Vermont's portfolio from 2015 to 2017, including the performance award, with detailed breakdowns by sector and category, such as Business Sector, Residential Sector, and Research & Development.

2012 2013 2014 2012–2014 Total Energy savings in megawatt- hours (MWh) 110,179 85,582 91,146 286,907 Total Resource Benefits 2 $118,358,445 $83,830,177 $82,101,439 $284,290,061 U.S. tons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided through efficien...

AI summary The table presents energy savings, total resource benefits, and carbon dioxide emissions avoided from 2012 to 2014. It also shows key quantifiable performance indicators (QPIs) related to electric and thermal energy efficiency programs, including savings, demand reduction, and the ratio of benefits to spending.

EFFICIENCY VERMONT CORE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS) Program Name Program Area Program Measures (Prescriptive Incentives) Links Lighting Commercial LED Fixtures Lighting Controls Rebates are paid after purchase and submissi...

AI summary The document outlines core program offerings by Efficiency Vermont, focusing on residential and business energy efficiency initiatives. It details programs such as lighting and refrigeration rebates for commercial use, including eligibility criteria and incentive structures.

second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the second and the...

AI summary The text includes repeated text, chart parameters, and citations to reports and data sources related to electricity customer accounts and pricing in Maine. It references the Maine Public Utilities Commission and the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Figure 57: 2011-2015 Gas Savings Result 11 Year Total (MMBtu) 2011 16,115 2012 1,845 2013 12,169 2014 30,839 2015 19,274 Total 80,242 Figure 58: Gross Electricity Savings 12 Program Annual kWh Savings Lifetime kWh Savings Efficiency Maine...

AI summary The text presents data on gas savings from 2011 to 2015 and electricity savings from various programs in Efficiency Maine. The data includes total savings, costs, and benefit-to-cost ratios for different initiatives.

Figure 59: Gross Gas Savings 12 Program Annual MMBtu Savings Lifetime MMBtu Savings Efficiency Maine Costs Participant Cost Lifetime Energy Benefit Cost/MMBTu (Lifetime) Benefit-to- Cost Ratio Business Incentive Program Natural Gas Measure...

AI summary The text presents data on gas savings and program costs from various energy efficiency initiatives in Maine, highlighting the annual and lifetime MMBtu savings, costs, and benefit-to-cost ratios for different programs. It also includes a breakdown of FY2015 payments for administration, residential, business, and cross-cutting programs, emphasizing the financial allocation across these categories.

Figure 61: Benefit- Cost Ratios: Electric Programs 2015 12 Adjusted Gross Benefit-to-Cost-Ratio Net Benefit-to-Cost-Ratio Programs TRC PACT Last Evaluation Net to Gross Ratio TRC PACT Business Incentive Program Electric Measures 2.21 4.33...

AI summary The text presents benefit-cost ratios for various electric and natural gas programs in 2015, highlighting the adjusted gross and net benefit-to-cost ratios for different initiatives. These figures are used to evaluate the effectiveness and economic viability of energy efficiency and incentive programs.

Figure 63: Electric Program Expenditures 2015 12 Program Incentive Delivery Total Heat Pump Water Heater Program (Residential) Residential customers who are looking for a new, highly efficient way to heat water. http://www.efficiencymaine....

AI summary Figure 63 outlines electric program expenditures in 2015, detailing various incentive programs for residential and business customers aimed at promoting energy efficiency, including heat pump water heater programs, appliance rebates, lighting programs, and business equipment upgrades.

NATIONAL GRID CORE PROGRAM OFFERINGS (RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS) Program Name Program Area Program Measures Links Deep Energy Retrofit Residential • Roof upgrades ($3.00/sqft), exterior walls ($3.50/sqft) and basement insulation ($2.00/sqft...

AI summary The document outlines National Grid's core program offerings for residential and business customers, including incentives for deep energy retrofits and rebates for early heating and cooling equipment replacement. These programs aim to improve energy efficiency and reduce costs for participants.